Controversial General Political Discussion

[Logiko]

Except Hamas boys

Oh forgot you are one of them

Blax was being nice and the only thing you managed to give back is hate. On something you should not even dare to speak about as a genocide defender.

When you reply to love by hate, there should be a red flag raising in your critical mind.

pretty sure the ceasefire agreement also has 0 land swaps or guarantees from israel. This is just another step away from a palestinian state so I can see why people would be angry at this particular agreement

but tbf if you were ecstatic about the oct 7th "resistance" you have no grounds to bitch about this.

No one was ecstatic about oct 7th. There was a war crime.

Problem here, nothing in this will stop the colonization or the appartheid or give back the land of Palestinians.

@Logiko I don't know if you called christianity idealism, but I don't know why some people call it that, I was listening to preaching today and it was debunking the idea that it's all in your mind and "mind over matter"
Post automatically merged: Sunday at 3:26 PM
I'm reading a book about the revolutions of 1848 and this part is pretty interesting to share here:


"Socialist ideals and workers movement




As in Britain, the rise of industry also saw the rise of socialist ideas and a labour movement. This saw the transformed working class increasingly called the “proletariat” by most socialists at the time, but it must be stressed that this was in a pre-Marxist way as industry was not widespread (even if its impact – particularly via competition with Britain – was).




As social conditions changed, so did ideas. Associationism started to grow within the working class alongside strikes and unions, both were illegal and so many “mutual aid” groupings were also “resistance societies.” Yet workers did more than just survive or resist, they hoped for a better future. Faced with the rise of wage-labour, the idea of Associationism – co-operation – was raised by the workers themselves in 1830 as alternative (first by printers, then by other groups of workers). This was reflected in many works, including early feminist Flora Tristan’s The Workers’ Union (1843) as well as in practice, such as the “mutualist” societies of the militant artisans of Lyons.





As in Britain, what was latter termed Utopian Socialism arose during the 1820s and 1830s. This was focused around a few critics of current society (notably Fourier and Saint-Simon) who urged the creation of ideal communities to present an example the rest of society would follow. These thinkers were influential but fundamentally authoritarian in both tactics and aims. The followers of Fourier and Saint-Simon participated in the revolution, along with Cabet and his Icarians – named after his famous utopian novel Voyage to Icaria (1840).





Then there were the Insurrectionists (Blanqui and Barbès) who aimed at the seizure of power by coup de main, followed by the “dictatorship of proletariat” as rule of insurrectionists.




The most influential at the time were the Jacobin-Socialists, which combined French Republicanism with a programme of state-aid to workers associations. As expounded by Louis Blanc in his Organisation of Labour (1839), competition from these workers association – social workshops (ateliers sociaux) – would drive private industry out of business, eventually replacing competition with state planning. However, as a reformist he saw this as benefiting all classes and so all classes – as citizens of the republic – would be involved in the organisation of labour.




Finally, there was Mutualist-Anarchism as advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (he picked up the term mutualist while staying in Lyons in the early 1840s). Unlike the other socialist thinkers, he was working class (forced to leave school to become a printer by trade). Proudhon is essentially a critic of the current system, with alternatives sketched in passing in such works as What is Property? (Three memoirs – 1840, 1841 and 1842) and System of Economic Contradictions (1848). He opposed both capitalism and what he termed “Community,” namely the visions of the utopian socialists. Instead, he advocated “universal association” – a form of market socialism based on workers control of production. Likewise, he opposed Blanc’s ideas as well as what passed at the time for “communism” (rightly so, as Kropotkin later said). In spite of invoking the term “revolution” all the time, he was fundamentally a reformist and saw the organisation of credit as the means to the organisation of labour (i.e., a federated system of workers’ producer, credit and consumer co-operatives)




So by 1848 there were both a workers’ movement and socialist ideas: authoritarian and libertarian, revolutionary and reformist. This meant that any revolution would inevitably bring these aspirations into conflict with existing system. This was expressed during 1848 between the Republic and what radicals called the “Social and Democratic Republic” (la République démocratique et sociale), between a political (bourgeois) revolution and a social revolution. "


@RyoQ what I mentioned about authoritarian and libertarian socialists ^

Also @Logiko Blanqui namedrop in the middle, who Anark and Rosa Luxembourg said inspired Lenin, if you remember his name from a meme I shared before
Post automatically merged: Sunday at 3:45 PM
And seeing what Blanqui wanted, it makes sense Lenin would refuse to be associated with him, if he didn't it would confirm his fraud and the fraud of authoritarian socialists, who want their party to take the role of the capitalists, and rule, not to actually give people ownership of the means of production

I'm sorry, I'm sure you said a lot of very interesting things here, but my mind is not able to focus at the moment on long stuff. Can you make a TLDR for me please ?

@Logiko I don't know if you called christianity idealism, but I don't know why some people call it that, I was listening to preaching today and it was debunking the idea that it's all in your mind and "mind over matter"

As for Religion being idealist.. sadly yeah.. I really do not see how it can be anything else... While I think it can have a few materialistic idea, the way the world is understood through religion is idealist. It's a focus on behavior first and not really systems.

There were people who were actually concerned about Gaza and I take no issue with them. But most people on their "side" were either extreme leftists or anti-semites.

Stop watching far right news. You are confusing leftist with liberals and conservatist and invent nonsensical number to justify a lack of interest that do not exist. There is no celebration because there is no win. There was a genocide and the ceasefire will end no appartheid, no colonization and no oppression. So while we are glad there is a cease fire, we are FAR from happy, we are enraged.

Statistics says you must resist even without firearm and even being a woman. But you better carry and know how to use a firearm regardless your gender

Don't listen to statistic. You are not a hero.

If you are threatenned by firearm, RUN. (if you can)

https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/1o581zr Based

Queen

Well better hell-scared than hell-scorched. But salvation is a one time free thing that you can't lose, it's not an invitation to join a religion necesarilly, just to trust in Jesus to save you, and if you do trust him to save you, 1 John 5:13 says God wants you to know that you have eternal life, so there would be no reason to fear, I'm not afraid of going to hell because I trusted Jesus to save me and he did, so I'm saved and that's that.

And I mean I heard that but the Bible says this:

.

John 3:19-21
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

.

I heard Jesus preached the most about hell in the Bible, that nobody preached about it more than him, and this is what he said the condemnation is ^
[automerge]1760387069[/automerge]


Well can people from other religions tell you that their book tells them where they're going when they die?

The Bible is the only book that says it, the rest is just trying to get to heaven, with no confirmation, other beliefs don't know where they're going when they die, I know because God wrote it down in his word, and Jesus is the only one that's trust-worthy, because he died and was dead for three days and rose again


2 Timothy 1:12
For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.


1 John 5:13
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Don't worry Blax, All we need to do is to learn about surfing

 

[HerreraIsBack]

If Israel is so great why do they receive 5 billion in funding yearly by tax payer money? Release the money we sent them, America first

Because it is a signed agreement. Although I don't understand why instead of giving money they simply don't just give the weapons. Probably some corruption scheme must be going on.

But there are many benefits for US to do so. US is the bigger country. They'd hardly have an agreement that benefits more the other country than it's own by the simple fact that the other country is the most interested part.

Similar to a job. Your boss pay you let's say 100 per hour and you make for them 200. It's a better deal for your boss but you are the most interested in that deal.

US benefits with Israel influence at Middle East plus testing all those newly weapons for US and keeping the weapon industry alive. Plus all the intelligence from Middle East that benefits US to prevents things like 9/11 to really happen (because it was inside job).

Of course as tax payer, and more importantly as a voter, you can be against it but at least know why such thing exist. And also that Obama was the last one to update the contract that exists since 70s. And since it was a 10 year contract I believe Trump will be the next one to update it? So it is basically sure that for another 10 years US will still support Israel.

 

[Jew D. Boy]

I will happily take a proselytizing Christian zealot with good intentions every day of the week over the racist/homophobic/otherwise bigoted piece of shit MAGAts who routinely infect this thread, just my two cents :risicheck:

 

[HerreraIsBack]

Blax was being nice and the only thing you managed to give back is hate. On something you should not even dare to speak about as a genocide defender.

When you reply to love by hate, there should be a red flag raising in your critical mind.

Saying he support Hamas, as he does, is hating on him?

No wonder the left gets so bothered by hearing the truth.

 

[Logiko]

Saying he support Hamas, as he does, is hating on him?

No wonder the left gets so bothered by hearing the truth.

You will talk about the truth when you will be interested learning about reality. That's not what you do. So, reflect when your only reply to love is hate.

 

[HerreraIsBack]

You will talk about the truth when you will be interested learning about reality. That's not what you do. So, reflect when your only reply to love is hate.

Take your own advise

 

[Mathias]

I found a topic for a debate !


Proposition : "Anti-white racism doesn't exist but racism against people who are white exists even though it's not based on their skin color"
Examples : Whites and not a western colonizer but from North-Africa or the Middle-East (or really from lots of different places).
Name : Cultural racism ? Xenophobia ? Racism "but no racial profiling" ?
Axiology next to "classical racism" : Is it systemic racism ? Yes it is even though it doesn't work very well for racial profiling.


Far-right is excluded from the debate. Only intellectuals are allowed

I will happily take a proselytizing Christian zealot with good intentions every day of the week over the racist/homophobic/otherwise bigoted piece of shit MAGAts who routinely infect this thread, just my two cents :risicheck:

We have Blax to take care of all of these MAGAts

 

[Logiko]

Take your own advise

I'm talking to a ragebaiting bot

Proposition : "Anti-white racism doesn't exist but racism against people who are white exists even though it's not based on their skin color"
Examples : Whites and not a western colonizer but from North-Africa or the Middle-East (or really from lots of different places).
Name : Cultural racism ? Xenophobia ? Racism "but no racial profiling" ?
Axiology next to "classical racism" : Is it systemic racism ? Yes it is even though it doesn't work very well for racial profiling.


Far-right is excluded from the debate. Only intellectuals are allowed

To really get racism, it's important to understand what it is systematically : a domination system based on hierarchization and whiteness.

As such, there can't be racism against white people as being white is being part of whiteness and thus benefiting from the social advantaged that come with the domination system (whiteness). I made a big explanation here:

Spoiler: Whiteness explained

Whiteness. (blanchité en Francais). (created by Judith Ezekiel in 2002)

Whiteness is an invisible norm. It's a position of domination is the racial order. It's the idea that even the poor white working class will have a superior non monayable salary : A superior social status, more space access etc. than racialized people.

This psychological salary pushes white people to identify to white elits instead of black (and other racialized workers). Whiteness therefore acts as a tool to maintain économical and racial order.

Whiteness is not about appearance or biological traits, it's a social construct and a position of domination created by imperialism, colonization and slavery. Whiteness is at the center of white supremacy. It's a political and social status that can evolve. For ex: in the XIX's century. Irish who came to the united states were racialized and discriminated despite having a white skin. They were considered inferior.

Whiteness allows us, white people to be able to ignore colors and the violence against racialized people while dominating them at the same time. It's the entire idea behind universalism and colorblindness.

---

And this is why this social norm is important here.

The social order in our current society is pushing the idea that whiteness is a desirable social order because it will allow people to access dignity and recognition. In his work Frantz Fanon (a philosopher and psychiatrist) explained that in colonial context, the oppressed will seek the benediction and acceptation of the oppressor even to the point of fighting for them because of the potential social retribution of whiteness. It's exactly what happens in the United State with these communities. Whiteness is a promisse of a better social status, more priviledges.

But contrary to their internalized beliefs, this whiteness will still works against them. Simply because they are still part of racialized groups.

This is why you can see black people advocating for Trump for a long time and suddenly shift back when it's too late.

 

[Monster Zoro's Tesla Supplier]

To really get racism, it's important to understand what it is systematically : a domination system based on hierarchization and whiteness.

As such, there can't be racism against white people

prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

The definition of it is that you can do it to any particular racial or ethnic group, it's just that it's "typically" to a minority/marginalized group.
The definition for bigotry backs this up:

obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

So there CAN be racism against white people, it's just far more rare compared to racism against Africans or Asians for example. Actually very similar to misandry or heterophobia, really.

 

[Jew D. Boy]

So now he has autism, right? That’s how this works? @Ravagerblade Are you gonna throw out your ivermectin now??

 

[Logiko]

So there CAN be racism against white people, it's just far more rare compared to racism against Africans or Asians for example. Actually very similar to misandry or heterophobia, really.

Again, sorry to repeat myself but either we leep looking at basic definitions for information about sociological subjects to make conversation and we do not rise above the level of high-schoolers.. Or we look at sociological researches and we really start to dive deep into the subject. I do not keep attacking basic definitions just for the fun of it, but because it's harmfull to knowledge.

 

[Monster Zoro's Tesla Supplier]

Again, sorry to repeat myself but either we leep looking at basic definitions for information about sociological subjects to make conversation and we do not rise above the level of high-schoolers.. Or we look at sociological researches and we really start to dive deep into the subject. I do not keep attacking basic definitions just for the fun of it, but because it's harmfull to knowledge.

Words have meanings for a reason

 

[Reborn]

Don't let all these religious, political and sociological talks distract you from the fact that there is only one objective, universal truth in this world

Bald is sexy

 

[Logiko]

Words have meanings for a reason

Yes. That's why using the most basic ways to understand vast and important concepts (like Racism), while negating the iceberg of contextual knowledge said concept are standing on, is a very bad process to learn about linguistic, important social subjects, and science in general.

 

[Zenos7]

The definition of it is that you can do it to any particular racial or ethnic group, it's just that it's "typically" to a minority/marginalized group.
The definition for bigotry backs this up:

So there CAN be racism against white people, it's just far more rare compared to racism against Africans or Asians for example. Actually very similar to misandry or heterophobia, really.

Again, sorry to repeat myself but either we leep looking at basic definitions for information about sociological subjects to make conversation and we do not rise above the level of high-schoolers.. Or we look at sociological researches and we really start to dive deep into the subject. I do not keep attacking basic definitions just for the fun of it, but because it's harmfull to knowledge.

Racism =/= systemic racism

Logiko may be right on his explanation for systemic racism, but again him insisting on everyone else exclusively using that definition while ignoring that the term racism stands on its own and is on an individual level is just intellectually lazy and ridiculous.
[automerge]1760420299[/automerge]

So now he has autism, right? That’s how this works? @Ravagerblade Are you gonna throw out your ivermectin now??

No tylenol though

 

[Reborn]

I will pull a YouTube comments section shitty bait. Anyone..(yes you who is reading it right now) who will click this to see what's the hidden text, will be joining the bald club soon. Welcome future baldies

 

[Monster Zoro's Tesla Supplier]

I will pull a YouTube comments section shitty bait. Anyone..(yes you who is reading it right now) who will click this to see what's the hidden text, will be joining the bald club soon. Welcome future baldies

I'd die before I became a b*I'd "person"

 

[Mathias]

I'm talking to a ragebaiting bot






To really get racism, it's important to understand what it is systematically : a domination system based on hierarchization and whiteness.

As such, there can't be racism against white people as being white is being part of whiteness and thus benefiting from the social advantaged that come with the domination system (whiteness). I made a big explanation here:

Cultural racism isn’t made up. Anyway, from my understanding you’re not contradicting me right ?

 

[Blax Blah]

When I die I will no longer exist, heaven and hell are things humans created because they were afraid of death

Well God knows better than anyone else, and this is what he said:



John 3:19-21

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.


.

Nothing to do with things being made-up, all to do with hating light because people's deeds are evil.

It's up to you if you are willing to acknowledge your deeds are evil and trust in Jesus to be saved, or be condemned later at judgement.

I like this quote that's in line with John 3: "Atheism is a fairy tale for those afraid of the light."
[automerge]1760429644[/automerge]

I'm sorry, I'm sure you said a lot of very interesting things here, but my mind is not able to focus at the moment on long stuff. Can you make a TLDR for me please ?

It's just a quote from a book about the socialist movements in France around 1848

As for Religion being idealist.. sadly yeah.. I really do not see how it can be anything else... While I think it can have a few materialistic idea, the way the world is understood through religion is idealist. It's a focus on behavior first and not really systems.

Well what makes it idealist and what would make it materialist?

Don't worry Blax, All we need to do is to learn about surfing

Well you can't surf while burning

 

[Reborn]

Only way I get salvation