i actually said it wasent uniform

China technically has religious freedom too. At least on paper. The reality is a bit different.

China has religious freedom, but terms and conditions apply

Religious freedom if that religion is not a mental disorder

Dude, they basically killed off the dalai lama.

I am a bit afraid that leftist in the west will follow china

I posted this
>When leftist want to follow china's example of calling dalai lama a nazi and should be killed just to own the right wingers

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/25/china-accuses-dalai-lama-nazi

then again,
I do know some maoist who would defend and deny about what is china doing....
And then saying that donald trump or some alt right is much worse??

You're not the only one. I'm personally very bothered by the turn against free speech and the way they seem completely disinterested int he other amendments also (like the 2nd or the 4th)

The radical far left often behaves like a cult. They are not much different from the far right in this regard. They are also different from the "liberals" of the United States, who are far more reasonable people.

It's a relatively new phenomenom in the U.S. but it's commonplace in other parts of the world.

eh china has more than ideological differences with the west right now, with trump, trump kinda put pressure on china to be fair for once and theyve been going by several decades as the spoiled child who cant do no wrong (as a country on the international scale) sure every once in a while their problems get pushed in the news but those get swept away with less event far faster than most other countrys get the benefit of. then trump comes along and starts tarrifing them as much as they tarrif us and then kicks their retarded little brother after they annoy the shit out of everyone for the nth time.

also they take any excuse to hate on the leader of tibet because he gets in the way of their colonialism

Problems of Germany in a single Picture:
https://www.facebook.com/robert.prost.lepouras/posts/2118617228458113

>germany

Oh, interesting. There was one of the biggest Tech Youtubers offering to help the virge with a do over of their System:
https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/971926-this-pc-building-guide-that-verge-made-is-unbarable/?do=findComment&comment=11759126

Yeah that'll never happen. The optics for that make it impossible for The Verge to accept. They're a Vox property, Linus is white, and the video would be seen as correcting a non-white person. Not happening.

Oh, yeah, forgot about the racist idiots working there....

Oof

Verge is a Vox property? Everything makes so much more sense now.

maybe they're just pretending to be retarded to get more views

https://imgur.com/gallery/uosp522 I saw this on imgur. What are peoples' thoughts on lobbying?

And before anyone shits on me I only use imgur because it's less effort to click on every individual post when you have gallery view

I'm not entirely against lobbyists, it's good to have some expert groups inform politicians. But there should be a cap or restrictions on how one can lobby and how much they can spend, and it must be made public.

Looks like they took down the PC Build Video

Lobbyist and Unions. Two things that are good in theory, but have too much power and all about money in their current iterations

What if lobbyist power was based around how many signatures they could collect

Wouldn't those lobbyists just pay to get those signatures?

Wanna bet that Capital one came throuth the phoneline and bashed "the Verge"??

Rumor is that Feinstein has something else on Kavanaugh.

I'm registering the theory now so that the time stamp can confirm or deny my prediction over the next several weeks. It's going to be More sexual assault allegations. Again from anonymous people at first and then by other democrat or democratic leaning women. The strategy will be to flood the next week with allegations of increasing veracity (though all will be ultimately dubious) to make Kavanaugh appear to be a serial rapist.

The veracity of the flood of allegations will be difficult to ascertain. As with the current one, there's going to be a large number of holes in the individual stories and some are likely to be completely made up. But the idea these days is to lie and expect cover from partisans in your institutions. I expect it will Bork Kavanaugh at the end of the day and then everything will vanish before anyone can confirm or refute the specfics of any of the stories in particular.

Justice Thomas survived Anita Hill as he was able to regain the offensive. The Kavanaugh case is just he-said-she-said. The idea there will be to just flood the field with allegations to prevent any study of any in particular.

If this theory holds, I have no words for Feinstein except to say it will be a disgusting political ploy that can only be complimented for its viciousness and skill in organization

Can't you impeach a senator for false allegations??

It's not going to happen. It would be too political and open too big a door for later abuse.

I'm just issuing predictions for the next week before anything else happens so no one can accuse me of making stuff up after it happens.

It could very well not happen. But I got a hunch as to exactly how this will play out and it hinges on the assumption DiFi is making up stuff and looking to derail everything. We shall see if the assumption and logic holds.

This is just my public declaration of what I think could happen. It could build my credibility or potentially destroy it. We shall see.

I severely doubt Feinstein has anything credible on Kavanaugh. She can manufacture accusers all damned day but there's nothing legitimately wrong with the guy that would've slipped by 6 FBI investigations and decades on the bench.

I doubt that too.

I mean she's 85 or so. How much brain can be left at that age?

Do you know what is not likely to happen but would be beautiful regardless? Feinstein's driver that worked for her for 20 years before being found out to be a Chinese spy... Spoke up about a #metoo allegation. Lol

I feel like this is very counterproductive for the Democrats, kavanaugh will be supreme justice eventually and he gonna resent the peope who dragged him through the dirt

The problem is the Democrats have no proble with the SCOTUS being partisan, its just not the right kind of partisan

"I first decide the way the judgement should read and then figure out the reason" -- Actual left leaning law professor (won't identify whom)

This attitude is not unique either. There are reports from Ivy League law schools laying out long term plans for jurisprudence to fundamentally alter US law in areas like Free speech.

I know you guys don't believe me, but the 1st amendment is in mortal danger.

Senators can lie and slander with out recourse. Remeber Harry Reid "Romeny didn't pay taxes" he later admitted saying it worked, right.

The question is Pratel, do you think that the leftist law professor would give you the same leeway?

Because that is a serious violation of the basic laws of the country

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2018/09/17/raising-kids-with-religion-or-spirituality-may-protect-their-mental-health-study/#601d89003287

Eat that, Radical Atheists!

damn, that explains a lot

@grant I was trying to remember who said that. Pretty Much. I got a feeling DiFi is rehashing an old trick here.

@Blackhawk342 Nope. But the real question is what anyone would do about it.

Basically that report is: if you meditate in some way, regardless of reason, you have better mental health.

Or at least if you choose a random person from a crowd and they tell you they meditate/pray they're more likely to have better mental health. It could be a correlated rather than causal. Maybe there's something else about the raising of those kids that is improving their mental health which is more likely to be found in families that are spiritual.

Or maybe the meditation only is a big help if you're in an abusive family, or something else of that nature, and so wouldn't be needed in many families, but for those whom it is needed it helps.

America should return to a confederacy so heavily blue states can live out their socialist dreams and libertarians/centrists/any political ideology? I think so.

america is too big to not be one honestly, we should have never stopped being one

so long as we use the same currency it should be fine, or at least have it be worth the same value across all states and just let them design the bills however they want.

Absolutely.

Everything in the US constitution language basically sets forward that the big decisions that affect you should be at state level at the highest.

The Federal Government is supposed to serve as a framework, with congressmen essentially operating as stewards of the Union.

The spirit of the first 10 amendments were all limitations on the government, not the people.

And the 10th Amendment is an important one. Powers not given to the Federal Government or restricted from the States by the Constitution are to be given to the States, or the people.

Utterly ignored today.

Meanwhile, overseas, we've got members of British parliament saying verbatim that the people should be accountable to the government...

One of the founding principles of the United States is that the Government is accountable to the People, always.

I just had a super dumb thought, but I could be onto something

If Social Justice Warriors believe that white people are inherently privileged, doesn't that mean they believe white people are superior just because they're white, therefore making SJWs apologetic white supremacists...?

@Vigil
Yes, basically

I think the opposite is also rather telling

For one to be superior

Another will be inferior comparatively. If they say whiteness itself has something superior to another.

Thats also imply all other races are inferior.

@Vigil That is the conclusion many people make. But you also could say because of inheriting wealth, education etc. other races will always be disadvantaged.

Another argument is that the police are biased against non-whites

Sure but bias is harder to measure than inheritance

Personally I think police bias lines up neatly with per capita crime stats, but that's not an airtight arguement against privilege.

Bias is subjective

At least until we finally get mindreading figured out
Then the world will finally be equal!

How is a white cis male who lives in South Africa as a farmer more privileged than Beyoncé

By ignoring qualities other than sex and race, e.g. geographical location, education, parental guidance and occupation, social justice becomes a sexist and racist theory by making life revolve around sex and race

@Vigil sure there are some people who would make a stupid argument. In that case you are right. But all the social justice advocates I met are fairly reaonable people.
I usually disagree more on HOW to vombat inequality not whether it exists

Oh yeah, there's definite cultural issues. I just don't believe they're defined by race or sex at all

And looking at some issues through the lens of being sex and race related, e.g. aiding minority presence in higher education through affirmative action, is ridiculous

Yes, each sex faces unique issues

Yes, there can be racial health problems that are genetic or cultural issues generally belonging to people of a certain racial identity

But at the end of the day I believe many people assume too much on those parts

Yes, some people suffer antisemitism, but that doesn't mean the word of a Jew matters more than any person of another faith

I believe people are equal, but unique

In that they are in unique positions but hold equal value *as people*

To the postmodernist, reality is subjective, so they can disregard you as unreasonable if you refuse to acknowledge your privilege, as it supposedly traps you in a bubble reality divorced from real world problems

It's pretty sad

This tweet has been showing up in my feed, this is what you're dealing with if you try to argue facts about who is actually privileged https://twitter.com/getfiscal/status/1041740358214995968

So many buzzwords, so smooth a brain

ive done that before but i was a tween and maybe could be forgiven for abusing the english language

i knew it was wrong when i was doing it but it felt fub

@Vigil
'each sex '

They act every day as if minorities are inferior to them anyway

even if they claim to be the most self loathing people

the worst part is that blacks and other minorities have bought into the sham

so if a republican wants to cut welfare benefits, those minorities screech about muh racism

when its actually those same policies that are racist, because it's based off of the assumption that minorities are too incapable to get ahead on their own

when you break it down, welfare is actually just straight up racist

Would you ever debate Michael from the majority report by any chance or Jamal Thomas from Progressive Soap Box? @Timcast

https://youtu.be/BgwGVboi-LQ

[NOT SUPPORTING SUPREME PATRIARCHY ECONOMICS]

BLASPHEMY!!

"Patriarchy economics" would be to just end ALL programs to "help" women (or men) into any field at all. No more special scholarships or any affirmative action or anything else, in school or in work. Most of the rest will take care of itself in short order.

So patriarchy is against crippling student debt?

MAX! Is that...HATE SPEECH?! Have you not been told that opposing affirmative action is a MICROAGGRESSION?

*unless you're Asian

Asians are white, didn't you hear? And if they aren't white, they're being ruthlessly exploited by the forces of white supremacy to reinforce white supremacy.

*This is what social justice warriors and university administrators *actually* believe.

They supported them in the lawsuit tho is my point

https://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/kimonowednesday_02.jpg

Actual Japanese women reacting to "cultural appropriation" of the kimono. They just wanted to enjoy the art exhibit.

Kek

kfa boston?

<https://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/kimonowednesday_04.jpg> rofl

Wew

Baizuo

the uber story tim did went right to my feels bone

i wish people would understand driving not as something of legality and strict laws, but of practical ability

driving is going away, we are probably 25-30 years off all-AI driving it will happen eventually and at that point it won't be something that can be studied, but that isn't long, and it says a lot about how men and women are fine tuned. I don't think either is bad, but its hard to even give that perspective because even when its a net negative to productivity and commerce people want to presume caution, **not** care or diligence, is the only virtue

which in short is something i find is a huge difference between men and women, how they will perform their jobs and how they are naturally inclined to act.

I'd like some rationalization that both have a point, i got raised being told i was wrong for liking exploring and refining my ability at risk of greater danger (but also at benefit of greater acumen), but even if not in regards to driving (although i think clearly it can be useful there, as this shows) that is a useful trait, people need both not just one for different sectors

All AI driving will have a rough time because it means you cannot travel anywhere using cars or some form of transit without a company, and therefore government, knowing your exact GPS coordinates.

Not to mention the number of Exploits possible thourgh that

Imagine assassinating someone by fucking with their driver AI

or kill someone in a hit and run and blame it on a glitch

It not going to be as easy as hackin one car. There is going to be a network, each car will be talking to all others in a x-radius. Telemetry will be kept by all these cars on all other cars in the local network and decisions will be made as a collective with the ability to overwrite a glitch in one. I'm not saying it's not going to happen but it will be much hard in 20 years when the whole network is automated than it would be now with self driving cars having back doors built in.

@Atkins I must say, among all the ethnicities that could care about white people appropriating their culture, the Japanese are plausibly the least likely.

I like the aspects of car-to-car hailing far more than AI driven cars.

Why couldn't we go down that route instead?

Also, AI-assisted driving I'm semi-fine with as well

As well as technology that can take a driver off the road safely in the event of incapacitation

@Stefan Payne you dropped an article link <#463054787336732683> chat about a death-by-knife. Since german is not my first language. Can you confirm my interpretation.
“A person vocal about immigration issue was found dead in the street in a pool of blood. The forensic investigation ruled it an suicide.”
It seems odd to me that a person would commit suicide with a knife in public.
Also where is the knife in question?

Seth Rich ruled suicide

@4AM_critter 🐉 if I recall, it was ruled a suicide via multiple stab wounds which is fishy.

Is selfishness good, bad, or nuanced?

Focused it can be a good thing for society

Nuanced. Everyone needs some amount of selfishness, and selfishness can also lead to great progress, but the downsides of selfishness are self-evident

EG Convincing a rich SOB that donating a lot of money to a charity gets them in the lime light

Or someone creating some great invention that improves society because they know they'll be famous/rich

Can I get an example where selfishness is bad?

Person A doesn't help others because they want all the money for themselves and not share

How is that bad?

It provides motive for others to be productive members of society

Person B needs a few bucks for food after getting layed off and is looking for work, misses the bus for the job interview and doesn't get the job

I get the empathy. But the couple bucks in this situation doesn't address why person B had all these bad things happen to them.

Selfishness harms others. If everyone is selfish it's going to harm you. Selfishness can be great in the short term for the individual, but if too many people are selfish society weakens.

Are you familiar with the tragedy of the commons?

Go on, I am unfamiliar in how you can say beyond a doubt that it harms.

Well if people take selfishness to its logical extreme, then there's no way to preserve personal liberty, as sooner or later you're goign to be motivated to infringe on others liberties based on your own wnats

This is why we have laws

Well laws can also be perverted to serve the needs of the most powerful selfish people.

Are you being purposefully obtuse on not understanding why selfishness can be bad in order to make an argument, or do you really not believe that it can be bad?

Perverting the laws is a selfish act. So I get that point.

@Schedrevka I see multiple lines of thinking. And am currently exploring the idea of whether it is logical to be 100% selfish.

It is never logical to take a 100% approach, the reason is that not all situations can be helped by one responce

How do you determine 100% selfishness? Is helping an old lady across the street selfish if you think it might improve your standing with an onlooker?

Yeah you want a "critical mass" where people are motivated to great ambitions that they might not be in a 100% egalitarian society

I agree, but by examining the 100% approach and seeing its flaws. We can use that as a basis to help find an optimum %

But not to the point whre the weak have no personal liberty

@Schedrevka if this is your goals this would be a selfish act

I don't believe there is an optimum %. It's always going to be contextual. Society is a chaotic system. And society changes, and what works in one culture won't work in another.

Ok, by examining its flaws we can methodically and consciously understand where selflessness is required for the greater benefit

I don't think we can quantify that sort of thing. It's far too complicated. And what would the end goal be? Writing a rule book and hoping people follow it?

There's a lot of criticism already to study on where the principles of Kant, Betham, Mill, etc break down.

I think it would be perfectly selfish to empower a government that reduced/eliminated the risk of individuals or groups perverting the laws for their own selfish behavior

Yes, it would be selfish to force others to forgo their own selfishness.

It would also be oppressive.

On an individual basis. Determining this for myself will let me know I am acting in both my and societies best interests

I think rather than trying to assign selfishness values to each action you should instead consider how your actions align with the principles you hold most dear, and how they will affect the world

How would preventing individuals and groups from changing law to suit benefit only their group be oppressive?

I suppose there's different kinds of selfishness. Like "I want to have lots of sex because it makes me feel good, regardless of the consequences," vs "I want my name to be in history books because of my contributions to western civilization."

Sorry, I misread that part.

True, everyone has motivation. Many selfless acts are invariably motivated by selfish desires.

But by contrast there are those that act selfessly out of selfless desires, EG the anual gold coin brigade. Persons unknown slip $50 or $100 dollar gold coins into Salvation Army kettles each year to the tune of thousands of dollars and are know only to god.

Are acts done to make yourself feel good really selfless though?

Hmm yes

In the end does it matter when the result is the same?

I think the act itself is selfless but the motivation can only be selfish

When I offer to make my Mom a cup of tea it doesn't make me feel good, and I'm not thinking about how she may reward me. In my head I'm going "ugghhh I don't want to do this". But I do it anyway because I know how much she's done for me and it's the right thing to do.

Many people do have selfish motivations, but not all. And even if they do I don't see that as such a bad thing when it results in good for others.

Not really, it satifies nothing for the people who are part of the gold coin brigade. It cost them money and they get nothing in return, no praise, no validation, no thank yous,

So acts done due because of social obligations are selflessly motivated. Hmm

@Khanclansith I think you underestimate the personal value.

If someone saves a man's life because he wants to get on TV I don't think that will really matter 100 years from now when that saved man's grandchildren are going to college, and the savior is dead with no one knowing his motivations. It'll be lost to time, but the impact of his good deed won't.

Yeah

Selfish deeds can and very often are good deeds.

Does it matter if the people who built Rome were selfish?

Buying a porsche is a good deed for all the people who supported making and distributing it.

The same thing can be said about Greed. the foundation of applied Capitalism is socialy constructive Greed. "I See, I want, I work, I save, I buy, I have."

I agree

I suppose you have to look at individual acts to see if they are in and of themselves petty, destructive, and/or deny others personal liberty

Marxist theory states that people should elimate Greed as one of the things needed to make a Utopia, but it can be a motivating factor that helps all society.

NPCs can't stop being greedy

How did Marx propose eliminating greed from the lumpenproles?

Haha marxist video game where all the items are given to you but then you are destroyed when you decline giving things to others

The only good games that came out of Marxist countries were puzzle games.

Tetris being the best known one

Hey, what about Pyongyang Racer?

Cheep rip off of Crazy Taxi.

There is a trend I notice, people confuse, Rare or Unavalible with Good. EG the US Shooter communities group think that Norinco carbines are great (Banned in the US) vs the Canadian's views, (good-ish for the cheep price!)

From what I've read the only good product Norinco makes is M1A receivers. One of them plus a M14 parts kit can apparently make a solid rifle.

But yeah, it's definitely a recognizable phenomenon. I think they're called Veblen goods.

Yeah, Norinco makes M1-7.62x39, and it has some flaws, but it is desired in the US because Norinco is banned in the US

Some people like em here because there's a series that, when they wear down, can doublefire

Which is super illegal but hard to detect normally, and hard to prove intent

Night all.

'Later

Are there any games that work in a Marxist way?

Maybe Pokemon with exp. share?

Tetris

Can someone answer me this question. Why do people think that the Jews are behind the attacks on white people and western culture? Why think that the Jews are the ones poring muslims into the EU?

A combination of paranoia and envy? Jewish culture promotes values which tend to lead to personal success and therefore Jewish people tend to end up in high places. Doctors, lawyers, professors, scientists, CEOs, etc. Instead of trying to understand the cultural reasons behind their attainment, some people just assume that there's some sort of conspiracy behind it.

Look at the Bar Mitzvah for example. That's the 'coming of age' ritual for men in Judaism. A lot of cultures with male 'coming of age' rituals focus on some physical ability. Jews read from a book and do public speaking.

In order to become a man they must demonstrate both literacy and the ability to speak publicly in front of their peers and elders. They have to prepare for that ahead of time in order to not look like fools. So that gives some idea of what Jewish culture emphasizes.

Another way to look at it is how many famous Jewish athletes do you know?

Thank you.

Now it's true that there were a lot of Jewish academics that participated in early socialist movements, but that's because a) there were a lot of Jewish academics and b) academics have always been overwhelmingly left leaning.

I don't know. Jews are as white as it comes. Outside a couple odd holidays and traditions, it's almost impossible to distinguish a jew from anyone else. Ben Shapiro is Jewish. And Israel is practically a western nation with some weird idiosyncrasies. It is a difficult argument to make when the most Jewish nation is also the most locally western.

The left's issues (think Corbyn) with Jews makes sense and they are dead serious about the whole thing. You'd figure people would figure it all out and decide "the enemy of my enemy" but somehow everyone misses these things.

I think it's because the societal elite are disproportionately Jewish (though not so overwhelmingly they would actually control everything) and populists tend to blame the elites. Or the alt-right are being edgy with their Hitler worship and taking on the anti-jew elements. The alt-right does have a weird thing with traditional western culture, which wasn't too fond of Jews. It could be any number of these.

My guess is that it's 70% edge, 29.999% anti-establishment and 0.001% actual anti-semitism. Honestly, It never really made any sense to me. I do see where people believe the cultural establishment in the west dislikes traditional western culture (honestly, that much is probably true). Actually, the Jew hate it's very counter-productive. It becomes hard to point out how incestuous and closed the media is without people making nonsensical allegations you're some kind of closet anti-Semite (as happened to Elon Musk).

What do you mean by 'You'd figure people would figure it all out and decide "the enemy of my enemy" but somehow everyone misses these things.'?

I assume the alt-right is against people like Corbyn (this might actually be incorrect--according to the Nation, Richard Spencer has gone full communist lately). I also assume that the alt-right isn't too fond of Radical Islamists.

Jews aren't liked by either too much. You would figure the alt-right would want to protect the people they are mutually against.

But that clearly never happened.

ah, thanks. I get you now.

Also Jewish people do tend to stick together, and as many consider being jewish to be their identity it can lead to a certain amount of camaradarie which can lead to nepotism. Also by sticking together others view that as them choosing to be an "other" which means it's not too surprising(though not excusable) that some would consider this to be 'conspiring'.

I think if history went a little bit differently we'd see a ton of Asian conspiracy theories.

There's still time.

Asians are a much larger group.

There's clearly Asians who don't do as well. But again, most Jews don't distinguish well, so the ones who aren't doing well stick out too.

Much harder to make conspiracies about them controlling things.

That's a good point

On the other hand, whites are a rather big group and Social Justice is basically a giant conspiracy theory about whites (still) conspiring keeping everyone else down

Asian is not both a religious group and an ethnicity

Unlike Jewish

I'm not sure that's really that important.

I mean, the masons are a conspiracy theory and they aren't either.

I think the attachment of a religion does make a difference

I agree with this. You can choose not to believe in something. If you are going to say the Asians are at it, it's a purely racist remark. With Jews you've got an ideology to point at too.

Exactly

In fact, I think everything is pointed at the ideology, and the ethnicity is a scapegoat for why someone they dislike is part of it or why they don't watch with an accusation.

But what is Jewish ideology and how is it that different than western ideology?

That doesn't matter when you don't like someone.

There is more of focus on putting other members of the ideology above other people I believe

Also they are something different, so if you encounter the "holier than thou" types, you can blame the difference in ideology as them just being smug

Cheers guys. Time for some sleep. Have a good night.

But then, Grenade, you could make the same argument about ethnic groups that tend to self-select too.

Which contradicts the religiousness is the key element.

Have there been any studies to date that show what percentage of iq/ability is due to culture and what is due to "scientific racism"?