They aren't protecting capitalists if the capital is owned by the state or by a collective

It's a big difference

how do u figure that

Ok retard

your mom

Globally actually christians control the most amount of wealth

Like over 50%

And jews around 1%

Still. Global wealth is overwhelmingly controlled by Christians and irreligious people

Not jews

I'm talking TOTAL global wealth

@Maksim I was just responding to the claim that that "rich people that violate the law are predominantly jewish", which is a red herring.

The reasons high numbers of Jews themselves have a large amount of wealth is likely the same reason that the Hindu religion also has a significant amount of wealthy people

It's a religious focus on education

The JQ isn't convincing to me. Its kind of just casting a broad net based on weak parameters

I agree. Neoliberal economics as a whole is a problem and wealth inequality is a symptom of it. I can't really find recent stats on jewish criminality and their acceptance of white collar crime but I found some shit that said that jews have a significantly lower acceptance rate than Hindus (https://www.davidpettinicchio.com/uploads/1/5/4/8/15484818/jssr.pdf) and a study from 1995 (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14533281_Religiosity_criminality_and_types_of_offences_of_Jewish_male_prisoners) that says that jews don't primarily commit white collar crime, non-religious and religious alike

You can recognize the involvement of demographics in wealth inequality without misrepresenting statistics and casting a broad, baseless condemnation and calling for their exile/extermination

Enkrum, it just says white collar crime (fraud, fraud related) occurred at a higher frequency in religious Jews rather than non religious Jews.

Which is also shown in the graph I posted

That's not really relevant though. You'd have an easier time tying white collar crime to white people than you would to just Jews

Also Jews r white @OrthoGoat

Well as "white" as any other "white" person, whatever that means

jews r also black and brown and yellow

because Judaism is a religion, an ethnicity

define fascism

yes I know that's what I'm saying

So you can be of european heritage and jewish

Most rich Jews are

And most of them are non practicing so they're barely even that

that is the adjective to describe something relating to Judaism so that makes sense

@Spergerger I wasn't saying that you think white = good, i was just saying the reasoning behind blaming the Jews for the problems of capitalism and neoliberal economics is a fallacy, and someone could more easily make the argument against white people as a group (even though I'd disagree with it still). There's no evidence that Ashkenazi jews have a genetic predisposition to be "subversive" or "support liberalism".

You posed it like it was inherent in Ashkenazi Jews that they support liberalism and are subversive and such bullshit

Idk how else I was supposed to take it

how would you explain a tendency towards these things then

I'd be interested to read evidence that political views or "subversiveness" is somehow genetic

I can understand it being cultural

Or being related to socioeconomic factors, like rich people statistically being more liberal, etc

Ok

Thank u for this piece of information

no

cause I don't feel the need to be

gender =/= sex

not determined by chromosomes

@Spergerger there is no third category necessarily either. It's a social construct. There could be a million. I feel like you're conflating sex and gender, which describe two different phenomenon. Gender is defined as the relation of certain characteristics, masculine or feminine, to social and cultural norms

Im a gender abolitionist myself

But to answer your question about typology, intersex people exist

no

not unless they got a vagina :>

And big ol boobies

No

Because it flops

Out the butt

gender roles are stupid

just let people be people man

how

they're not necessary at all

fuck nature

speaking mad facts ^

so you admit it's a social construct

also I'm not a gender abolitionist just because it's a social construct dummy

no

just when they're retarded and unnecessary

ie gender

yes cuz some social constructs are good

there are other methods of solving this problem but none that I agree with so

yes

what lol

just had to think on what you said

like what do you mean

gender abolitionism is a movement in science

It's not like my person ideas

I'm not saying gender is invalid ? I'm just saying. It's not a real thing. It places boxes and unnecessary restrictions on people that dictates how they're supposed to behave; how to talk to people who to talk to how to express emotion

These things have shown to be psychologically harmful

yea but no.

uh no. Not really just me but everybody

ok retard

>what are political beliefs

apparently so

no. But people are also heavily influenced into certain gender roles from birth. They are assigned a gender and are taught to fill its roles based on the culture or society they are brought up in

the argument isn't even the validity of gender though. It's as valid as any other cultural phenomenon. It's not good though. Forcing people into boxes; teaching kids that boys should learn to shove down their emotions for example. Or girls that they need a man to complete their existence. Or that they can't dress or act or express themselves in the ways that they'd like to

These things are generally harmful and damaging to a persons psychology and have shown to be

Sure

I can't guarantee I'll be able to reply very quickly though I'm kind of busy

@Maksim Why do you think a father figure and mother figure are necessary to the development of a child? I agree that two parents is usually better than one, for emotional support and financial support. But I don't believe this yin-yang dichotomy bullshit exists

It should be legal to kill nazis

@Tyragon these studies say nothing about specifically needing a father figure. If you look at most of the problems relating to fatherless households, you'll find many correlate to poverty. This isn't because without a man a female cannot properly raise children. It just means that they're typically financially worse off without a partner, and can't invest as much time emotionally in their kids as two parents would, regardless of gender

I don't see any reason to believe in a mystical duality between male and female

cope

Electoral politics are a fucking sham

this looks fine

@Ater Votum This wasn't really an argument about marriage equality but alright. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11113-014-9329-6 examines a decade of scientific research on the subject of child well-being in same sex families in America, and covers over 40 studies I believe. The results were that same sex families fared pretty equally to heterosexual families, and differences in child well-being were largely due to varying socioeconomic circumstances; which is exactly what I said.

And it is. Because laws and institutions are what we make them, and it is now equally inclusive to same sex couples as heterosexual couples in the U.S. It is a violation of the constitution to deny the fundamental right of people to marry, regardless of gender/sex.

Religion is stupid

Fuck it all