“Antifa da worst!!!”

@Weez Yeah, firebombing an ICE facility is hella bad

Violently-Assaulting people is also hella bad

@Boop / 브파 / C'thUwU Actually, there was a study done **fairly** recently (within the last 6 months IIRC) that showed that the Democrat and Republican parties are further Left and Right (respectively) than the majority of European parties

AFAIK, the Democratic Party was fairly close to LABOUR

The democratic party has been leaning massively to the left, while the republicans have been mostly staying the same, with a little bit of shift toward the center and right.

@SPOOKY Phil, Ruler of Heck well no shit Europe has no values or principles

The conservatives in Britain are still lefties

Same everywhere else

My litmus test for a free country is how easily and legally one can one weapons.

From knives to nukes

You could say that somila is the most free country in the world.

Because it doesn't or did not have a government

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html

Us is pretty free but not free enough

>LibDems are comparable to Democrats

LMAO

Britain has less freedom than russia

My litmus test works

LOOK HOW MUCH THE DEMOCRAT PARTY HAS GONE TO THE LEFT

The world as a whole has gone that far to the left. Republicans is one of the few parties resisting it.

>When being a Christian pushes your party farther to the right

>Free Enterprise is Right-Wing

you mean farther towards God? 😏

If Constitutionality is right wing then we need to gas the left unironicly. Civil War is good at that point.

@Tonight at 11 - DOOM
>saying that you want help from God means you're Right-Wing

>being Pro-Constitution means you're Right-Wing

>committing yourself to American ideals is Right-Wing

@SPOOKY Phil, Ruler of Heck it's called being a constitutionalist dumbass

I would know

I am one

Commiting yourself to American ideals is pretty soy, ngl

Committing to ideals is pretty soy

So I guess kill yourself or be soy

Or be a faggot

One of the two

nah, the problem is not comiting yourself to ideas, the problem is this particular set of *soy* ideas.

And pray tell what is a non soy set of ideas?

I mean I'm mostly meming to get an angry Mutt reaction, but I do object to the idea of rights being inherent to persons. Less on the grounds of it being 'soy' and more on the grounds of it being a fallacious description of the human condition.

Do you mean practically or philosophically?

If philosophy does not work in practice it is worthless

so both

The founders mean that over history people have rights that they have to have or they Rebel.

Without an effective dictatorship

I don;t care what you think your mythical founders thought, pls tell me what u think.

this lady 👌

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFum-SxmMTI&list=PLMNj_r5bccUwL7KLNrz7dJyYJLx5sTzs0&index=7

Meh moly

I think that you must have certain rights or you have no rights

For example

A right to a weapon means a right to self defense means a right to life.

rights arent rights if they can just be taken away

@Boop / 브파 / C'thUwU not true

That would be inherent rights

Most rights can be taken away

then they arent rights

theyre privilages

a right is something that cant be taken away

Ever hear of civil rights? Not civil privileges.

the fundamental thing of civil rights is that people are created equal

In a day and age with slavery

Rights not privileges

slaves didnt have rights taken away

they gained them

thats different

Equal?

Was every person a slave?

How can you gain rights?

If you cannot lose them?

its a good question

i dont have the words to exactly answer that

i still think it is different, maybe to do with natural right vs law given rights

but i cant at the moment formulate the right words so you got me there

Slaves weren't considered people, thus didn't have a person's rights.

But they became people

Did they not?

depends if you still vote for the Dems in 2020

KEK

sorry, derailing

I really don;t see how a right to life could ever be conceived of as inherent. Life is not something you just get by default. You are an organism with very specific requirements... It's just not *accurate* to say you just *have* that right.

Then there are no rights

At all

cool

so we got over that hurdle

^^

think defining what a Right is would be good here

This is Thomas Paine type shit.

I think all animals possess the instinct and right to seek their own self preservation. Which is to say you would not fault a goat for fleeing a wolf; Nor a ram for fighting one.

On the other hand, i might actually be inclined to agree that no one has a right to life, in so far as their existence needs must rely on the alienation of the labor of others.

Just because you wish to live does not make theft legal, in simple terms.

my biggest gripe is with freedom specifically

it;s a massive undertaking to make yourself *vaguely* free in any meaningful sense

but stealing is depriving others of their rights to their own labour/ their possessions they bought with that labour

saying you are inherently free is nonsensical to the extreme

meanwhile, alternatives are available

You cannot argue for the existence of a right to existence while trying to make claims to the efforts of others without a mutual exchange of goods or labor, or the currency which represents it.

a baby is not free
it;s not even able to get to the concept of freedom on its own

i think that with the fact people dont starve and dehydrate if they arent trying to do those things

is enough of a supplies Right to life

anything more than that would be depriving others of rights

when it comes to medicine, you just go in debt for it, which doesnt necessarily conflict with a right to life

but because self sustaining needs are supplied for to maintain Life, you now have to deal with Liberty

thus defined a right to life is something fucking peasants had, at least formally, in the middle ages

lol

one of the stipulations of which is that you cant steal

because its the taking of other's liberty

no random killing o ppl for no reason is not exactly an innovative, Liberal concept...

to own things

I mean peasants often did just get sort of killed in the street for now bowing low enough.

not*

eh, not rly

das far too much of a cliche

apparently thats still the case but with wokeness

sometimes they did

but it was always seen as an outrage

at least in Chritsianland

there were fucking RIOTS over a student getting killed by police under Louis IX of France

Luois *IX*

XIIIth century

it caused international outrage

Outside of the confines of a social hierarchy, a human being knows no master; They speak as they see fit, defend themselves as they see fit, and conduct themselves as they see fit. From that state, 'Natural Rights' spring forth. You needs must be free to protect yourself and speak your mind, else you are little more than a serf.

Where the others come from is an agreed upon selection of codified Legal Rights, as determined by the precise nature of the social contract that people form together.

From that state, 'Natural Rights' spring forth.
what does that mean?

what does 'spring up' form that state?

also: what the fuck is outside of social hierarchy?

like actually?

When stripped of the presence of other human beings, there is no external force to forcibly silence you or strip from your means of self-defense short of violent death at the hands of a local predator. There is no beam of magic light that smites you when you say a naughty word; No fines for killing that bobcat with a boulder.

perhaps conceptually

ok, but that is just gay abstraction

but thats a different story all together

with little to no incidence on everyday life

Everyday life now is very much removed from man's original state, you know.

and I don see how it makes your rights inherent

man's original state is nothing like the ppl who wrote that shit thought, you know?

they were Rousseauian noble savage kinds

yet so similar

that was 'in' at the time

and we pretty much know that that is bullshit

men never lived alone

ever

we're pack animals

with psychologies evolved to be like that

society is not second to human nature, they are one and the same

We are by our very natures lonely, social creatures, yes. Socializing and society are not one in the same I would argue, however. I've never seen a gorilla tax another gorilla.

the nature has changed

we still go out into the wilderness, and chase after food

I mean gorillas are not humans, so sure

I'm not saying they are

its just the wilderness is an office cube, and you get something you trade in for snackies

I'm saying this 'what human is in abstraction ofrom society' mode of thinking is inherently flawed

and the ladies like it when you have more snackies than the chimp next door

because ther eis no such thin as a human outside of society

at least not outside of weird fringe cases

that probably end in mental illness

Plenty of people keep trying to escape society, at least. Not that I can fault them for it.

society at large is like a troupe

like with lions, the male ones sometimes think the society is shit

and make their own

stalk the edges of other socieities, and try to sneak in some humpa humpa

but since societies are so big now

its not wonder globalism is being resisted how it is

imagine not being able to go anywhere different

like if i moved to the US, id have to choose one that has laws i agree with, and also has the temperature and weather how i like it

one state*

I'm happy to live in a place with a culture I enjoy, within the US.

id enjoy my culture if it wasnt apparently satanic to do so

Scandinavian?

UK

Close, in the eyes of the usual suspects.

anytime an american says they live in a facsist state im like please dont insult me

Having an appreciation for the culture that spawned you and your own national heritage is apparently a very great deal of buzzwords.

REEEEE SUPREMACY

REEEEE EVIL

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/mark-hecht-ethnic-diversity-harms-a-countrys-social-trust-economic-well-being-argues-professor

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/mark-hecht-vancouver-sun-op-ed-1.5274962

https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/d0yaah/mark_hecht_ethnic_diversity_harms_a_countrys/

the only answer is diversity training for the entire population!

we must instill the ignorant with the correct perspectives on outgroups

In my opinion it was a shit article, but not even an iota as racist as it's made out to be. Just thick headed.
- Reddit User

It isn’t censorship when it’s hate speech. It’s following the rules of the Canadian charter of rights. People can’t just spew what they want in Canada. Thankfully, we don’t really want to go down that rabbit hole do we?
- Reddit User

Censorship is when the state gets involved and decides what can and cannot be published. Unless I missed something, I don't think that word means what you think it means.
- Reddit User

Folks who are saying "what, you can't tolerate dissenting viewpoints"/complaining it got removed: the editor in chief of the goddamn paper admitted on Twitter last night that he hadn't read the piece before it was published and that he made a huge mistake. This wasn't removed due to pressure or "censorship" or any of those populist drivel insinuations, it was removed because it was a shitty op-ed with lax standards and zero credibility.

The guy isn't a professor. He doesn't have a lick of expertise in foreign policy or immigration reform. His place is in letters to the editor, not an op-ed in a paper with a six figure circulation.
- Reddit User

When common sense becomes inflammatory taboo breaking you may have a problem on your hands.^^

But but but it's not censorship! The newspaper took the paper down itself!

I rly don care weather it's censorship or not

The the the article didn't met journalistic standards you racist!!! - Leftie

It's about the taboo being toxic

All societies have taboos because you cannot reasonably expect public ideology to have all the answers all of the time

But some taboos are worse then others

If your taboo is so blatantly toxic like this one

Your public ideology might need changing, is all I'm saying

Let me get this straight, the idea of a "good" immigrant according to Hecht is one who is completely whitewashed into Canadian society? Leave behind your past, your cultural identity, everything that was who you were before moving to Canada?

And what is Canadian anyway? British? French? Christian? Catholic? Loggers? Oil diggers? Someone please tell me what is expected of an immigrant in Canada.

Let me share my story. I am an Asian man, born and raised in Canada. I barely speak Chinese, and I can't read or write it. I've never even been to China or anywhere in Asia before. My parents immigrated here in the 60's and due to personal private reasons, my mom was never able to learn English, but my dad did. He integrated into society like a good citizen.

Here I am, more Canadian than Asian. I can barely converse with my own mother. Never been to Asia. But because of my Asian appearance, I STILL fucking experience racism. Granted not as much as a new immigrant, but still.

I am Canadian. I live and breathe and bleed Canada. I am living proof that immigration works according to Hecht's lofty standards, but I will never be accepted. The fact that he wrote this opinion letter is proof that he has discounted me and others like me in Canada.

Just to note though, I have lived up to it, but I don't agree with his immigration ideals. I think diversity is good, and Canada has a responsibility to adopt to immigrant cultures as much as immigrants should adopt to Canada. It's symbiosis, not assimilation.
- Reddit User

How did that racist garbage article get published? Ethnic diversity is like eye colour diversity, something that has no effect on societal cohesion and everyone that's not racist should know that. As far as immigration goes, every study I've seen indicates that the intake levels are manageable at 1% from our population, and we are currently doing that. Integration is successful for the most part ; as long as we insist on instilling (or alternatively screening for) social liberal values in newcomers and ensuring that these are solidified into the general population, there should be no major long term problems. Authors like this one are generalizing on the few bad examples they can find and using that to justify prophecies of future social apocalypse as well as excuses to stop immigration & respect for diversity in Canada. They are quite transparently pushing for their version of an homogenous ethno state. I see this article has now rightly been pulled out, but it never should have appeared in the first place. Not the first time that the Sun has had writers push for xenophobic narratives and it's shameful that they're really called out for it.

- Reddit User

@Aleeacerix the Gaul(Velissarios) wot

@Jack of Trades Reddit responses to this

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/mark-hecht-ethnic-diversity-harms-a-countrys-social-trust-economic-well-being-argues-professor

Imagine living in a world where all the rules were decided by reddit.

It would be an authoritarian nightmare

@HurtChain I can't imagine it

Because I'd just blow my brains out

It is absolutely correct that mass immigration causes distrust

Controlled immigration however does not, it can in fact strengthen trust if done right.

^

My experiences with immigrant kids were very mixed. There were a few who were damn awesome, one who I absolutely despised, and the rest I hardly noticed that they were from an immigrant family.
My experiences with non-immigrant kids were overall very much the same. Some cool kids, one or two assholes, the rest whatever.

There's a reason for this: they were being integrated properly, and we were being taught to treat them just like everyone else.

One of the boys in my class got bullied for being odd. Over time we accepted him and became good friends and I would absolutely say this strengthened the bond of our whole class.

I was beaten when I was very young by a trio of brothers who's family happened to be here illegally

their citizenship was only discovered after my parents could finally get the police to intervene

In a couple of weeks, that professor will likely lose his credentials for speaking an obvious truth every conflict theorist is aware of, but decidedly buries it.
And likewise, @ETBrooD. My worst experiences were with the blacks, however, and they're the majority in the inner-city public schools, at least in the South. We didn't have any issues with immigrants, though, but that's due to their remaining a minority, so their social influence wasn't enough that it'd conflict with the majority group or others. As you know, the mainstream social norms and values that're reinforced among what's normalized as "black culture," in America, are rather insidious and counter to economic and social wellbeing.

I got abused by non-immigrant kids more than immigrant kids, probably because we have way more non-immigrants overall, so it's roughly proportional.
Some of my best friends are from immigrant families. I have absolutely nothing against immigrants, that's not the issue.

It's harder to understand that when a few kids from a minority group beat you up that this is not neccessarily a trend within the whole group. Because you don't get to meet so many people of those groups.

You learn to see nuance by meeting good and bad people within a group to realize that it's not the group that causes it. But for that you need to actually get that chance.

The native population is far larger, so you will inevitably see good and bad people in there. Your perception will be corrected.

oh I assumed nothing, as far as I was concerned they were just cunts, I didn't really comprehend race at that age

I did, it was very visible

Race was such an obvious factor to me that I thought it had to have something to do with it

just didn't ocurr to me whatsoever

Mhmm.

until out of frustration and lack of anything else to say, I used it .

as an ad hom agains

t ..anoh

.03

.456+

fucks sake cat

pardon me

ahem

I got bullied and beat up by the one particular group more than any other

Turks

This is not a coincidence, we had a huge problem with Turkish kids in Vienna, especially in the parks

They just hung around and caused trouble being unattended

as I was saying, I didn't really understand race until, for lack of any significant ad homs to fling at a particularly cunty brat schoolmate, I simply mentioned their skin color in a derogatory fashion

As you should, if your brain doesn't pick up on racial differences then you're less safe

It would be a weakness on your part

People who say they don't see race are either lying or weak

ok ethnofag

I'm not an ethnofag you idiot

Did you already forget what I wrote earlier?

literally ethnocentric rhetoric outta your ass

Re-read what I wrote realier

I'm reading what you're writing now

You're selectively picking my most recent statements and ignoring the context of everything I say

That's what the typical leftist does

Are you a leftard?

Are you a useful progressivist idiot?

bull shit, kiddo. I gave an anecdote of where race simply didn't ocurr to me when dealing with a cunty child, and you're saying it should have

Yeah, it should, because if you don't profile racially instinctively, then your defense mechanism doesn't properly work

It is perfectly normal to pick up on these differences

ok ethnofag

This is instinct

It is evolutionary

"seeing differences is racism"