Total posts: 19,931
-->
@FLRW
The reason for that is the smart ones don't go a psychiatrist and get diagnosed as one. You really are using useless statistics. Most of those stats pool sociopaths in with psychopaths.
There are highly intelligent psychopaths and even highly intelligent sociopaths, while there are extremely empathetic learning-disabled people and very empathetic people who had deteriorating brain function.
There are also low-intelligent sociopaths and low-intelligent learning disabled people.
There is not a correlation in either direction and if there is, it's very slight. Where exactly have you found a link?
Created:
Posted in:
Remember when game show hosts and filthy rich businessmen only got involved in politics on the sidelines?
Neither do I. The President thing was new, though.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
There are highly intelligent psychopaths and extremely compassionate people with learning disabilities, I don't follow your stance here at all.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Are you suggesting that people with Down's Syndrome, for instance, can't be compassionate? I don't understand your stance here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Definition 2 - Macro-racism, structural
- Systemic opportunity-hindering
- Systemic punishment-targeting
The two most notable ways that structural racism occurs is often combined with personal racism on a micro-level but the ways this happens is much more to do with how a society is structured and how you can pass off what is happening as something the race brought on themselves.
Let's say in you particular society, that a certain race is poor due to slavery in the past leading to 0 inheritance for them. Then, what you do, is intentionally design the systems of selecting students, employees etc as brutally harsh on the opportunities that race has the least, which is even justifiable at first due to concerns of competency, except what you do is leave them no option. You don't let them able to gain apprenticeships, you don't offer scholarships, you don't have anything where the relatively motivated and high-achieving among them can escape the lack of opportunities they have. On top of that, often there really will be racism amongst the hirers and selectors not just out of malice but ignorance as they hold a ridiculous opinion that laziness and low achievement is 'inherited' as opposed to environmental.
Affirmative action alone doesn't fix this, however it's often a necessary start. What you really need to do is structure the society to be more caring to those struggling within it, which has nothing to do with race of course, then all who are poor or particularly held back can begin to at least cope. Finally, you need scholarships and programs like apprenticeships to offer those who really want to prove themselves to 'climb out' of what would otherwise be inescapable lack of opportunity in life. There of course is a fourth element, which is more difficult for any authority itself to achieve; you need attitudes and prejudice within selectors/employers to dissipate. That takes society itself and many campaigns against racism and for equality to achieve.
The punishment targeting has many layers to it. Firstly, it's how often and harshly cops will preemptively stop-and-search, act on suspicion, harshly interrogate etc. If you notice in your system that on top of there being a lot of poverty and ghetto-isolation issues leading to a group being more consistently driven to crime, that the law enforcement itself keeps targetting them harsher for crimes, you then at least need to look into sentencing and jury bias. What you may find is that the issue is not entirely law-enforcement based actively (though it often is) as it is passively. What I mean is that you will often find a level of mercy and decency given when arresting, interrogating and sentencing a person of the majority-race that simply is withheld/absent when dealing with people of any minority races that have for whatever reason been seen as problematic by the racists within the system. The passive format of racism often extends even to in-prison life and the way society treats them when they've come out. There is often a deep bias and hatred towards offenders of the minority-race with an idea 'they're bound to do it again, what else is there to expect' whereas with offenders of the majority-race there is much more of a 'hmm, maybe they're worth a chance' mentality. If you notice these passive-racist formats, what has to happen is again much more along the lines of a campaigns and society-shifting, however there are indeed ways to measure with sentences and frequency of stop-and-search if there is inherent bias and severity. A good start would be for high ranks within law enforcement to reguarly be viewing interrogations and advising any cops they notice are unjustifiably taking a more 'bad cop' approach with a certain race than another.
Judges who can be noticed on their records to consistently give longer sentences, less bail time etc to a certain race need to be dealt with the harshest, they are a serious problem for the system as often the very way they handle 'objections' and speaking times etc within the trial favours the prosecution (if the defendant is of that race) or hinders the prosecution (if the alleged victim is of that race). These people are huge issues because they then enable the statistics that justify further racism against that race in frequency of incarceration, longer sentences etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
There are two definitions of racism to understand (one of the two contains three sub-definitions, the other contains 2)
If you want 'easy definition', there isn't one. The 'easy definition' that it's discimination based on race doesn't define what 'discrimination' is or how to go about objectively verifying it.
I have intentionally tried to write it in a way that I don't think has been written before, my wording is intentionally verbose so as to avoid accidental copyright or plagiarism type stuff.
Definition 1 - micro-racism, personal
When an individual (or small group of ordinary-ranked citizens) hold a hateful, mocking and offensive outlook on certain people who have their race and/or ethnicity in common. The three elements of this racism are thus:
- There should/could be an expressed dislike approaching (or surpassing) what qualifies for hatred, the most blatant form being direct violence and encouragement of local business to fire employees and reject employees based on their race and/or ethinicity. The less blatant forms being consistently preaching to members of their group to never mingle with, marry and interact with people of that race (not ethnicity, this part has to be race).
- There should/could be a mocking element to the racism. This has a huge variety and sometimes is even socially acceptable when done towards the majority-race (such as black people going 'you dance like a white dude', 'cracker', 'white-boy wasted', or shaking their head at a cringey scene and going 'white people'). This form of racism is considered most severe when aimed at a race that has been particularly victimised in the past and/or present. The context of this form of racism matters a lot, it is almost entirely context-based in how the general society will view how severe and wrong it was to do. As I mentioned, when it's aimed at the majority-race in a somewhat playful manner, it is generally considered okay. I did not say I consider that okay myself, I am pointing out when it's considered okay. Another significant way it's considered okay is when someone does it to their own ethnicity, not just race. When someone mocks their own ethnicity, that is considered okay.
- There should/could be intentional offense attached to the racism, this is the most difficult part to prove. Let's say that you avoid directly expressing hatred and directly mocking but you know that a certain ethnicity find you dressing or acting a certain way very offensive, this could be considered racism (though its aimed at an ethnicity as opposed to race). Another example of offense is black-face and things along those lines. The difference between direct offense and mockery is that with mockery there is an element of bringing laughter at the sake of the race/ethnicity, whereas with offense the intent is entirely based around hurting the feelings of the race/ethnicity. This is often part of the first category during hate crimes, they don't tend to just violently beat up a person of a certain race or just make their life hell, they tend to want that person to feel entirely degraded and sad, angry even. This is also context-based but tends to be less about context because usually the acts and words in and of themselves are irrefutably sadistic and harmful with this side of racism. The distinction here, between mockery and offense, is also to do with where and how it's done. Mockery tends to be done among members who aren't in the race, giggling nastily about another while they aren't present. Offense is done always, 100% of the time, with the other person within ear-shot or very likely to see the scene and understand what it means. Another example would be making monkey sounds in a football stadium when a black player is playing. The intention is to demoralise and emotionally hurt the victim, not to necessarily entertain and laugh, that is how this differs to mockery. They can indeed overlap but this latter category is often of a more intentional 'hurt them' nature than the mockery is. This also would be along the lines of graffiti on a person's house, vandalising their property and making it very hard for them to go about their daily life.
A much more significant way to spot the difference between mockery and offense styled racism is that mockery tends to attack a group and is rarely about isolating and severely emotionally degrading the victim. Offense tends to combine generic racism with personalised comments and mocking personal things, so if someone of a race happened to have an accent and tone of voice, you'd imitate that on top of the generic mockery. Offense is about really hurting the person and making them feel negative, mockery is about blindly seeking laughter at the sake of the victimised ethnicity/race, not caring if it does or doesn't hurt them.
I will now go into macro-racism and the two fundamental ways it's done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
So, to deter them, it would be better to mimic the 'shithole' tendencies?
Right, gotcha.
Created:
For all we know, Biden's taking Chinese bribes. This is just playing into the hands of what the right-wing media thrive in; 'HAHA YOU SUCK WORSE' mentality.
It should be about us being better, not them being worse. Start celebrating what the Dems have done well, let the corrupt right-wing rot in their own misery and spite.
You'd find that Dems, such as Obama, won securely by not trying so hard to demonise their opponent, it's when Dems play the game like the Republicans do that things start to fall apart for them. Don't become the bad guy to make the other appear the villain, just focus on selling yourself.
Created:
There's a pretty blatant issue with your logic here. Europe has far, far lower cost of living than America (especially for the poorest)
so, that whole 'only 5k extra' argument falls flat.
As for crime, again, you have ignored bias within the system and structure even of society... Well, actually the society thing is largely to do with what I just mentioned.
With the 25k, that european can send their child to a decent enough school, get decent enough healthcare, public transport and a roof over their head guaranteed at least to be a shitty apartment (called a 'flat' and often is just 3 small rooms at most, that's for families, it can basically be just 2 tiny rooms fused together, one being the bathroom) in a rough neighborhood, provided by the government. Homelessness in Europe happens with people who got sidelined and are/were mentally unstable or deeply depressed such that they found it too difficult to maintain a simple job and live in such a 'shitty apartment/flat'.
In America, the only thing slightly guaranteed is the education part and there's a huge gap in the quality available to the poor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I think I may have been a really horrible person, at least very uncaring in past lives. I know what it means to love people now. And how to love people without need of reciprocation. I feel this life has been one huge lesson for me. I see it is the same for others as well. I see people being tested,and I see myself being tested all the time. The whole of human life may just be an ethics lesson.
I relate to this also, especially recently IRL myself (less along the lines of learning to love, more along the lines of learning to genuinely forgive). Do not lose faith in the angel/aliens and signs unless they tell you to do something that completely runs against the grain of both sanity and morality.
I believe in supernatural things, I don't know the details of your mental health but as long as you take it indeed as an ongoing ethics lesson, I think your signs are guiding you well.
Created:
Posted in:
As for demonized, you're pretty damn anti-white
Can you show me a post I have made that is anti-white? I actually am confused.
Created:
Posted in:
The case in point wasn't the ad hominem, it was that you dodged and demonised regardless of Ad Hominem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Is it really? Do elaborate how you came to rationally conclude that some dude named Jesus is the son of the almighty creator of reality superior to the rest of us and sacred in a way the rest of his worthless creations are not.
Oh, also let me know why a pig is not worthy of respect but a human is, simply because of its species. I'm curious of many aspects of your religion, not just the ones the atheists usually pick at. So, keep your own fucking house in order before coming at me. I didn't try to convince you I was right but you damn well better be ready to convince me you are right if you're to live by what that verse says and come at me about convincing you to believe in what I do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
1Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Nowhere in my post did I ask what you think of the rationality of my belief. You blindly believe a book written to control people that didn't have a single word of it written until around forty years after Christ was already dead and gone.
Created:
Posted in:
Donald Trump inherited at least $413 million from his father's business empireworth via property, the money he was given was not even 10% of what he had in estate, business and property.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
The initial response is that it really is a coincidence and that you're prone to see patterns where there aren't any.
If we accept supernatural possibilities, first consider how you were reminded of the friend. If the reminder was external to yourself and undeniably would trigger the reminder of the friend, consider then how the friend died.
It supernaturally is more likely to be god sending a warning sign to you on what to avoid yourself regarding death than your friend's soul/ghost trying to get hold of you. Of course, this applies only if her death wasn't entirely natural causes via aging. Another thing it might be a signal of, if we entertain supernatural ideas, is something regarding you and the friend and how you lost ties. Perhaps a message along the lines of not to so readily cutting ties with people and spending times you have left with those that matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
As I said earlier, the solution to the problem of evil, if you accept Pagan and/or deistic outlook as valid, is that the god is at least in part sadistic.
Created:
Posted in:
You’re foot stamping is
: your not defending
you have the your-vs-you're dynamic reversed
Created:
Posted in:
What you do is dodge and demonise the opponent's way of attacking youThat's because it's Ad Hominem, you silly twit.
...
you try your best to sledgehammer in your 'white supremacist' or 'fascist' Ad Hominems against me, don't get your panties in a bunch when you get called out on Ad Hominem and I intentionally avoid it.
I cannot find many better examples of 'case in point' with the direct reply someone gives to an accurate callout of their methods.
Created:
Posted in:
There are no slaves in the free market, just wolves and sheep.
I am confused. What is a sheep to a wolf if not prey?
Is that somehow better than the other term you separated from free market economy? How about the children of the sheep? Do they get a chance to be a wolf? I already know the answer.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
Everyone who reads this can see what you misrepresented. I will not get baited into something.
You accidentally misrepresented me just as it seems you think I did to you except you asserted intent.
The first thing you misrepresented was that I don't know what mRNA is or does, it's something you have misrepresented throughout appealing to authority constantly (that authority being your actual self).
I don't need to respect or care about your PhD and achievements in mRNA research. You told me you research plants, not people. mRNA messing to colour a plant differently or manipulate its growth is fine because it's a plant. Once we get to animals and then humans it suddenly isn't so funny to say one is crazy to oppose the research or worry where it's headed.
You can deny what it's capable of, I know what it's capable of and am not misrepresenting you when I say that the skepticism about it is well-founded and the defense against it is extremely rhetoric and peer pressured amongst doctors and scientists. If you're in the field, you'd know what it's capable of. Do not downplay how much it can alter in DNA. Any article denying it can change DNA is lying. All of the journalists are delivering misinformation because they believe it's a greater good to defend the vaccine than admit the capabilities which may be a correct call to make but it absolutely can alter DNA, especially in a slight way that we'd not notice at first. mRNA is to cells what selecting 'yes' to 'allow this program to change my computer' is when you give a program administrator access to install it and/or update it.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
The vaccine works well against the new variants we've gotten so far, even with the fast mutation rate.
Politicians disagree with you, they fancy reintroducing lockdowns due to the delta and future variants, a constant threat in the News.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
I don't appreciate your actively misrepresenting my point to suit your narrative, nor do I appreciate your misrepresenting the facts.
I didn't misrespresent anything. You on the other hand have done precisely what you say I am doing to you, to me.
There will be many variants, if the vaccine is futile against them then it is futile to force on an age group that basically are de facto immune to it symptomatically to get vaccinated.
Created:
Posted in:
Boxing actually is assault but due to signed contracts beforehand, neither can sue the other so long as the referee is listened to and rules abided by.
In essence is it a crime that neither participant will actually press charges for. That is why it is legal.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
I recommend researching what a vaccine does before telling me 'oh there will be a delta, episolon through to sigma and theta variant and we can't vaccinate against them all'. A vaccine is meant to prevent against the virus and how severely even the mutations can affect you because your body is prepped for the type of body/shape that the virus has (that's what immunity is based around). Beyond that, nothing is guaranteed and indeed it can hurt people after a while anyway as the white blood cells lose the shaping and memory of the previous virus after some time. There's no severe gain against the newer variants with vaccinating. This virus mutates extremely fast.
If new variants are inevitable and each seems to be gentle to the youth without severe underlying conditions, it implies we should only be pressuring adults to get vaccinated. Much more important than vaccination is practises/habits of people in their daily life and how they interact with surfaces and other people.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
It's an Icelandic domain though.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
youthful populations tend to have far stronger immune responses than the elderly, and that yields a lot of diseases that cause far more harm among the elderly than among youthful populations.
sure, they also suffer a lot due to that because their immune system fighting is what the symptoms are predominantly caused by (coughing and phlegm aren't the virus, it's your fighting of it, as is the fever).
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
The vulnerable are responsible for taking the vaccines or not, not the children.
I was pro-isolation for schoolchildren before the vaccines existed exactly because they could infect older people they live with. I understood that then. Now, if they infect someone living with them and that person suffers due to it as they're unvaccinated themselves, it's that person's fault not the child's.
The problem with your stance is you don't realise the risk vs reward here. We literally don't know wtf Pfizer/Moderna can do further down the line with mRNA aftereffects and we've already seen blood clotting and other issues associated with the covid-based vaccines.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
Since I am aware that between getting full-blown Covid and getting a vaccine, the former has guaranteed suffering and even lethality for some, I will agree that being publicly pro-vaccine is the stance all governments are correct to take at this point. That is, of course, by design and inevitable.
The vaccine is a necessary risk for anyone who is particularly elderly, can't afford to take days off of work for being sick or is one of the lung/heart etc condition groups that can't risk getting covid because they really probably will die from it. For everyone else, especially schoolchildren, I loathe, literally abhor, the pro-vaccine stance being taken regarding them. They don't die from it, clearly the psychopaths who designed this virus didn't want to kill them (there's never ever been a virus that is so gentle on youth while simultaneously being so brutal on the elderly, proportional to age in how harsh it attacks).
I know that I need to be careful what I type on this matter. I am aware of that.
I am very clear in my stance. I believe even Covid itself may be what people are saying that the vaccine is, in other words the depopulation conspiracy theory of how vaccines are reducing potency of sperm in males or whatever, may actually be what Covid itself has done. There's many signs so far that Covid uniquely has 'aftereffect' damage to a person's wellbeing and organs, unlike any virus seen before its effects seem to harm you post-battling it.
The non-mRNA vaccine is using Covid virus in a dormant form, so in fact that may end up being the more harmful one if this is the case.
Created:
Covid vaccine is unique, stop pooling in anti-all-vaccine people with those skeptical specifically about Covid's origins and the vaccine(s) associated with it. China and the illuminati are involved, whether you believe it or not.
This was an entirely intentional operation with every single death as direct blood on the CCP and Illuminati's hands. I don't say the vaccine itself is harmful but I sure as hell don't directly know the opposite. It is antiscientific for anyone to say they know yet just what happens further down the line, months and definitely years from now, regarding mRNA entering the body like that. For all we know Covid itself alters us once it's infected, permanently. We don't know what level of top secret science is involved and if we did it wouldn't be the level of science that would alarm us.
This is a weapon intended for assassinations in China that ended up used for a far more widespread outcome, I have no doubt at all that this was a prototype for biological warfare attacks in China that even if it was accidentally released to begin with in Wuhan, was intentionally covered up and allowed to spread internationally via the Chinese that unwittingly (or a few secret agents, knowingly) exported it.
Created:
Nope, Ramshutu has not correctly drawn the line. In fact, Underdog came closest in this thread to the line regarding Covid vaccine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Everything originates as a product of energy in one form or another, which is a product of conscious activity (awareness).
Firstly, no it doesn't. Matter isn't the same as energy, nor is space or time. Energy has many forms but to say that everything is energy is firstly physically false because 'field theory' hasn't been proven yet.
Even if you proved field theory true, your latter statement is false as consciousness has nothing to do with whether or not the brain is made out of energy. Are you saying that all forms of energy have consciousness as a result of them or are you saying the opposite? If not, I don't understand how this sentence flows. How did consciousness make electricity in a cable? How did consciousness make kinetic energy from movement?
God is a fixed Reality, so using the phrase "come from" is incoherent, it simply has no meaning.
No it isn't and no it doesn't have no meaning. It has meaning, very clearly so, you just mean that you don't think God came from anything as you assert it as a supreme/ultimate/fixed reality and the rest of us as illusionary simulations resulting from the god-entity that always has existed. If you find that totally fine to assert then why is it that you find an issue with atheists asserting the very same thing about our reality itself? Why can't the reality we know be the fixed one and no God-reality existing beyond it? I'm challenging you because I think you have come up with a series of circular reasoning that proves itself true based on assertions as opposed to genuine consideration of facts.
Your theory fundamentally is rooted in the idea that everything is energy and that energy is tied to souls which then proves god true. This is entirely circular, since you ignore any other plausible explanation at any stage as well as ignoring the major issue which is what triggered or enabled the god entity in the first place? Nothing you have said explains the god, nor even the necessity for it. You simply say that because you believe souls are proven true, the rest follows and that is rooted in you asserting field theory (that fundamentally everything is fields of energy, as opposed to matter or empty space of any kind).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
How did everything come from nothing?
How did your god come from nothing?
If it didn't come from nothing, what is logically coherent about an entity that never didn't exist prior to its existence?
You keep saying you have absolute proof of god and souls but what is the proof? It's about educated guesses on either side. We are estimating and gambling, not directly knowing.
If you truly deeply know that God is real and if your basis is that it is simply logical, then what is logical about it? At least explain. How are you conscious of yourself? Why isn't your body just a puppet of the god?
Created:
Created:
Posted in:
Forums are where sophistry comes to die.
😂😂😂😂😂
Both of you do it, he just does it in a different style.
What you do is dodge and demonise the opponent's way of attacking you, what Ramshutu does is focus hard on anything he can use to make the opponent seem weak in basis.
In the end you're both gaslighting each other and never ever going to stop the other's sophistry as your styles compliment the other so well when clashing.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Not even in the slightest bit due to their ethics. It just has become more difficult over time to do it because the Pakistani Government wisened up to the tunnels and methods they're using.
Taliban are scum. Pure, fascist scum. The only thing that they are probably doing better now than previously is the current leadership have seen from mistakes of their predecessors that being impulsive and short-term ruthless isn't the way to last as an organisation. They are going to be more patient and calculating, radicalising Afghanistan one step at a time until they inevitably begin beef with Pakistan. I will be curious to see if Pakistan sees India or the Taliban as the lesser evil when inevitably they need to apologise and beg one of the two for help. I hope it's India. It would help if Pakistan sides with India as Taliban is siding with China and China dominating Asia will be devastating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Naruto: Ninja ethos LOYALTY ABOVE ALL ~ power and efficiency of the collective over honour, individuality and hedonism. Morally grey, family/clan/village over everything.
Bleach: Samurai ethos ~ honour and elegance of the collective over power, individuality and hedonism. Two variants of Samurai ~ the kind who fight for the glory itself (Shogun-sided feudalists) and the kind who fight for a combination of socialist endgame in mind for the collective and defending the working peasant against the ruthless Shogun elite (Emperor-sided pseudo-pacifists). The Emperor and Shogun were united originally and the idea was the an Emperor was himself psychopathic and seeking to conquer all but this ethos began to shift from late 1500s onward towards a more socially concerned type of emperor.
One Piece: Meant to be Pirate ethos ~ freedom and plesaure of the individual over honour, the collective good and efficiency.
Actually is only that for the villains. The heroic characters aren't like pirates at all, they are much more akin to Samurai.
Only the villains in One Piece live by the ethos of the subculture it is meant to represent. This is one of the many issues I have with the series.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
And who is it that the heroin trade was done by and for?
Not the US, I can tell you that much.
What is true, however, is that the US helped the Taliban grow in the first place as well as Al Qaeda. This was due to Islamic fudamentalists and Sharia culture loathing Communism as much as the US did at the time. The US promised AQ and Taliban that they'd remain long-term allies if they did the dirty work for the US in USSR and such. They did and then the US ditched them, snitched out their leaders and locations to the governments of the nations they operated in and made permanent enemies of two organisations that helped them securely win the Cold War.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
NO ONE wishes to be remembered as being on the wrong side of history,
I mean, some people do in my opinion but those that do are either diagnosably insane and/or are narcissistic sociopaths who aren't the type of narcissist that wants to be seen as heroic.
Some examples of significant people I believe who genuinely wanted to be remembered as assholes in the history books include the likes of Genghis Khan, Ted Bundy and Stalin (his name was fake anyway so I won't type his first name, his real name was Ioseb Besarionis dzе Jughashvili) Genghis Khan also wasn't Genghis Khan, his real name was Temujin and his clan had been wiped out while he was young so he was left with no official clan/family name.
I think part way through his campaign, Hitler became content with being an absolute villain who whether he won or not would go down as a tyrannical lunatic, this became extremely blatant when Italy turncoated after overthrowing Mussolini and instead of negotiating, he made the Nazis themselves capture Mussolini and used Mussolini against his will as a puppet until eventually even Mussolini got fed up of Hitler's lunacy and tried to escape where he'd been assigned as a guerrilla leader by the Nazis (this isn't entirely how it worked but essentially Hitler had begun to accept that he was the bad guy and blatantly didn't believe in his cause in his later days, just in power).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Obama clearly was not— he let the banks off easy after the Great Recession
Trump would have let them off even easier, as would any Republican, how else do you think they got into the recession under Bush Jr.? Lax regulation on banks and their habits of lending vs pocketing money is a very Republican trait.
Obama actually was a great leader, economically. I have no idea what to even criticise in the guy since the only things he did wrong were due to pressure from the Right-Wing to 'not go that far left'.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
but the Associated Press reports that no country has been able to reverse the trend in the last decades.
That is a total lie. The entire EU, Australia+NZ, Canada, Japan and South Korea have directly pushed towards healthier lifestyles in recent years.
The Japanese (excluding sumo wrestlers) have always been relatively slim though, the reason isn't exactly known it may even be partly genetic as opposed to their dietary choices.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I argued a lot more than that.
It's about an attitude and culture. The US would sooner celebrate the freedom to make poor dietary choices as its overeaters die prematurely or suffer than push for social programs and taxation to create pressure to both fast food chains and consumers to make healthier decisions. There are chemicals in a mcdonald's meal/drink in the US that are literally illegal to be in food in the EU.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I don't think most Americans will ever be persuaded by any "stop screaming freedom" argument.
Amusing really.
Take online gambling laws, for instance, do you know which modern non-Sharia highly developed nation has the harshest laws regarding it? You got it. In 2 states it's actually purely illegal as in you can get arrested. The others except 3 have it passively outlawed, meaning it's taken on a case-by-case basis and you have to pay compensation to the government depending on evaded tax and how much you're involved with the host of the online service.
Take the way corporate tax is the most brutal one in the US and the fact that taxation on things works by you going and getting taxed for it, yourself, as opposed to it being taken out of the original source of income or payment output towards you... What is that mechanism of taxation other than an opportunity for the crafty with crude accountants and lawyers to evade it while the rest have to pay more as a result (to meet the quota every year, you have multi-millionaires not paying their 'progressive tax' much at all while the rest pay openly and honestly far more whereas in other developed nations the progression of taxation up the wealth ladder actually is enforced much better, with the only loophole being offshore accounts). Interestingly, this difference even applies to Switzerland because the locals there are treated harsher with inspection laws on their bank accounts than foreigners they have two organisations that dedicate to monitoring banking and exposing tax evasion, it's just an issue of enforcement and high privacy provisions making getting warrants much more difficult than most nations, especially for foreign investors).
The citizens of the US are also not even more free in what they can say and do, not by much at all. If you would observe what actually happens in the US in terms of how you get alienated if you said the wrong thing to the wrong person and how rapidly word can spread in a nation that is so heavily based around social media; I don't know how to prove it but I can tell you that things like 'omg this instagram thing, this tiktok thing' etc are much more heavily observed and communicated faster in the US subcultures than in other developed nations, where it's primarily only teens and young adults who care much about it and even then they tend to just communicate to the people they know IRL.
The 'freedom' in the US is not really better in practise and 'cancel culture' is (as I just said) much more brutal there because, for instance, a restrictive law that many social democracies provides makes it difficult to keep a cancel culture thing regarding an individual going because getting defamatory things removed from search engine results presenting to the local nation is nearly impossible within the US but within the EU, Canada, Australia, South Korea etc it's far more viable due to laws regarding that.
Brutal "freedom" for all, means all can oppress all freely. This will never be understood by the US because the constitution directly opposes that fact (not opinion) there. It will require the culture to admit its wrongfulness and flawed thesis before it can progress in that regard but it seems to be starting to realise it, especially the left-wing within it.
Created:
Posted in:
Please just tell me which of the following visually appeal to you and seem like the design style of characters was superior:
Naruto art/fanart sample to explore character design quality
as we both know that's barely tipping the surface of how beautiful and intricate they did each character and what each can be envisioned as
Now, let's look at...
Bleach art/fanart sample to explore character design quality
One Piece art/fanart sample to explore character design quality
If you think I have been unfair in my selection, that's fine. I went for 6 of each, trying to get fanart that kind of matched the proportions to the real anime well while being visually appealing.
To me, there is a very clear gap between the design quality of the former 2 to the latter. One Piece is often said to be weak visually due to Oda preferring realism, yet I find the realism is weakest in OP vs the other 2 of the 'big 3'. That is my opinion, you are of course entitled to yours. I ask you to present examples that prove my bias wrong or whatever.
Created:
Posted in:
Right Wing media is actually such a pisstake a lot of the time, I genuinely watch it for entertainment sometimes as it can be funny.
like I see this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_Kk2Ft_7_s
I just laugh, it's so obvious how many logical fallacies and rhetorical tools she's using, yet she does it anyway as people will fall for it. She talks about Afghanistan issues, which Trump's deal and Bush's decisions are the entire reason it's happening right now. Then she talks about border migrants suffering, which the Right Wing want to suffer even worse... What an absolute joke. It's actually amusing.
Created:
Posted in:
In Japan, South Korea and many 'western' social democracies today, you will notice something extremely shocking when you compare it with the general people's body proportions in a nation like the US or the upper class in less developed nations; there are becoming less 'fat' people amongst the wealthy in these nations.Why is that? It is perhaps, if extremely cynical, to do with campaigns and policies of 'taxing sugar' etc that certain governments carried out over recent years to help (according to skeptics who propose this idea) to reduce costs on the socialised or partially-socialised healthcare. If that's true, why don't proponents of this idea support the US doing that then?As in, why don't proponents of the idea that obese people would drain the economy too much if healthcare were socialised, instead support information programs and policies on fast food (the same meal name in Europe is around only 60% as unhealthy as the same meal in the US, I am not exaggerating, this is due to strict EU policy regarding 'how unhealthy a single meal can be' in Europe which is a law that simply doesn't even exist in US), Japan and South Korea also healthier but that is more cultural (if it was purely oily and greasy fast food there, they'd not visit it much as they have much healthier 'fast food' outlets, focused on strips of meat and/or fish with decent amount of vegetables and only easy-to-digest starch formats like rice, etc).If you would observe what a culture can do if it begins to positively (not negatively or abusively) pressure the obese to make healthier life decisions, as one whole society (rather than individuals teasing and having spite for one another) you would see a much more exponential transition towards a healthier populace. You can call it Orwellian, even I was not a fan of the sugar tax (I love sugary treats now and again and am a slim guy myself) but ultimately it's about the 'greater good'.If more people end up less draining on society and happier+healthier, these policies can be optimal for the society. It's all based around that metric. Stop screaming 'freedom' and then going 'oh no not everyone uses their freedom so wisely'. You don't matter enough on your own for your 'good life decisions' to outweigh the bad ones others can/will make without guidelines and restrictions. You're not the only citizen of your nation.
Created:
To avoid this being labelled a callout thread, I will specify that this is attacking an idea, not a certain individual who keeps using the idea.
The idea is exacerbated due to Covid targetting the obese harsher in its symptoms and lethality, similar to the elderly and those with lung and heart conditions (actually heart conditions and obesity are closely linked but can be independent).
In Japan, South Korea and many 'western' social democracies today, you will notice something extremely shocking when you compare it with the general people's body proportions in a nation like the US or the upper class in less developed nations; there are becoming less 'fat' people amongst the wealthy in these nations.
Why is that? It is perhaps, if extremely cynical, to do with campaigns and policies of 'taxing sugar' etc that certain governments carried out over recent years to help (according to skeptics who propose this idea) to reduce costs on the socialised or partially-socialised healthcare. If that's true, why don't proponents of this idea support the US doing that then?
As in, why don't proponents of the idea that obese people would drain the economy too much if healthcare were socialised, instead support information programs and policies on fast food (the same meal name in Europe is around only 60% as unhealthy as the same meal in the US, I am not exaggerating, this is due to strict EU policy regarding 'how unhealthy a single meal can be' in Europe which is a law that simply doesn't even exist in US), Japan and South Korea also healthier but that is more cultural (if it was purely oily and greasy fast food there, they'd not visit it much as they have much healthier 'fast food' outlets, focused on strips of meat and/or fish with decent amount of vegetables and only easy-to-digest starch formats like rice, etc).
If you would observe what a culture can do if it begins to positively (not negatively or abusively) pressure the obese to make healthier life decisions, as one whole society (rather than individuals teasing and having spite for one another) you would see a much more exponential transition towards a healthier populace. You can call it Orwellian, even I was not a fan of the sugar tax (I love sugary treats now and again and am a slim guy myself) but ultimately it's about the 'greater good'.
If more people end up less draining on society and happier+healthier, these policies can be optimal for the society. It's all based around that metric. Stop screaming 'freedom' and then going 'oh no not everyone uses their freedom so wisely'. You don't matter enough on your own for your 'good life decisions' to outweigh the bad ones others can/will make without guidelines and restrictions. You're not the only citizen of your nation.
Created:
Considering the rest of your politics, I am curious how you intend to push humanity towards having no sex, enjoying no food and drinks and craving no comfort.
I can't think of a way that won't be tyrannical or corrupt (or both).
Created: