Leftist Hypocrisy

Author: Theweakeredge

Posts

Total: 38
Topic's author
#1
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
Was this blatantly clickbait?

Maybe, you don't know.

You're here aren'tcha?

Ah, so nice to be back, can't believe this is where im starting-actually it makes perfect sense-aka -THE PREAMBLE
Anywho, its not unknown to most...*ahem* serious leftists that there's some serious hypocrisy within the democratic party and most who know themselves to be "liberals". See, the biggest differentiation between "leftists" and "liberals" tends to be (in my mind at least), that Liberals believe there to be a way to salvage capitalism and that our current system of governance is mostly fine with some hick ups (mostly conservatives). Leftists on the other hand, believe there to be a systemic issue starting at the very foundation of our government.

Now, leftism and liberalism are both extremely broad and varied- but this seems to be the primary difference. That being said, this post is not about liberals (you know who you are), no, this post is about Leftists proper. Ancom/soc's, communists, collectivists, etc, etc. This is necessary to point out because I really don't feel like digging through the pointless objections and generalizations. 

Okay, but WHAT hypocrisies best friend Weakeredge?? aka -THE POINT
Simple, on our base level Leftists are people who want equality-we want to do so in a way where people don't get hurt- we want to do so in a way that betters society. And yet, soooo many of us advocate prison. Now; there are certainly situations where there is no other outcome, particularly when the individual is violent and is unable to be soothed. But that archetype makes up such a low percentage of such situations that its sad people would pretend otherwise. 

Its not just prison though, fundamentally so many "solutions" offered by leftists buy into the idea of retributive justice. Really, if I were more organized, I woulda introduced the idea and talked about why i think its bad- but nah im not so here we are- thats the main point. We can't just default to the idea that people arbitrarily deserve x or y. There's a reason why so many of these moral quandary's are fundamentally flawed.

What if- and here me out here- it doesn't particularly matter what people deserve? The core principle of mercy is the idea of abandoning justice, ala, forgiveness OR the ability to let live. Now, Im not saying to embrace your abusers-have a chat and let bygones be bygones- not my point here. Abandoning retribution does not mean accepting abuse or evil. It means recognizing that retribution for nothing more than the sake of retribution is useless- less than useless considering prison usually creates MORE violent criminals. 

Leftists need to abandon retribution as the answer, The Right tried that- it. did. not. work. We cannot preach equality and wanting to better society and then default to retribution as our answer to everything.
#2
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 557
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
Is prison solely about retribution? I thought it was mainly about keeping violent criminals off the streets. You can argue for lower incarceration rates within the current system, as liberals do, but zero law enforcement is going to lead to crime spikes. If there's a serial killer going around murdering people, what do you think should be done about it, at least in the short-term?
#3
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 270
Posts: 7,778
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Great majority of the people I met in prison said or implied they would return to crime after they go out. They often bragged about their crimes too. Prison rarely fixes people. It places them in an abusive environment. Abusive environment rarely fixes anyone. In prison, everyone tries to crush others. People join in groups to abuse individuals for fun. People lie against you to the guards to get you beaten up. I dont see how can that make someone a better human.
#4
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,038
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Most people have nothing equal to a career criminal. Nothing in common at all.

So equality is irrelevant.
#5
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,237
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
How come you met people in prison? 🤔
#6
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,237
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
Well, I agree. Leftists are hypocrites. 😆
Topic's author
#7
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Savant
Slavery is literally legal when done to imprisoned. So even if separation is part of it, it is clearly not the main component. You can separate people without stripping them of rights. You have not interpreted my ideas correctly.
#8
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 557
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
What system do you propose that wouldn't just be "prison" by another name? Would you try to reform the prison area itself? Advocate for house arrest as an alternative?
#9
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,307
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
Leftist, is an assumption that is based upon rightism.

Rightism is also an assumption, that is  based upon leftism.

Most people are moderate, basically the same and have similar expectations.

Predilections for extremism are motivated by spontaneous overthink and endocrinal surges, at the behest of power hungry antagonists who pray upon the weaknesses of the gullible.

Extremism doesn't necessarily mean violent. 

More sort of, opposing twatism, because sexual release is limited and there is not much else to do other than to chop ones dick off or wear a silly red had. Generally after a burger (beef or vegan) and several cans of cheap beer, or a glass or two of cabernet sauvignon.

In my moderate opinion.

 




#10
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
Nice to see you back - any chance you're back as a debater or just a poster? 
Topic's author
#11
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Savant
While I'm no expert in this field and will not pretend to be one- I will start with some basics:
  1.  The goal of such an establishment is to better society
  2. The goal of such an establishment will be reached without breaching human rights
  3. The establishment will not be managed by corporate/private interests
As such, it would have to go hand in hand with police reform- really, the entire justice system in America. But-as you might be aware- that's a bit daunting so I'm gonna be a bit light on details for those two and focus mainly on the prison parts. 

In order to properly establish something which isn't just prison 2.0 we need some fundamental changes to the way the people who are incarcerated are seen. In my view, one of the only ways to do that is to provide people here with: water, food, shelter, medicine, social activity, privacy, entertainment, etc, etc- all the basics of human life. While it may seem like a very basic one, its one that would have to be made from the ground up. Activities like random cell searches and searching prisoners are some of the most basic functions of one.

This can all be fought by giving the accused a choice in their sentencing. This might seem strange, but in a reparations based justice system- forced incarceration should only be used for the passionately violent with no justification. The choice can be simple, community service in a way which helps repair the crime in question or to work with therapists and psychologists to become better. And- by allowing the incarcerated more freedoms the amount of rebuke will drop dramatically. Mirrored by how, say, decriminalizing certain drugs would (and have) drastically decrease arrests. All in all, if a society was more understanding of the whys people wouldn't need to commit as much crime.

Afterall, the impoverished are more likely to commit crimes due to desperation, worsening situations, etc, etc- so if you correct those situations you correct a large portion of crime. Then, if you further destigmatize criminals, you decrease desperation- which is the biggest factor in escalating violence in the average crime. Anyways, all of this to say- my idea would be a system which allows more choice-and focuses on bettering all parties involved rather than punishing any specific person. If someone is in danger from another, separation might be used to protect.

I know, there are issues, there are problems, I won't pretend like their aren't. But i think striving for something better and not being perfect is better than suffering through injustice of today.

Topic's author
#12
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Bones
I'm not sure- i kinda got disillusioned with debating, its has more to do with oration than reasoning- enough of my votes told me that. Now, obviously reasoning matters-truly it does- but people don't really care about the truth in debates-at least not the voters- no they care about who can appear more truthful and convincing.

Fundamentally that doesn't jive with my principles.
Topic's author
#13
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@IlDiavolo
Yup, most people suffer from some form of cognitive dissonance in some way or another- i don't think its particular to leftists though.
Topic's author
#14
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Savant
In regards to this, i think my other post shined some light, but I'll respond more directly.

It is a fact that crime will drop when less cops are patrolling. This is an extremely obvious truism. If no one catches you it isn't a crime, what makes it a crime is the interaction of whatever action committed and the labeling of society. Even if there wasn't a truth to "taking care of poor people reduces crime", forcing less people to go to jail will reduce criminals because people leave jail more criminal than they went in.

However, it is true that taking care of people will reduce crime- because as I've alluded to before- desperation is the real motivation behind the majority of escalation of violence within crime (the worst sorts of crimes generally). So you take away the desperation you take away the escalation, thereby taking the bite out of most crime. 

In your hypothetical, the person would be restrained until a reasonable alternative could be found. The person would be provided shelter, food, medicine, entertainment, etc- it does not do well to isolate someone who is convinced that murdering others sporadically is a good idea. Of course, everyone's saftey must take precedence- but it can certainly be done. The therapists, doctors, and restrainers need to respect the murderers basic human rights out of pragmatism. 

(HINT HINT: if you're worried about the budget, just take some money from the military/former prison industry/rich fuckers in general via redistributing, higher taxes, or other forms of financial mischief)
#15
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Now, leftism and liberalism are both extremely broad and varied
Incorrect as I believe the entire left defending CHOP and the various insurrectionists BLM movements were behaving in a hive mind type of way. 
#16
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Simple, on our base level Leftists are people who want equality-we want to do so in a way where people don't get hurt-
Incorrect. The left don't want equality through raising people up, but by chopping people down as things like the "killing fields" and various other policies in America that harm people in general. 

For example the left thought too many African Americans were being arrested in Chicag so they made shoplifting practically legal and now corporations like Walmart who did a lot to serve the community are leaving and the people in those communities are suffering by getting shafted with more expensive goods from the dollar general and mom and pops who charge outrageous prices.

So you can't say those policies are to help the poor. They were merely meant to harm businesses, it just so happens the policies also hurt the poor also fortunately for the sick fucks pushing those policies
#17
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,130
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
so they made shoplifting practically legal
Bullshit
What this means for those charged with theft, shoplifting or retail theft in Chicago is that if the value of the item taken was $499.99 or below, you will be charged with a class A misdemeanor which is punishable by up to 364 days in the county jail, does not involve prison time and avoids a felony conviction on your record.

And I thought you had a junior management in food service correspondence course to complete
#18
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,038
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
It's practically legal because unless your name is "Trump" the DA won't prosecute.
#19
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm not sure- i kinda got disillusioned with debating, its has more to do with oration than reasoning- enough of my votes told me that. Now, obviously reasoning matters-truly it does- but people don't really care about the truth in debates-at least not the voters- no they care about who can appear more truthful and convincing.

Fundamentally that doesn't jive with my principles.
Yeah well that makes sense - some here seem unwaverable by reason. Nonetheless hit my PM if you want to debate - I've been looking and have actively been pursuing the top debaters on this site for a specific debate with no avail, so I would extend that that offer to you. 
#20
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,038
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
you can select debate voters now. I've been known to be pretty impartial.
Topic's author
#21
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Businesses harm the poor, harming businesses is necessary to help poor people. 

Guess what, businesses aren't people- they can fuck off. More than willing to let "businesses" suffer to let people not suffer.
#22
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
I guess it depends on the business, but no we can pretty much link all of poverty to some sort of economic interventionism by government or large corporations. 

If you looked at both sides of your arguments in an unbiased rational way, you wouldn't be a leftist TBH. 


Hell the economic freedom index is usually enough to show why leftism is stupid, although some cope with bullshit like "those leftist countries are not true leftism" or "those countries only suck because the capitalist nations are so much superior and can easily exploit them" which usually is a self rebuttal that goes over their head
#23
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
Simple, on our base level Leftists are people who want equality-we want to do so in a way where people don't get hurt- we want to do so in a way that betters society. And yet, soooo many of us advocate prison. Now; there are certainly situations where there is no other outcome, particularly when the individual is violent and is unable to be soothed. But that archetype makes up such a low percentage of such situations that its sad people would pretend otherwise. 
People support prison because there really aren’t that many options for what to do with violent criminals. You can kill them which isn’t ideal in most circumstances. You can subject them to brutal corporal punishment but people who don’t have the stomach to support imprisonment aren’t going to support that. You could levy fines but someone who isn’t deterred by the possibility of a prison sentence decades long is unlikely to be deterred by something like that. 

If you look at the demographics of who commits serious violent crimes (it’s overwhelmingly males between the ages of 15 and 35) keeping a violent person locked up during their most violent years isn’t exactly a bad idea. What solution are you offering exactly? 
#24
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
Businesses harm the poor, harming businesses is necessary to help poor people. 
Nothing could be further from the truth. How does harming business help the poor in any way? 
#25
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@thett3
People support prison because there really aren’t that many options for what to do with violent criminals. You can kill them which isn’t ideal in most circumstances.
I reckon it's by far the best thing to do and your Catholic church actually proved it.

Historically, from around 1000-1750, the Catholic church waged a 'war on crime' wherein they effectively killed off the top 1.5% most violent males from each generation. This dramatically reduced the crime rate in Europe and contributed to great things, such as the industrial revolution The European Revolution - The Alternative Hypothesis [Re-Upload] - YouTube

What's funny is that 250 years later, society would be helped again if you killed off the most violent people, because 63% of violent crime (albeit in Sweden) was committed by 1% of the population (who we can label the most violent) When few do great harm - by Inquisitive Bird (substack.com)

So, having the death penalty for the top 1% of violent criminals would actually have a wonderful effect of drastically reducing crime and making everyone's lives better.
#26
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Kaitlyn
I would definitely be executing at least several thousand a year people if I became dictator overnight, at least for a while. In the US especially in the more liberal states it’s common for murderers to be people who committed violent crime after violent crime and went to jail like two dozen times before they finally killed an innocent person. 

Have you read A Farewell to Alms by Gregory Clark? I think it’s mentioned in that video you linked but I could be wrong. But he analyzed surname data and wills in England over a 1000 year period and concluded that there was huge downward mobility from the middle classes into farm laborers because the economy was so static, while the original peasants mostly just died off. This caused traits like forward thinking, conscientious etc to be highly selected for….were rapidly undoing that almost everywhere now of course.

Also every Western European country except France had huge emigration to the Americas or Australia which probably selected for less passive people too. The world wars may have been a selection event too
#27
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@thett3
I would definitely be executing at least several thousand a year people if I became dictator overnight, at least for a while. In the US especially in the more liberal states it’s common for murderers to be people who committed violent crime after violent crime and went to jail like two dozen times before they finally killed an innocent person. 
I assume you'd put them through a trail in criminal court first, right?

Have you read A Farewell to Alms by Gregory Clark? I think it’s mentioned in that video you linked but I could be wrong. But he analyzed surname data and wills in England over a 1000 year period and concluded that there was huge downward mobility from the middle classes into farm laborers because the economy was so static, while the original peasants mostly just died off. This caused traits like forward thinking, conscientious etc to be highly selected for….were rapidly undoing that almost everywhere now of course.
I haven't read it entirely but it's sourced in the video and I've used the source material to make some of my arguments in the past. 

Yes, all those effects are true. Greogory Clark also noted that the life expectancy for men pretty much double from 1330 to 1829 (24-47.8), and that in the same time their chance of dying from violence dropped roughly 6.5 times.

I think everyone would agree that these are wonderful results, and they should also be reminded that the results came serendipitously through changes to law (harsher death penalty) that didn't even intend for these outcomes to be the case. This might be a hot take, but imagine, with current technology, how much greater the effect could be with a planned removal of undesirables before they're even born (with CRISPR to change their genes if we're feeling generous, or genetic testing and abortion if the soon-to-be-born is far too gone).

Also every Western European country except France had huge emigration to the Americas or Australia which probably selected for less passive people too. The world wars may have been a selection event too
America and Australia were built by these "less passive" people, too. 

Without ever having done the research, I'd guess world wars are dysgenic because the smarter, more capable people tend to get involved more heavily. 
#28
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@thett3
@Kaitlyn
I have had a larger theory about difference in certain ethnicities' behaviours and the environment they evolved in being linked but specifically relevant to this discussion is caucasians and travelling as well as passivity.

If you evolved in colder (actually straight up icy for a large enough period) environment, you very quickly had to gang up on violent people or push them away to perish alone in the cold (thus die off, not run off and fuck many women or meet a beastly man at random). This means that over time, it is likely that caucasians and similarly inuits and more northern American (as in Canada and very north part of US) had ensured that the most impulsively violent amongst themselves were minimised over time whereas other cultures probably had them spread the furthest and widest because it's not as instinctive or straightforward in the earlier stages of evolution to justify ganging up on a particularly strong and violent individual if it's open-plain and you don't naturally have the weapons (the weapons used to hunt mammoths etc were perfect for handling gang-up sitations vs a beastly violent individual).

Due to the sheer cold, 'sticking together' was forced, not optional, to maintain good body temperature and stay alive as well as defend the young. This is probably also why white people developed the high 'political intelligence' that is prevalent even today, since you just had to force that to be a trait that was important and selected for when living in close quarters.

This isn't just about literal heat though. There is more to it. It's about the way that colder climates make you feel you need to huddle together. In climates where it was easy to roam alone or in pairs for a long while, a very violent individual would likely, when ambushed or 'exiled' just accept it after defeated and walk off and survive and then meet and rape others, passing on genes.

Of course, I can be talking total nonsense, perhaps what I said is true for caucasians in colder climates ended up a common reason humans were sociable and the most capable species of teamwork but I have a feeling it may explain the headstart they had, the climate forced them to not only work better together but led to those that couldn't 'keep the peace' to perish, as in their bloodline dying out not just themselves.

If you look at what caucasian cultures are so ridiculously strong at that keeps them 'running the world' it is not 'intelligence', the Asians in particular equal them if not surpass them in this. It is collaborative political maneuvring. I am talking about trends, it also does backfire since people like Hitler, Putin, Stalin, Mussolini and other such dictators end up capable of far more severe damage than tyrants of other ethnicities in other cultures due to the fact caucasians are as a society more open to just socialise and get by with a new maniac in charge, rather than instantly jump to fight them out of power from within they sooner go to war for them on scale/extend that is nationwide in the breadth of obedience and fear that is not quite the same for other tyrants.

If you think I'm talking out of my ass, then correct me. I don't have data supporting me and of course this type of research is taboo to even look into in recent times.
#29
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,038
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
 due to the fact caucasians are as a society  more open to just socialise and get by with a new maniac in charge, rather than instantly jump to fight them out of power from within they sooner go to war for them on scale/extend that is nationwide in the breadth of obedience and fear that is not quite the same for other tyrants.

Hmm... Let's compare a list of current or recent dictators:

Africa:
  1. Paul Biya - President of Cameroon since 1982.
  2. Idriss Déby - President of Chad from 1990 until his death in 2021.
  3. Isaias Afwerki - President of Eritrea since 1993.
  4. Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo - President of Equatorial Guinea since 1979.
  5. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi - President of Egypt since 2014.
  6. Denis Sassou Nguesso - President of the Republic of the Congo (Congo-Brazzaville) with intervals since 1979.
  7. Omar al-Bashir - Former President of Sudan from 1989 to 2019.
  8. Yoweri Museveni - President of Uganda since 1986.
  9. Robert Mugabe - Former President of Zimbabwe from 1987 to 2017.
Asia:
  1. Kim Jong-un - Supreme Leader of North Korea since 2011.
  2. Xi Jinping - General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party and President of China since 2013.
  3. Hun Sen - Prime Minister of Cambodia since 1985.
  4. Nursultan Nazarbayev - Former President of Kazakhstan from 1990 to 2019.
  5. Bashar al-Assad - President of Syria since 2000.
  6. Emomali Rahmon - President of Tajikistan since 1994.
  7. Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow - President of Turkmenistan since 2006.
  8. Islam Karimov - Former President of Uzbekistan from 1991 until his death in 2016.
Europe:
  1. Alexander Lukashenko - President of Belarus since 1994.
  2. Vladimir Putin (could be in Asia category as well) - President of Russia with intervals since 1999 (Prime Minister in some periods).
  3. Recep Tayyip Erdogan - President of Turkey since 2014.
Bonus Track:

Current African warlords:

  1. Joseph Kony - Leader of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda.
  2. Ibrahim Ag Bahanga - Former leader of the rebel group National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) in Mali.
  3. Bosco Ntaganda - Former military leader and founder of the M23 rebel group in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
  4. Thomas Lubanga - Former leader of the Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC) in the DRC.
  5. General Laurent Nkunda - Former leader of the National Congress for the Defense of the People (CNDP) in the DRC.
  6. Charles Taylor - Former President of Liberia, associated with warlordism during the Liberian civil war.
  7. Alieu Kosiah - Former commander of the United Liberation Movement of Liberia for Democracy (ULIMO) in Liberia.
  8. Muhammad Ali - Leader of the Janjaweed militia in Darfur, Sudan.
  9. Hissène Habré - Former President of Chad, accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
  10. Jean-Pierre Bemba - Former Congolese rebel leader and founder of the Movement for the Liberation of Congo (MLC).
  11. Sultani Makenga - Former leader of the M23 rebel group in the DRC.
  12. Ahmad al-Mahdi - Leader of the Patriotic Resistance Front in the Central African Republic (CAR).
  13. Joseph Karama - Leader of the Nduma Defense of Congo (NDC) rebel group in the DRC.
  14. Alieu Badara Mbye - Leader of the West African Liberation Forces (WALF) in The Gambia.
  15. Ali Darassa - Leader of the Union for Peace in Central Africa (UPC) rebel group in the CAR.
  16. Abubakar Shekau - Former leader of the Boko Haram extremist group in Nigeria.
  17. Agathon Rwasa - Former leader of the National Liberation Forces (FNL) in Burundi.
  18. Seleka leaders - Various leaders associated with the Seleka coalition in the CAR, such as Michel Djotodia and Noureddine Adam.
  19. Vincent Otti - Former deputy leader of the LRA in Uganda.

#30
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Greyparrot
I think my point was misunderstood but I am struggling on how to word it.

It's more about style and level.

I do not believe that any of the dictators you named genuinely had/have people worshipping them to the same extent as far throughout the nation as the ones I stated are. This is because there is just much less of a social concept of glorifying anybody at all in said societies, they are less prone to even think of that political/social mechanism as essential or vital.

Due to increased huddling leading to increased socialising, it is slightly but noticeable prevalent in nature not nurture of caucasians (In my theory which has never been proven) that they respond much more fervently and passionately to 'people' themselves. As in their 'leader' becomes someone they naturally feel quite a bit of liking or dislike towards. Other ethnic-dominated-than-caucasian cultures tend to have far more ambivalence to the individual in charge (yes yes bring up north korea, I got it). The reason this matters is the extent people en masse would die for said leader and risk.

However, this also is linked to why caucasian cultures pioneered democracy as a concept at all and had anything like voting. It's because I genuinely believe that not just sociologically but psychologically they are more oriented to think about 'people' at all involved in their 'place' as 'part' of the immediate, which also may explain why they are the most prone towards social media addiction (again hasn't been tested to cancel out the fact that smartphones and such are more available in caucasian-densely-populated areas). I just genuinely believe that the brains of caucasians are more primed to react to and calculate around EQ decision making, as in a slight but real edge in that direction, linked to having eliminated those with severely low EQ whether due to being unruly and dangerous, forcing the group to exile them to the cold wilderness (or kill them) or alternatively by the fact that the more passive, low EQ male members would have spent so much time around the others they'd have just not gotten laid or married (polygamy was quite commonplace across all races firstly). If your climate and conditions allowed you to spend less time around each other and actually made you prefer more introverted guys who left you alone and got on and did shit, you end up with a lower EQ genepool which I predict the way groups/clans survived in Asia (especially East Asia) functioned via, as well as the middle east despite very different climates.

This is a separate topic though but I genuinely believe I'm onto something real, it's just that in this day and age it's too taboo to talk about or even get research done into.