Hey guys, just joined the server.

How is that a bribe?

A bribe is where you offer someone something of value in order for them to abuse their position of power by doing something immoral. Fighting against tyranny is not immoral.

How was it dishonest?

Seems to me that they just told everyone that they should fight for them because, among other things, they'd honour their civic right to vote.

Jefferson refrained from including the right to private property in the final draft of the declaration of independence because he knew it would have been interpreted as a justification for slavery. He replaced it with the right to the pursuit of happiness.
I see why he did it and it was probably the right move at the time but man, imagine a country where property laws were enshrined in the constitution. It would be pretty epic.

It was an early draft that had the right to private property crossed out and I think it was Jefferson who was working on that draft.

State funded media bad

Probably because it's not a joke.

The establishment are addicted to EU control and breaking that addiction is gonna be very difficult for them.
We should have left and THEN began negotiations for trade and immigration deals, not before. We'd be bargaining from an equal footing then as it's in both our interests to trade.

Hahaha yeah that is just a blatant contradiction. SNP needs to get their principles straight.

What about?

In the US?

yikes

Isn't that a Wayne's World quote? lol

I mean, when you have a system designed to serve need that tends to be the outcome.

I don't know about it displaying the dangers of capitalism, isn't the dude who runs Rapture basically a dictator and it becomes more of a lawless anarchist dystopia than a capitalist system?

I think you have a "zero-sum" premise in your understanding of free markets if you think that, without government regulation, they naturally result in one company owning everything, Monopoly-board-game-style.

What is a good definition of power? Off the top of my head I'd say power is the ability to influence something but I'm wondering if anyone has a more accurate definition?

You have to point to antecedent concepts in your definition, you are giving examples of power rather than defining it.

Hahaha

I guess power is just an incredibly abstract and broad concept.

By praying to the Athenian gods idk

Meh, it depends on what kind of democracy you're talking about. I favor a Constitutional democracy that secures individual rights.

We the people. Big brained individuals.

Most people in the center just go case by case, they have no real principles.
And then there's the wackos with really bad principles. Where are the rational principles?

I tend to read a lot of Emerson, Whitman and the early American writers. They have a pretty inspiring sense of life.

God please no xD

I once tried to read Kant's Critique but it was basically incomprehensible so I gave up and bought an analysis of it instead.

I watched a good video about her philosophy. It's interesting.

Yeah. I know the guy who made it too which is weird since I didn't realize it was him until later.

I'd be surprised if he wasn't in this discord tbh

I only know him because we're in a server together. Not irl.

Bye, have a good one.

If you don't implement the decided EU law then what happens is your country gets sanctions by the EU. You don't get to vote in EU elections and you don't get as much EU funding. Eventually they'd kick you out. Just look at what is happening with some of the Eastern European states that refused to take in vast numbers of immigrants.

If you think nothing is happening to those countries by the EU then you're not paying attention.

The EU isn't that powerful when it comes to enforcement of sanctions on member states but why do you think they want an army? So they can enforce their laws. Send Germans to opress the French and french to keep the Germans in check.

I honestly think the EU will take care of itself by collapsing. It is such a nightmare of a bureaucracy that keeping it running probably has the success rate of drunk driving backwards on the freeway.

I was reading back and saw you mention that you had adopted Objectivist philosophy with your classical liberalism. It's interesting to me because that's the case with me too. I think there's a few problems with liberalism that Objectivism offers solutions to and that's why it seemed like a natural progression, at least for me.

I think that because liberalism was grounded in theological ethics it was ultimately doomed from the start. Freedom can't be grounded in the arbitrary.
So on the one hand you had atheism come out of the age of reason and you also had a political system of freedom but it was founded on God. The two were bound to be at odds.

I am ideologically attached to markets because trading with other people is the best way for me to live as a human.

Means I see them as imperative.

Cooperation is great but it's not a way of life. People have personal missions too and trade is offering value for value. It's easy and effective.

The role of government is to secure the rights of man. It cannot "grant" them, that's just incoherent.

@Jeremy Hmm, I think that's looking at it from too "top-down" a view. Or perhaps too broad a view, at least for the purpose of explaining one's personal affinity for markets.
It's true, a free market is best for society but that's because it's good for individuals. Because the trader relationship between even two people is fundamentally benevolent.

We should make two Minecraft servers, one cappie and one commie.
It will be the last great social experiment that convinces the masses and no one will ever disagree on political issues again :)

Replace it with swiss cheese

Not much time for invention when you're getting constantly invaded.

In a free society you'd be able to convince younger generations of Muslim kids that their religion big dumb and they'd eventually integrate.
That's what happened with the decline of religion in the west. But we don't have those kinds of freedom anymore, the institutions with power are sheltering the Muslim populace from challenge because they're a minority. But mostly no one is really championing the right ideas anymore. So its just a race to the bottom.

You'd at least get a much more liberal version of Islam.

I have no idea

didn't the us just leave korea eventually. it was just a big stalemate

from what i understand they kinda just pulled out and left the two sides to grumble at eachother from behind a dmz

lol it would be world war 3 if russia did that

Say Russia did the equivalent of pearl harbour. It would for sure be ww3

It doesn't really matter. We'd nuke moscow and they'd try nuke us but their nukes are pretty shite so we'd intercept them over europe and that'd solve the EU problem as well

Are their nukes better? I don't think they are, and we don't really know because both militaries keep it hush hush. It's really more about how quickly you can deliver the payload, so where you have nukes stationed.

Russia is no where near the economic power it once was anyway. It's all show and very little muscle compared to the rest of the world. China is the real threat in a nuclear war.

Well, that's debateable. Regimes can become pretty suicidal if they are desperate.

Ok, what would happen if Russia did the equivalent of pearl harbour? Would the US respond with conventional warfare? Smaller missiles? Because they could flatten Russia in that department too, leaving Putin with the option of nuclear war vs being deposed and probably killed.

Japan did. Japan attacked an enemy it knew it could not ever hope to defeat. and it did so unprovoked.

it doesn't have to be rational

in what possible way LOL

Attacking one naval base doesn't destroy the US navy. They obviously would have had reserves and come after Japan on land and sea. It was totally irrational.

Lets say you manage to wipe out the entirety of the US navy and for the sake of argument the US can't create anymore ships.
It still doesn't look even remotely attractive for Japan to enter into war with a superpower like the US. There's just no way in hell they would have come out on top.

Right, because the japanese would never have been able to cripple their navy anyway so pearl harbour was irrational.

Yeah but war being inevitable doesn't make their thing rational. If anything they were just forced into it by the logical progression of their ideology, as you said. But that ideology proved suicidal for them, not rational.

I'd say it was a "good try". Maybe rational in the context of "the best they could do" but actually doing it was suicide.

I read in that thread that the ADL has the ability to delete videos and channels on YouTube. Somehow I don't believe that is true, YouTube wouldn't give that level of permissions to an independent organisation, surely? Does anyone have proof of this or can explain it?

I don't see why he would want to, at least if he is familiar with them. There's always the chance he isn't familiar with them and gives them the benefit of the doubt cus they sound nice on paper. But somehow I don't think he would donate that much on a whim. I think he knows about them.

Oh ok, so its more of a proxy type relationship. Hmm, I'm still unsure as to whether its blackmail or not. I don't think it is, Pewds is bigger than the site. There's no way that they could make him give them 50,000 to stay on YouTube or stay uncensored. He wouldn't do it. I think its more likely that he is just ignorant.

He wouldn't tolerate it though. As someone who has been on the site he would know in an instant if they tried to slowly strangle him. He'd make a vid about it and YouTube would pander to the outrage temporarily and if it didn't improve long term he'd leave the platform.

how?

hmm, i think this is getting into some 3d chess conspiracy area.

I guess time will tell

Go and look at the comments and keep refreshing every couple mins if you really wanna know.

Also, some comments will naturally get flagged as spam so try and keep track of the organic ones that look like they're not being spammed

Well, how does that quote go "the first casualty of war is truth" or something? Same principle with censorship.

especially shadow banning.

Ok, but given what we know you'd have to offer a convincing hypothetical that explains Pewdiepie telling everyone in a serious tone that he was going to donate 50k to the ADL.
Otherwise I'm going to go with the imminently more likely scenario.

@Comando It was deleted or you just suspect that others cannot see it because of lack of likes/ comments? It may have been falsely flagged as spam since it contains the word "parliament" a lot and is a fairly big comment.

@whiic Do you think that Pewds didn't donate 50k to the ADL like he said he was going to? If so, why do you think that?

could you link me it so I can test it?

Ok so if he didn't do it why would he claim that he did?

If he knows that the ADL doesn't like him and has caused him issues before, why tell his fans that he is donating to them?

yep I don't get the comment either. So we've narrowed it down to either false flagging as spam or youtube or the channel removing it because they don't agree with it.

Oh yeah, i totally forgot that the ADL labelled Pepe a hate symbol LUL

If honey wanted to donate to the ADL why wouldn't they just y'know, donate themselves?

oh, ok i just got to that part in jeremy's vid. That could actually be plausible.

lol bit extreme

cringe

I am not familiar with his content but to say "I want him dead" because you don't like his mannerisms is just hilarious to me.

I can't imagine caring that much.

hahahhaa

ok

woah, you're so cool

You're an ethno-nationalist but you think that "blacks are just as British as whites". How do you square that contradiction? Do you even understand what ethno-nationalist means?

Oh ok, that makes more sense now.
Also, the essence of racism is not that you think one race is superior to another but rather that you think the racial group is the standard of value, not the individual.
Although I think that you have to make the claim that other races are not capable of rationality in order to not want them to be able to be in your country. So this subjective "equal but separate" stuff is really just cowardly BS. If they were equal you could get along fine with each other.

How someone should be treated and a fact about someone's height are in two very different realms.

@Death in June Because if they were rational then it would be in your interest to have them as citizens.