GloboHomo endgame

europe is already winning in its migrant quotas

usa needs to keep up

oof, keep it up europe, show us mutts how much islam you can take

nah, we suck, be build walls and shit

we are competing with israel and china for wall game

we cant win the immigrant game anymore

Thank you! @Bearer Of The Curse

@Orwell God bless America

🇺🇸

How is everybody's night?

Fine as usual here

Welcome @MudHut_

🙏

just had a ham sammich, with fresh ham out of the oven. 🇺🇸

alright epic gamers

here is what i think:

1) Heavy immigration is bad. 2) You cannot have open borders, they should be either closed, or highly regulated. 3) I hate Islam. 4) Culture must be maintained. 5) Fuck Globalism and regional unions. 6) Protect the environment. 7) I'm an Egoist.

***CHANGE MY MIND***

I can agree with most of those

however with the case of the united states its hard to define what actually counts as american culture

Aside from your attitude, there's no much room for change

Egoism is the only problem there

why

morality does not exist. it's a spook

ssame with ethics

and laws

america is a concept that goes beyond being a mere nation in that various cultures are welcomed as long as they conform to western values

Cool, but I can't trust someone that's with me for personal gain.

but the thing is

altruism does not exist. anything anyone does is for them self. we are all egoists, only some of us realize it.

While collectivism and subverting ones self for the rest of the masses is unamerican, only being in things for yourself is just plain selfish and destructive.

thats a pretty big generalization

Ok now you're manipulating the goal

give me any example of someone that did something for other people

like a made up example let's say

uhh donating to charity?

ho ho ho there buddy

its not like thatll do me any good on my resume

You can trace it back to muh feels, but it doesn't matter. If you are only considering muh feels, you'll see that it's an AWFUL trade

Clean your room

although it may look like one is doing something nice, it's not their underlying intent. for example, it could be that people will look good in front of everyone else to donate to charity, or that they are pressered by everyone else to do it. Both of which are selfish intents

But there are people that willingly donate a portion of their goods because they feel that it is the right thing to do

I can speak for myself when I do that

yeah for themselves

also

A soldier that risks his life to save a complete stranger won't be statistically happier than if he hadn't

it is basically a social norm for everyone to donate to charity

In what country lmao

america. most people with money donate to charity

some more than others but still

It's defnitely not a social norm.

It's not even a biological absolute, the survival of the species is way more important than the safety of the individual

@Bearer Of The Curse it could be that that soldier could not have lived with himself had he not done that. or that he wanted to feel better about himself.

>Could
Now you're talking ifs, what about that absolute before?

no it is defiently one of those, just there are more selfish examples therefore i say could. i just do not want to imply that those are the only two reasons

That soldier feels it's his duty to save that person. He will ignore harm and therefore suffer an AWFUL trade if what's in game is your own ego. Even if he has a chance to go out depressed, it's safer to not do so, or even use that person as bait

wait what

are you saying he will be depressed if that person died and he did not save him?

I said a chance, because that would be a somewhat egoistic motive, to not go sick for your inaction. But even then, it's a problem caused by altruism

no it is not

it is caused by the reasons l listed up above. or it could be because it is his job. In this case, he should do that, because he is being payed to do it. Again, an egoistic motive

or some other reason

Welcome

No, in the listed case he's a soldier, he has no financial incentive to save someone

This is not a VIP case

What is the debate?

Egoism

no. that is incorrect. a lot of people are soldeirs because they cannot provide themselves in any other way

he believes altruism exists, i think it does not

Cool down and read the situation again

? cool down ?

You don't lose your job because you keep shooting at the enemy instead of saving a fellow trooper

Actually saving that trooper might cost your job

no you do not understand

he is payed to do so

He is not, a soldier is paid to follow orders, and saving a complete stranger while not being ordered to do so is not doing your job as a soldier

What is egoism

As far as I'm aware, it's the philosophy of doing everything in order to benefit yourself.

So the debate is...what? Are all people egoists? No.

The debate was about altruism not existing, that every action is coated in selfishness

I think that he does have a point, everything we do, we do because we have a reason to. It's fair to say that charity and generosity are largely done because it makes the person doing it feel good.

These lolbert mistakes are born out of extrapolated rights, of half-truths. Of a reaction to living in a lie.

It’s time to eat people

-FreshMilk one week after a plane crash into the desert

Ching chong ping pong

Click click bang bang

Hello

Hello and welcome

Is this chat active much?

Not that much, I mean, it's a really new server, it can go from really big discussions or shitposting to really calm hours without new content

Kanye is so based

Gamers dont need women anyway

Were too busy building sexbots thatll be commercially available by 2030

are there also gay sexbots?

sexbots are putting coochie manufacturers out of business

😠

down with sex bots

coochie manufacturers

you mean women <:lol:521377935672737792>

Welcome

How’s the retardation

it's

spicey

Like an everything bagel

That was quick

Death squads

@Deleted User it's effectively anti collectivism

Imagine not being a collectivist

Imagine actually being a fucking (((kulak)))

@The Real Head Honcho imagine thinking the kulaks were the bad guys

>thinking otherwise

Oh dear.

They were mostly Ukrainians.

Kulaks were just greedy Ukrainian peasants who had for the first time been given a lot and let their families and friends die off so they could hoard an extra sack

They are the definition of social parasites

Yes mostly Ukrainian successful farmers

No

If they weren't Ukrainians I would care.

They replaced the Russian nobility

They weren't "successful" farmers

They replaced the nobility as small scale land barons, using other peasants as effectively slave labourers

Like the nobles had before the serfs were emancipated in 1861

The Kulaks did very little actual work themselves and just took the form of rich peasants that got rich via the expense of other peasants

Which led the country to multiple famines

First off I've seen no evidence of this, second that does not give these people the right to kill them

Including the holodomor

the kulaks are literally one of the main causers of the Holodomor

Sure, the state could've alleviated it to a degree, but they'd been teetering on the brink of starvation since lenin's implementation of War communism in 1918 and the New Economic Policy in 1921

They had very little grain in reserves to stop the famine

The Kulaks, on the other hand, consumed or burned or killed their stocks

I believe the estimate is 27 million livestock slaughtered rather than be given to the collective farm program

And an untold amount of grain hoarded, consumed and burned

Rather than be given away

What are Ukrainians?

And as for "evidence", literally just look at Russian farming methods after 1861

You mean stolen?

@εïз irma εïз what do you mean what are Ukrainians

Russians spelled with different letters

I mean what are they?

@Scipio Americanus stolen by who?

I have Googled this s*** many a time, I've seen no evidence of this still

The state

Stolypin's attempted land reforms were literally designed to combat the problem of a Kulak agriculture

And as for the state "stealing" the agriculture and livestock

Still no answer. What are Ukrainians? <:lol:521377935672737792>

The land was owned by the state, the state was either at war or suffering from horrendous post-war shortage, and the machines and tools used to harvest and cultivate the agricultural produce was provided by the state

The Kulak populations were exploitative and greedy, nothing more

They were a problem recognised as early as the 1880s

@εïз irma εïз people who aren't Russians

Vyshnegradsky tried to combat it unsuccessfully which led to the 1892 famine

Romanians and Ukrainians should all be deported to Pacific islands.

He was replaced by Witte who also tried, but to little success

Then Stolypin tried land reform which would've worked better, and was similar to the idea of the Kolkhoz, but he was killed in 1911

The Kulak problem was not a soviet problem

It had been present for a good 50 years by the time Collectivism was implemented in 1929

@The Real Head Honcho sure buddy, keep on thinking that, but I can tell you I won't be killing any my livestock for greedy reasons

I like your username but your profile picture is deeply unsettling.

And even after collectivization and the liquidation of the kulaks, there was huge agricultural issue all the way until the dissolution of the USSR

stalin did the best work for the agriculture

Nah

Khrushchev didn't do much with new ideas but expanded on what was there

And Brezhnev pissed it away like everything else

Gorbachev did the best

But the problem was never solved

@Mairon this tbh bring back gorbachev and let him break apart the world

Yes

@Mairon I actually really agree with that

Gorbachev was the best premier as he realised Communism doesn't work and exploded the union

No Stalin was the best because he killed the most communists.

I think he's a shithead if we're going with actual opinions

@εïз irma εïз f****** hot take

And yeah tbh Stalin killed more commies than hitler

Stalin was literally the best leader the Russians had in a *long* time

Unironically

Did wonders for the nation

Sure you can say "m-muh death toll!" But at the end of the day, people are a resource.

At the end of the day its subjective

If you value people or nation more

Personally I don't care about either

The needs and status of the nation surpass that of the individual in any sense

If you think it does, I could say the opposite, it wouldn't be any more true, states are projections of great men and ideas people think of

Yeah at the end of the day the entire concept is born from social stigma and a unity against a common enemy or drive for a goal

But that's philosophy bullshit and it is *not* what i want to discuss at 6am

Or the desire for power of an individual, the best reason obvs

Why is this tankie way more based than all of the rightoids here

Step up your game NEETs

Oof tankie

Who is the tankie

Me?

I have to assume you are because you're defending Stalin and shitposting against kulaks

Oh you think im commie lmao

No no

Dont get me wrong

Nazbol?

That's fine too

I sure would love to live in a country filled with mass starvation, political purges, concentration camps, and forced collectivism

The system itself is fucking horrendous

Yeah it'd be pretty cool

And the USSR was a mess at any level

HOWEVER

I have studied Stalin and the USSR a hell of a lot

So i find it hard not to appreciate the success they had

Which people immediately jump to me being a slavshit

I mean Stalin started with an agrarian shithole and left it a great power with nukes

Exactly

You can't deny success there

@The Real Head Honcho
Read Stalin The Enduring Legacy by Kerry Bolton?

Stalin and Hitler > Churchill and FDR change my mind

Especially when you look at how absolutely FUCKED lenin left it

@CrowGoCaw Roosevelt was a kike warmonger and churchill was his puppet dancer

That's the top and bottom of it

Churchill and FDR are enemies of humanity change my mind

@The Real Head Honcho right on the nail friend

Roosevelt was on the warpath by 1938

There's a reason he got really fucking chummy with Chamberlain after the Munich Conference when the two despised each other beforehand

Patton was right tbh the US was fighting the wrong enemy

Lots of historians

In books i read on this kind of stuff

A common thing i see is something along the lines of the following

"Germany's continuation of the war to the very last was foolish, and it would only have been excusable if they'd held in the east and let the allies through in the west"

But they forget that at Teheran in 43 Roosevelt literally speaks up in the middle of a conference, completely unnanounced and says

"The war will not end without complete unconditional surrender"

(Which churchill, to his credit, was extremely pissed off at him for)

i like how the allies had a show no mercy and total war policy but its only bad when the nazis do it

Roosevelt wanted Germany removed as an economic threat years before the war began and he used Russian and British bodies to do it

war crimes for thee but not for me

Yeah exactly

Yeah I mean the Nazis minus Roosevelt being a cuck could have snagged a nice peace treaty

Guys ignore the soviet hordes raping and murdering across the east, and ignore the bomber campaign to flatten Germany

DA JOOOOOOOOOS@

@Mairon Germany offered a *COMPLETE* withdrawal from France and a peace treaty with no concessions with the west on the condition they allowed Germany to invade the soviets

4 times

Before June 1941

So within the space of a year, 4 offers were made

All were refused by Churchill

Also fun fact

Poland really wasn't worth it lol

The royal family invited Hess to the British Isles but he fucked the flight plan up, and Goring knew about it which is why he didnt shoot him down when "ordered" to

Sad Sea lion couldn't happen though

So when he was caught and arrested the royals swept it all under the rug