The New Deal wasn't terribly different from the German welfare state, though less expansive (not even widespread healthcare). The allocation of labor during wartime was quite similar as well, though the US incentivized and punished rather than use direct allocation, but the targeted nationalization of industry seems to follow a similar track. There was more democracy in the US variant, but in both, the people supported a government that met their needs through internal plunder, and they were willing to go through hardship and restrictions for their nation because of it. To me, it seems the big difference was that targeting of class over race.
Communism is socialism taken to an extreme, but all governments exist with it on a sliding scale. Democracy will always progress toward feeding from the trough of the treasury. Luckily, the US has individual rights enshrined in a constitution that's hard to chance. Not infallible, but it at least provides a good bulwark against the lure of that extreme idiocy.
the Squad is a reciprocating cycle of third world shit growing third world shit. it's a snowballing problem, but I don't think it's an existential threat quite yet.
FDR was a fascist after Mussolini's own heart. There was a lot of communication between their inner circles, interestingly enough. Neither played the racist nationalism angle (though contemporary US Progs were certainly for eugenics), but the progressive fascism was central to both of their platforms, including the prerequisite dose of socialism. Not really commies, though.
I'd love to see Trump win. The hard left would lose their shit, along with possibly some statehouses, and if the spark set off with him at the helm, the force of the legitimate US government would be at our back during a period of change and strife. That may not be the reality, though. We may have to adapt. That's still a desirable position to aim for. Gorsuch is a bit of lolbert, and Kavanaugh and Barrett are likely Catholic to a fault. I'm willing to see how thing are played out for a while, yet. Pragmatism trumps despair.
I'm aware. You can't implement that with the Constitution intact, and the SCOTUS is fairly secure. It would take a constitutional amendment to abolish property rights, and that's not going to happen in the dark of night without anyone noticing. America would descend into complete chaos. If they're arrogant enough to think they get final say on how the chaos is reordered, I'm okay with their hubris, really.
Trump will likely lose, I think. However, I don't think I'd even be demoralized by it. Trumps anti-globalist, pro-American politics are extremely popular. If it wasn't for COVID, he would have cruised to re-election easily, despite all those enemies and traitors working in concert against him. Still, Republicans seem to have held the Senate. Biden will be feckless if he ultimately wins. No SCOTUS expansion, no new States. He'll probably bomb some brown people in some asscrack of the world and revoke some EOs, but I doubt he'll be able to do much more than that. The situation could be a lot worse.
...disagree. People aren't "toxic", or "problematic". If I say chlorine gas is toxic, there's no misunderstanding, because I'm using the word as intended. Nobody that isn't retarded says "problematic", because troublesome says the same thing without sounding retarded.
I would say ad hominems are pointless, though. We shouldn't engage in them, because they're counterproductive. We can call our favorite jannies "faggots" as a term of endearment, but it's a shit attack vector.
Now, maybe I could say, "this is problematic genius, you toxic bastard" in the vein of "magnificent bastard", but it's forced, and that makes it weak. We don't need to force anything. All we have to do is highlight normalcy, because it resonates with normies.
For about 20 years. It's been exhausting. I'm ready. Not what's portrayed in that vid, though. That's not a reset. It's a natural continuation that will never manifest due to unsustainability. The great reset is raw individualism that rebuilds community.
It seemed like a ridiculous question. Why not just ban an entire topic of discussion while I make an attempt to preserve our universally threatened rights to speak freely? Should be obvious.
I'm just saying, I doubt "coalburner" or even "niggerlover" would have triggered the removal as quickly as "kikesucker". You seem to have a kneejerk fear and loathing of this particular brand of racism; not without good reason, because it truly is one of the greatest sins a person can commit with speech in this era. For that reason, it would seem as valid to remove such a comment as a direct slur at a user. You're drawing a line, so there's already a compromise. Why not move the line a little to the left to save yourself this particular headache?
I know that you understand that this is precisely how leftism works. Slow and insidious compromises to your ideals. But you also realize you've already compromised, likely in the name of quality discussion, I'm sure. It was a good faith question, I assure you. You're the one that gets to choose where that line is, and I'm just wondering why you fight something that you don't seem to view as conducive to quality discussion, when it's entirely at your discretion.
I don't agree that you can't change things on an individual level. In fact, individual actions are the only way you can change anything at all. Hell, what do you think I've done to KiA2 besides individual actions? Each institution must be built by hand, not abstraction.
I am but a humble janny. "The community" is an abstraction formed by it's changing individual members. What it chooses to fight for, is what they themselves chose to fight for.
These two statements together are more what I meant. It's the zeitgeist. Your individual actions don't mean much unless they're in concert with others. If your firing influences those around you, or if you can get others to take a stand with you, then there's meaning to it. If your a minor individual annoyance that is quickly forgotten, then it probably only has much meaning to you (which, of course, still has value). Your actions, along with the individuals in the community, help shape the coming zeitgeist. If your firing would have no impact on the greater abstract, it would seem ill advised. The institution is built by hand, but it only becomes an institution within the abstract. This is also, incidentally, the exact foundation that modern racism is founded on; individual actions that build on the abstract.
I appreciate your view on being prepared for it, though. Cancel culture makes it a necessity as much as impending recession.
That's my point, I don't think it is because the end result is different. You deprogram people with conditioning. You can only deprogram people through experience to break any previous conditioning, and most importantly, it has to be an act of independent thought. Conditioned responses to trigger words is the opposite of that, and it's done for an ideological purpose.
You have to condition people to have an independent thought that breaks their programming. That's why people point out ((())). Eventually, through exposure, people begin to look into it for themselves. That's why you say 13/50. So people become receptive to the facts shown on FBI table 43. Some people legitimately believe only black crimes are reported to explain away that information if you don't bring them to a place where they can notice things they're conditioned to not notice.
This is why /pol/ memes are effective. They're succinct and make people question. That initial act of questioning things that you were taught to not question is "the red pill". What that means isn't ideologically rigid, because it's an individual act of self discovery.
Because Disparity is not Discrimination. There's an underlying factor of behavior, culture, education, competence, family, tradition, and a thousand other things related to that. White cops and White judges don't mean Whites are using power to dominate blacks. The Racial Theory of History isn't valid.
I may not be reading you right here, but this isn't an argument of discriminatory outcome. It's an argument of behavior, an underlying factor. Everything I've said has been about observation of behavior, not of outcome. If you meant something else, I apologize, but you seem to be arguing that "equal opportunity doesn't mean equal outcome", which isn't my point at all. I'm in complete agreement with that statement.
Now, there is certainly an inherent correlation between behavior and outcome. I wouldn't use white in these analogies, because, at least in the US, whites are a majority, and proportions are amplified without and understanding of distribution (on a side note, the anti-AP style guide of capitalizing the W is a nice touch). When you deal with 2% or 13%, it helps contextualize why there's a disproportion. Saying whites are responsible for 64% of anti-social behavior sounds a lot more powerful without the context of whites being 64% of the studied group. Saying whites are responsible for 50% of articles promoting societal degeneracy works the same way (which I can't prove offhand, and I really wish we had a database so I could).
I don't condemn Jewish wealth. I don't condemn Jewish participation in journalism. I condemn their behavior in both how they use, and how they obtain that wealth and influence, disproportionately. And yes, Jews aren't a monolith. There are poor Jews, to be sure. There are wonderful Jews. There are honest Jews. The same applies to blacks, or any other "group". That's not the argument. It's the abstract that matters on the societal level. Anecdotes are great for individual interaction, but only a miniscule data point on demographic observation.
Also, I don't know what the Racial Theory of History is. Is that a tangible thing (CRT?), or is it an allusion to a limited influence of genetic factors on behavior, culture, tradition, competence, etc. on how things have turned out along racial lines?
That's bullshit. They'd be silencing the opposition to the favored candidate with clandestine measures and promoting the favored candidate through NGOs. The US foreign policy establishment is just openly operating here as they've operated elsewhere for years.
For 4 years, the left has been worked into a frenzy leading up to Nov 3. If Trump loses, things are going to be kind of normal again for awhile. General dissatisfaction and decline, but a low boil kind of thing. If Trump wins, expect shit to get hot in a hurry.
I personally think he'll win. Biden is running the worst campaign in modern election history. There's reason to worry either way, though.
My primary news source is Zerohedge. They're fucking doomer conspiracists, but after 11 years, I find them invaluable for finding a thread that I can start picking at myself.