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
Again, I think you are talking about asile seekers and migrant who luckily managed to pass the barriet of the step of eligibility; Most migrant don't have that and end up fighting for their lives either on the streets or in illegal jobs.
There are no systems in europe where all migrants just get money like that (even thought most often, when they do, it not even enough to live).
Without mentioning the fact that there are women who make the journey illegally, when I see you use "economic" it feels to me like you believe that people are simply trying a new option of tourism in order to optimize their finance.
I personnaly consider that ethics are above the law, never the contrary as I believe that laws and nationality are concept that can blind us. (for example saying "people shouldn't do that because it's illegal", has no bearing if there is no ethical explanation behind it.
it's like saying "god doesn't want you to eat apples"... Well yeah perhaps, but why shouldn't I listen to that?
So if my sense of ethics requires for me to accept a person in distress, I will, no matter what is legal or not.
I considered that earth and its ressources are no one's property or rather, I consider it to be the propriety of all living beings. So there are no rationnal or ethical or logical reasons for me to say "you should not be entitled to something I am" in the context of a financial help, no matter the country or the person.
I think we completely differ on that vision indeed.
Again, ok, but whatare they supposed to do that when our countries are suffocating their ressources.. Or when our countries are supporting dictators in their politics that will prevent them from changing things by killing them during protest.. Or when our country will send our own army to them because they are starting to get the terrorist labels....?
I mean, the resistance in Gaza had millions and despite that, they can't really do much against tanks, ultra sophisticated weapons and bombings coming from the sky...
Is this really ethical to just say "just try harder", when we are responsible for their sufferings... ?
I mean, I can't stand Europe for what it did either. Migrants are simply people with more knowledge on the subject than most of us. But Anger does not mean that we want people "dead".
We simply want to build a space where all people live happy and equally. If people want to destroy imperialism and racist structure, well yeah, they should go for it. I don't mind. It will benefit everyone (outside of the ruling class ofc)
There is no such thing as an anticapitalist left that is funded by corporations. Perhaps you are talking about liberals (which are not really leftist per say) ?
Anticapitalist and system do not read individualities as valuable sources of analysis. I think I explained that the other day:
We believe people are structured by systems and institutions, but most of all their interests within the framework of their material condition of existence. The interests of billionnaires and the ruling class overall is simple : maintain the capital. Without trying to create more profit, a capitalist will eventually lose within capitalism, money, ressources, capital, everything, so the seeking of profit is omnipresent.
We believe that each one of the actions of these people will inevitably be influenced by these interests.. So while people can be different, they will all act within the field of their class interest. In other words, against us all.
By nature, immigration under capitalism threaten interests of capitalist. Mostly because immigration under capitalism is marginalized, which mechanically creates a sources of politicized people. So more immigration, always means more people against your interests. As such, by pushing for immigration to continue, billionnaire would logically pushed for more leftists and anticapitalists to be created.
I know they are dumb, but not that dumb.
So what they want is to prevent immigration from happening while precarizing to the maximum, the one that is present (this is why I believe you get this mix-message)
Well I hope for you that you never have to reconsider that (and seeing where UK is headed, I would still check around just in case)
I don't think migrants want to eat us...
People with less capitals > Less chances to learn > Less chances to get to the top (bourdieu)
This idea that 90% people are not made for school is very usefull for capitalists who need a big working force coming from already precaritized and poor backgrounds.
I think children should not work at all... They are children..
Remember when I talked about the violence against children within the domination system of adultism?
Well...
There are no systems in europe where all migrants just get money like that (even thought most often, when they do, it not even enough to live).
Without mentioning the fact that there are women who make the journey illegally, when I see you use "economic" it feels to me like you believe that people are simply trying a new option of tourism in order to optimize their finance.
I personnaly consider that ethics are above the law, never the contrary as I believe that laws and nationality are concept that can blind us. (for example saying "people shouldn't do that because it's illegal", has no bearing if there is no ethical explanation behind it.
it's like saying "god doesn't want you to eat apples"... Well yeah perhaps, but why shouldn't I listen to that?
So if my sense of ethics requires for me to accept a person in distress, I will, no matter what is legal or not.
I considered that earth and its ressources are no one's property or rather, I consider it to be the propriety of all living beings. So there are no rationnal or ethical or logical reasons for me to say "you should not be entitled to something I am" in the context of a financial help, no matter the country or the person.
I think we completely differ on that vision indeed.
Again, ok, but whatare they supposed to do that when our countries are suffocating their ressources.. Or when our countries are supporting dictators in their politics that will prevent them from changing things by killing them during protest.. Or when our country will send our own army to them because they are starting to get the terrorist labels....?
I mean, the resistance in Gaza had millions and despite that, they can't really do much against tanks, ultra sophisticated weapons and bombings coming from the sky...
Is this really ethical to just say "just try harder", when we are responsible for their sufferings... ?
I mean, I can't stand Europe for what it did either. Migrants are simply people with more knowledge on the subject than most of us. But Anger does not mean that we want people "dead".
We simply want to build a space where all people live happy and equally. If people want to destroy imperialism and racist structure, well yeah, they should go for it. I don't mind. It will benefit everyone (outside of the ruling class ofc)
There is no such thing as an anticapitalist left that is funded by corporations. Perhaps you are talking about liberals (which are not really leftist per say) ?
Anticapitalist and system do not read individualities as valuable sources of analysis. I think I explained that the other day:
We believe people are structured by systems and institutions, but most of all their interests within the framework of their material condition of existence. The interests of billionnaires and the ruling class overall is simple : maintain the capital. Without trying to create more profit, a capitalist will eventually lose within capitalism, money, ressources, capital, everything, so the seeking of profit is omnipresent.
We believe that each one of the actions of these people will inevitably be influenced by these interests.. So while people can be different, they will all act within the field of their class interest. In other words, against us all.
By nature, immigration under capitalism threaten interests of capitalist. Mostly because immigration under capitalism is marginalized, which mechanically creates a sources of politicized people. So more immigration, always means more people against your interests. As such, by pushing for immigration to continue, billionnaire would logically pushed for more leftists and anticapitalists to be created.
I know they are dumb, but not that dumb.
So what they want is to prevent immigration from happening while precarizing to the maximum, the one that is present (this is why I believe you get this mix-message)
Well I hope for you that you never have to reconsider that (and seeing where UK is headed, I would still check around just in case)
I don't think migrants want to eat us...
People with less capitals > Less chances to learn > Less chances to get to the top (bourdieu)
This idea that 90% people are not made for school is very usefull for capitalists who need a big working force coming from already precaritized and poor backgrounds.
I think children should not work at all... They are children..
Remember when I talked about the violence against children within the domination system of adultism?
Well...
@Blax Blah @Logiko @Uncle Van What do you think? I think this works as a summary.
The Manifesto
Governments are inefficient and tend to violate individual rights and freedoms.
The state's responsibilities are protecting individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud.
Military, police, and courts are all services the State shall provide.
Democracy inevitably degenerates into demagogy.
Leaders should be chosen based on expertise, knowledge, and merit.
Imposing mandatory education for children violates parental agency.
Parents should be the ones deciding if their kids will wield a pen or a pickaxe.
Kids are legally allowed to work in professions that suit their skills and maturity.
God said, "By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground."
Retirement is a socialist perversion. Retirement and retirement funds are no more.
Financial markets dictate the economy.
Multinational corporations should run the economy due to their superior technical expertise and administrative skills.
The free flow of capital, goods, and labor across borders needs to be absolute.
Government constraints, labor unions, and environmental protections need to be abolished.
Military conquest is a legitimate means to protect and expand a state's interests.
The people have the right to bear any kind of arms known to man or organize themselves into armed groups; this includes the right to own weapons of mass destruction or own private armies.
Violation of the above rights by any state agent legitimizes civil war.
In war, there are only two rules: win, and there are no rules.
Citizenship can only be acquired by right of blood (Jus Sanguinis).
"Sticks and stones may break my bones. But words will never hurt me." Free speech is absolute. Say whatever the fuck you want, motherfuckers.
The Manifesto
Governments are inefficient and tend to violate individual rights and freedoms.
The state's responsibilities are protecting individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud.
Military, police, and courts are all services the State shall provide.
Democracy inevitably degenerates into demagogy.
Leaders should be chosen based on expertise, knowledge, and merit.
Imposing mandatory education for children violates parental agency.
Parents should be the ones deciding if their kids will wield a pen or a pickaxe.
Kids are legally allowed to work in professions that suit their skills and maturity.
God said, "By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground."
Retirement is a socialist perversion. Retirement and retirement funds are no more.
Financial markets dictate the economy.
Multinational corporations should run the economy due to their superior technical expertise and administrative skills.
The free flow of capital, goods, and labor across borders needs to be absolute.
Government constraints, labor unions, and environmental protections need to be abolished.
Military conquest is a legitimate means to protect and expand a state's interests.
The people have the right to bear any kind of arms known to man or organize themselves into armed groups; this includes the right to own weapons of mass destruction or own private armies.
Violation of the above rights by any state agent legitimizes civil war.
In war, there are only two rules: win, and there are no rules.
Citizenship can only be acquired by right of blood (Jus Sanguinis).
"Sticks and stones may break my bones. But words will never hurt me." Free speech is absolute. Say whatever the fuck you want, motherfuckers.
Last edited:
Patently false. Many 'migrants' utilise the asylum seeker process to prevent deportation. If you are going to advocate for a group, at least understand them. I will not discuss this point again.
It's not right that some people must work to live and have all that work subsidise those who do not share their cultural or historical background. There are systems like this. There are literal tikotoks of migrants flaunting cash they got from our government to the camera whilst laughing at how stupid we are. I agree. We are fucking stupid. I do not wish to live in a humiliation ritual, thank you very much.
Check a few messages back, I said there are some women among them, but they (migrants) are disproportionately male.
They are trying to use us as an economic zone. They are not fleeing war. They all pass through France. Why don't they stay? It's because they know they'll get so much more from us, the naive, sympathetic Brits. If you want to call that tourism, then so be it. Doesn't change my objection.
Agreed, therefore, allow me the grace to correct myself. My issue isn't the 'illegality' of their crossing. I feel they are trying to effectively steal from another land by forcing their way into a country where they do not belong, which I consider unethical.
A country without an enforceable border is nothing but an economic zone, and I do not want that for my beautiful homeland.
"I think this therefore it is true."
Let me be clear. You are not entitled to the UK's resources just because you're a human. I'd consider it theft if a random man broke into my home and ate from my fridge. The same applies here. They have broken the laws and forced their way onto our shores and then seek to benefit from systems created by the people of this country. That is theft. They are not entitled to it, and nothing you say will ever shake my view on this. Next.
Those are the breaks. When the nation in question has a historical precedence of committing terror attacks, the sympathy I hold for them lessens. It's why I am more supportive of Ukraine. And no, don't you dare say it's because they're white. You have no idea how many people consider the slavs a 'different kind of white'.
As corrosive as the leftists, perhaps moreso. They're the ones in actual power, they're the ones I'm pointing at, yes.
Then leave Europe. Go to the middle-east and find how welcoming they'll be to you with your myriad problems. Then educate us on empathy afterwards.
Complete idiocy. I will not debate this any further. I understand why you want immigration however. In your mind it will end capitalism. Heck, maybe it will. You wish to flood the west with people not loyal to it, destabilising it's ability to defend itself. The fall of Rome, if you were. Never mind.
If we go the way you don't want it to, I'll probably be happier in this country. I want us to curb immigration. I don't want to see my nation become a land of strangers loyal only to coin, sharing no collective values due to us being unable to integrate new arrivals. Integration takes time, and requires them joining communities of people who identify as British. This cannot happen when they form ghettos comprised of their group.
So actually, please. Please change, England.
I should state to any Americans that immigration here has different cultural contexts. I fully respect you are a nation founded by immigrants. To compare the fears of cultural and demographic shift within Europe to what is happening in America would not be a fair comparison.
You're not an idiot. It's a metaphor.
It's not right that some people must work to live and have all that work subsidise those who do not share their cultural or historical background. There are systems like this. There are literal tikotoks of migrants flaunting cash they got from our government to the camera whilst laughing at how stupid we are. I agree. We are fucking stupid. I do not wish to live in a humiliation ritual, thank you very much.
Check a few messages back, I said there are some women among them, but they (migrants) are disproportionately male.
They are trying to use us as an economic zone. They are not fleeing war. They all pass through France. Why don't they stay? It's because they know they'll get so much more from us, the naive, sympathetic Brits. If you want to call that tourism, then so be it. Doesn't change my objection.
Agreed, therefore, allow me the grace to correct myself. My issue isn't the 'illegality' of their crossing. I feel they are trying to effectively steal from another land by forcing their way into a country where they do not belong, which I consider unethical.
A country without an enforceable border is nothing but an economic zone, and I do not want that for my beautiful homeland.
"I think this therefore it is true."
Let me be clear. You are not entitled to the UK's resources just because you're a human. I'd consider it theft if a random man broke into my home and ate from my fridge. The same applies here. They have broken the laws and forced their way onto our shores and then seek to benefit from systems created by the people of this country. That is theft. They are not entitled to it, and nothing you say will ever shake my view on this. Next.
Those are the breaks. When the nation in question has a historical precedence of committing terror attacks, the sympathy I hold for them lessens. It's why I am more supportive of Ukraine. And no, don't you dare say it's because they're white. You have no idea how many people consider the slavs a 'different kind of white'.
As corrosive as the leftists, perhaps moreso. They're the ones in actual power, they're the ones I'm pointing at, yes.
Then leave Europe. Go to the middle-east and find how welcoming they'll be to you with your myriad problems. Then educate us on empathy afterwards.
Complete idiocy. I will not debate this any further. I understand why you want immigration however. In your mind it will end capitalism. Heck, maybe it will. You wish to flood the west with people not loyal to it, destabilising it's ability to defend itself. The fall of Rome, if you were. Never mind.
If we go the way you don't want it to, I'll probably be happier in this country. I want us to curb immigration. I don't want to see my nation become a land of strangers loyal only to coin, sharing no collective values due to us being unable to integrate new arrivals. Integration takes time, and requires them joining communities of people who identify as British. This cannot happen when they form ghettos comprised of their group.
So actually, please. Please change, England.
I should state to any Americans that immigration here has different cultural contexts. I fully respect you are a nation founded by immigrants. To compare the fears of cultural and demographic shift within Europe to what is happening in America would not be a fair comparison.
You're not an idiot. It's a metaphor.
Last edited:
Is this a troll? You're guaranteeing socialist support to skyrocket and create more revolutions. This shit has proven to not work for good reason lmao
The children yearn for the mines, @NAMELESS 
1. If you want to reduce the power of the state you don't want to give the power to not elected and not accountable actors (like corporations), because this increases the risk of this type of interventionism and abuse by the government, by the simple fact that there are no checks and balances
2. "Leaders should be chosen based on expertise, knowledge, and merit"
Who gonna choose then? Someone that is meritorious? And who chose this one? Another one that is meritorious? (infinite regress). What will ensure that the leader selected is the most meritorious?
3. How do you want a government that the only role is to protect the people and at the same time people having mass destruction weapons? How tf the government will be successful in a scenario like that? This is obviously not possible
4. "The free flow of capital, goods, and labor across borders needs to be absolute" vs "Citizenship can only be acquired by right of blood (Jus Sanguinis)". Choose one bro
I disagree with almost all that
2. "Leaders should be chosen based on expertise, knowledge, and merit"
Who gonna choose then? Someone that is meritorious? And who chose this one? Another one that is meritorious? (infinite regress). What will ensure that the leader selected is the most meritorious?
3. How do you want a government that the only role is to protect the people and at the same time people having mass destruction weapons? How tf the government will be successful in a scenario like that? This is obviously not possible
4. "The free flow of capital, goods, and labor across borders needs to be absolute" vs "Citizenship can only be acquired by right of blood (Jus Sanguinis)". Choose one bro
I disagree with almost all that
Last edited:
