#piraeus_politics_news (Discord ID: 613769782461857813) in Athens, page 50
Security Advisory: Links in messages may lead to maliciously operated websites that could track your IP address and reveal your identity, or they may contain harmful files. The DiscordLeaks team does not check links and cannot make any statements about the safety of following these links.
Some ways to protect yourself are:
- Do not open files downloaded from links, and do not run any programs that try to download themselves to your computer.
- Use anonymization measures such as Tor Browser or a VPN.
If you are using the Privacy Badger or other privacy extensions, you may need to whitelist Discord and related domains in order for the images to load.
You're such a progressivist
seeing differences isn't the same as just deciding cunt child is a cunt because of their race
I didn't say that
you literally fuucking did
No I did not
No, there are variations in how different groups behave, based on what behaviors are normalized and reinforced among the groups. Here in the U.S., for example, we have the issue of black kids being bullied by their peers (fellow blacks) for participation at school, which is obviously counter to logic as they'll have less economic mobility by proliferating such norms throughout their culture by associating it with their music, films, etc.
you're saying cunt child's race should have ocurred to me when dealing with it.
Many groups will also rebel against the predominant norms associated with the majority group, even if it harms their own interests. It's a very common behavior.
A) noticing that a cunt is of a certain race
B) noticing that a race does cunt things
See the difference?
You say I did B, but I did not
I did A
then why should specific attention be paid to their race when the more important detail is they're being a cunt
People's brains instinctively pick up on it
Because those behaviors are reinforced among peers.
not an answer
But that is all I said
why should I have taken cunt's race into account
I only said it's normal to pick up on these differences
you said I should have taken it into account
I said you should've noticed it
Because it's normal to notice it
you're such a fucking weasel
This a phenomenon in psychology
It is the greatest contributing factor to how an identity group behaves, as people within the group have greater influence on one another than those perceived to be on the outside. Ascribed status, such as race and gender top the hierarchy in this regard.
For example, my dad used to beat me. As time progressed, I learned to fear men who had similar looks as him. From his facial features to the way he dressed to details in his mannerisms.
If I noticed similar things, I avoided those men
As you should.
versus a single cunty classmate
Kids can't make the distinction that these things don't mean anything *neccessarily*
in fucking grade school
So they broadly profile people just to be safe
This is a perfectly normal thing to do
Everyone does it.
no, according to you its the comparatively "strong" thing to do
Yes, as I just explained. You can't protect yourself from something that you can't notice.
protect myself from a whinging little shit kid classmate?
oh perish the thought
The conclusion may be different. Maybe you respond only to that one bully, but maybe you also look for patterns.
My brain looked for obvious patterns, for example in the case of my dad.
wasn't even a bully, he just wouldn't shut the fuck up and leave me alone
That's not the biggest deal then
Oregon schools didn't really have bullies, they had ratty little provacative shits who just drew you out into faculty's line of sight so suddenly you're the bad guy
Would anyone here avoid a 20-man sized group toting ISIS flags?
Wouldn't even think twice
I'd pick up my AR and start shooting.
depends if I was armed
It's an extreme example, but that's based on what you know of them.
So, that's a form of discrimination, is it not?
ISIS is an ideology. anyone could be under that flag.
brood's whinging about race and shit
Fair enough, but we all know who it is most strongly associated with, the pattern so to speak.
except the argument against similar race baiters on the left is that Islam isn't a race
I'm not whinging about race you fool
sound pretty fuckin whingey
And, you are still basing your decision upon material observations, however.
I specifically mentioned that my experiences with race were unimportant, I said non-immigrant kids were about the same
However, there are differences when immigration is not controlled properly
As was the case with Turks in Vienna
so then why the fuck should my experiences suddenly merit attention to the race of my opponents?
if race was so fucking unimportant in your case why the fuck does it have to be important in mine?
are you drunk?!
The less mature the brain is, the more important it is that we pick up on obvious objective features and other information like behavioral patterns etc.
Kids need to protect themselves by picking up on outward features, so they like or dislike, trust or distrust people due to simple things
Because, if it is a behavior that is normalized and reinforced as a value among the group, race inextricably becomes the way to resolve the problem, as it is then a social cancer to the group that can only be addressed by socializing them with peers and propaganda rejecting the behaviors. You'd have to use people from their own group to do it.
so I need to distrust black people because one was an obnoxious cunt in grade school?!
In some cases this will result in them seeing race as a problem, and we can only correct that if we expose them to the broader group
fucks sake, you are drunk
No I never said we need to distrust a race you sophist
You're lying out of your ass as usual
I'm indifferent towards race
your own fucking words, dude
Where does it say "race bad"
you literally said kids need to learn to distrust over this shit
I did not
That doesn't support your argument
If anything, I'm the one defending race as something you should recognize, because it can be leveraged to resolve problems among the groups by encouraging positive cultural icons of their group to influence them into conformity to the norms and values of the majority.
your own words suddenly don't count as evidence? holy fuck, sober up in the morning and try again, dude
Point me to the quote where I say people of a certain race are bad
you said kids need to learn distrust over "simple things" and was referring to outward characteristics such as race
No I did not
motherfucker I can only post your own quote so many fucking times
You can keep posting it, you're still wrong
The quote says something different, you lack the comprehension skills to get that apparently
Or you just don't WANT to comprehend
Or you lack comprehension of the english fucking language
Or you're just wrong, as usual
this is why pols need to be resegregated, tbh
Yeah lets segregate it from you
You always misintepret my words
lets recap, because the weasel thinks its cute
I told an anecdote where a child was a cunt
and happened to be a different race
and how it was unimportant
you fucking decide race is important
A) Noticing race is normal
B) Race is important
your very next fucking post
You're still wrong
getting real tired of being your fucking sternographer, cunt
That quote does not prove your point
Anecdotes are not reflective of statistical accuracy, Joker... You know this.
I know, yes
Never said it wasn't so
Or were you talking to Jokerfaic?
I also know I'm not "less safe" for not having automatically assumed a shit classmate was shit because he fucking looked different
What would be the more accurate view would be to identify what behaviors not fit for a civilized society are most predominantly associated with a specific group, then use positive cultural icons to reinforce alternative behaviors that are.
I said specifically
If you do not pick up on outward appearances and stuff like that, you're less safe
The brain does this automatically
But, this extends into a much larger debate to be had.
Whether or not we desire cultural reforms and such.
I'm not condoning racism, I'm explaining it
And I know a solution for it
I think everyone is just too paranoid we're going to declare a final solution, rather than have a reasonable dialogue that doesn't require genocide.
phrasing it as "safe" or "unsafe" or "weak" and shit is a good way to make your ideology sound fucking combative
I doubt that
So, race altogether is avoided as a result.
I never phrased "lack of racism" as a weakness
That's you misinterpreting what I say
Well, ET, that's the historical trend of recognizing racial differences, rather than reforming the culture associated with the race. Thus, you have a fear of discussing race with clear eyes.
I have a fear of people who discuss race, because they like to misintrepret what I say
discussion about race and objective observations between racial divides can be had without making it sound like a fucking conflict
I believe racism can be solved by simply bringing people together, so they learn from direct and personal experiences that the larger group of whatever race they're afraid of is actually benevolent, just as any other racial group
Because just as much as we pick up on outward appearance in a fight or flight situation, we also pick up on it in a safe environment
How does that sound to you now Jokerfaic? Change your mind about how racist I appear to you? Because I hope it does, and I hope you remember that next time we talk.
That is true, but you have the issue of minority groups also becoming hegemonic in some ways, directing popular culture. Take pop and rap culture in America, for example. Sometimes it doesn't always work out that way, especially if you don't take steps to fill the vacuum beforehand.
then where does the "lying or weak" denomination come in?
Yeah it doesn't always work, that's fine
I was honest earlier, and now I'm lying, well fuck you
Does not prove your point
I'm asking you a direct question you whinging bitch
You did several times, and I said you're wrong several times
You always do this, pick selective quotes that prove nothing, because you either take them out of context, or you invent a new context
You LOVE doing this
It's your thing
"People who say they don't see race are **lying or weak**"
I'm asking where that fits in your plan of comingling and understanding
Ok, very simple
yes, my questions often are
Do you see an obvious skin color difference between these two people?
I observe they are of different skin tones and racial backgrounds, yes, point?
Is one of them white, and one is black? Is that correct?
So you see race, ok
How does that prove that you're a racist?
Are you a racist because you see those differences?
so the difficulty arises from the individual's meaning behind the assertion os *seeing* race,
Tell me if this makes you racist
The fact that you're noticing this
which frankly is the onus of the individudal making the assertion
You know there's a study showing all races experience adrenaline rush/fight or flight responses when they see a member of another race? I believe this was aired on Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman, if my memory serves me just.
You clearly see race
Are you a racist because you see race?
You know what I see in that photo?
The black man is always trying to differentiate himself from the white man by wearing a funky ass suit.
That's just a common behavior I see among blacks, which is a byproduct of their non-conformity.
Am I racist?
I asked Joker, not you
C'mon, I'm trying to throw some humor into it.
Ok sry <:sargonfingerguns:568463117856669696>
I'm angry that this Joker guy is trying to paint me as a racist because he can't distinguish between seeing race and being a racist
So I'm trying to prove to him that noticing race is not racist
It's a subtle truth I laid out that examples their non-conformity.
the difficulty in communication seems to be what an individual is meaning to convey when they say they do or don't *see* something. I communicate it in a willingness to convey I don't put contextual wieght on it, you communicate it to convey whether or not its physically observed.
Anyway, you two have fun.
Nice dodging the question Joker
neither definition is indididually correct or incorrect, we seem to have simply gone over the other's head
It's always great when you can accuse others of something dishonestly
But when that same argument gets turned on you
You just avoid it
I was identifying where I was wrong in my judgement
You were wrong about me being a racist
still, your repetitive reference to things being safe or unsafe or weak didn't help the issue
I don't know how to solve that issue when it concerns the matter of race and racism, because it's so emotionally and culturally and politically loaded in this day
I can't present nuanced arguments anymore without being accused of racism by someone
This didn't use to be the case
well its just needlessly combative laguage. when concerning the establishment of understanding, 'productive' and 'unproductive' are much clearer
though in the very same respect, the term "progressive" is just as unfortunately innappropriate a term for this
I guess maybe
I could be considered progressive in a few ways, too, despite overall being more conservative
its like how I can't say America needs "a party of the people" or a "people's party" if I wish to refer to a party that can accurately represent the democratic mandate of the citizenry
Well about that, I actually think democracy is overrated, when just looking at the justice system for example which is clearly undemocratic, and we're hardly ever questioning it except in specific cases
gotta ask, since again, mixed pol is hard to tell who's from where, referring to UK or US justice system?
Well I was talking more about in general in western countries
I understand legislation is voted for, not just decided by an authority, but the voting process is not exactly a good representation of a truly democratic system. And who knows maybe that's a good thing, I don't know.
Efficiency and "common sense" often trumps democracy, even in a democratic setting
And then there's also the issue that the democratic systems that are in place are not actually truly democratic. Which again, may be a good thing.
I believe democracy should be resorted to only when absolutely neccessary. I believe it's being overused, and thus abused.
Because after all, democracy is, in its very essence, mob rule. It must be tempered, and we do that by often simply doing.... nothing at all. No authority whatsoever. Just let things go.
well such is why the US isn't a direct democracy
Yes, and I think that's good
Federalism has been slowly eroded over time, in the U.S., the most prominent a Wilsonian-progressive, 17th Amendment. I've previously written in great length as to why popularly elected Senators was a negative, but to name just a few:
1) The House was meant to remain the only unstable chamber within the Congress, subject to the public tenacity district by district and localizing politics, leaving the Senate stable and apolitical, thereby preserving the sovereignty of various constitutional mechanics the Senate provides for. Take the Judiciary, the politicization of the Kavanaugh appointment, while examining all previous appointments over the past century, since the Amendment was ratified. They're mostly progressive, populist, and willing to stand for the Federal government's violation of property rights and expansion, among other key issues, such as allowing for unions to conduct racketeering, blackmail, and economic terrorism, for example;
2) The 17th Amendment made it easy for wealthy coastal areas, of greatest economic scale, to influence and dictate Senate elections to the rest of the rest of the country. Without a 17th Amendment, any influence must be made at the local, district-level House as that's the constituency they're held to account, while they were the ones to appoint Senators. It's also more difficult for, what has become a Corporate State, to dictate the elections of 435, 2-year term House seats, than it is to dictate the 100, 6-year term Senate seats. Local interests in New York or Florida shouldn't dictate the elections of 25 fly-over States. This is why minimum wage and other labor laws, for example, have been accepted by a Senate, at the cost of economic development for the inner-country majority, while all economic interests are saturated around economies of scale (economic fascism), burdening the rest of the country with market-entry barriers and various other forms of regulation that have regulated out various free-market processes within many
industries, leaving behind the façade, a veneer of Capitalism, as with any planned economy, leading to increased consumer and operational costs at a loss of efficiency. Certainly, alphabet-soup (the innumerable amount of federal agencies planning the economy) never would've came around, and FDR's (what do you know, another Democrat) fascist shenanigans, praised by Mussolini himself as "boldly interventionist in the field of economics," would've never come unfolded;
3) We'll talk about this some more in the future, but for now I've got to get myself a shower and lead a productive day.
At the end of the day, Federalism embraces the core of Democratic values, than does the direct-Democratic system, a zero-sum game of national politick. Self-governance, the core of the American way, tells us the 17th Amendment must go.
And, this is what people should begin to recognize as the petri dish of America's corporate globalism, the firms with monopolies state-side, due to indirect planning of the economy through regulation, within our very government, who've grown to reach outside our borders and sacrifice our interests, feeding the monstrous regimes (PRC, for example) that inevitably rival us, with impunity, @ETBrooD. There are arguments to be made both for and against this system, as focusing on the interests of economies of scale has a compounding and perpetual effect of growth, but the long-term consequences just may outweigh it.
See this is the issue we need to address
The Republic won't be able to save the people until it has rid itself of the federation.
The US should've never been a federation, it was a mistake
So, you'd consider yourself an anti-federalist, despite knowing what the consequences would've been long ago? I'm not a nationalist in the sense that self-governance is out the window.
We'd be a full-blown fascist State under an entirely anti-federalist system.
I consider all first aggression to be immoral, and federations can only impose themselves with aggression
A lesser evil is not a good, it doesn't work that way
Just like democracy is only the lesser of a number of evils
We need to progress further towards true freedom, America stands for it but doesn't act it
If not even America is willing to push for more freedom, what hope does humankind have as a whole?
The closest you will come to true freedom is a federalist, decentralized government, of which the liberty lovers are enabled to self-govern, while eliminating the mechanisms by which feed the power of the artful few to impose upon the many. You will find a taste of true freedom in Washington's Farewell Address of 1796.
I don't think any federation can defend freedom
American federalism is also by design, just as any other, but it retains the greatest freedom for one to govern oneself. We've strayed from federalism, and that is the problem, the interests of few districts infringing upon those of hundreds.
You can't be "allowed" to self-govern, you either do or you don't. If you need to be allowed, then you're not self-governed.
It's not a matter of being allowed, it's a matter of retaining a system that cannot violate your ability to self-govern, one we do not have as we continue to stray away from federalism.
I'm not sure why you're talking about this as a "few vs many" situation
The many, the few, it doesn't matter
Did you not read what I wrote, regarding the 17th Amendment?
Whether few infringe on many, or many infringe on few, it's the same thing
The many cannot infringe upon the few under American federalism, nor can the few upon the many; that's the point.
Unless you're a utilitarian, in which case I'd love to have a debate about the meaning of numbers
I'm not a fan of utilitarianism, and if I was, I'd be an anti-federalist and side with Wilsonian-populism.