User Controls
Creeping Censorship
-
2017-11-25 at 6:56 PM UTC
Originally posted by Speedy Parker Do support rule by law, ie a constitution, or rule by the whim of the majority at any given moment?
Why'd you answer my mmquestion with another question?
I don't know what 'rule by the whim of the majority is at any given moment' means. I mean, I know what it means, but I don't know what you mean.
Like 'ask the audience' from Millionaire? A nationwide vote each day or week on a variety of laws, majority vote always wins?
I mean, I support laws and guidelines to a certain degree and I support the ability to modify them which I think a majority vote of a populous seems reasonable. So, both.
Both. -
2017-11-25 at 7:05 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Why'd you answer my mmquestion with another mmquestion?
I don't know what 'rule by the whim of the majority is at any given moment' means. I mean, I know what it means, but I don't know what you mean.
Like 'ask the audience' from Millionaire? A nationwide vote each day or week on a variety of laws, majority vote always wins?
I mean, I support laws and guidelines to a certain degree and I support the ability to modify them which I think a majority vote of a populous seems reasonable. So, both.
Both.
He thinks the entirety of the political left holds anti-constitutional views and thinks the opposite of constitutional government is "rule by the whim of the majority". This view is both comically myopic and flatly incorrect -
2017-11-25 at 9:03 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Why'd you answer my mmquestion with another question?
I don't know what 'rule by the whim of the majority is at any given moment' means. I mean, I know what it means, but I don't know what you mean.
Like 'ask the audience' from Millionaire? A nationwide vote each day or week on a variety of laws, majority vote always wins?
I mean, I support laws and guidelines to a certain degree and I support the ability to modify them which I think a majority vote of a populous seems reasonable. So, both.
Both.
In other words you don't know what you support? -
2017-11-25 at 9:04 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny He thinks the entirety of the political left holds anti-constitutional views and thinks the opposite of constitutional government is "rule by the whim of the majority". This view is both comically myopic and flatly incorrect
I don't think in terms of left and right but thanks for trying. In the future if you let people express their own thoughts you will look less foolish. -
2017-11-25 at 9:07 PM UTC
-
2017-11-25 at 9:08 PM UTC
Originally posted by Speedy Parker I don't think in terms of left and right but thanks for trying. In the future if you let people express their own thoughts you will look less foolish.
Oh, then your reply here has nothing to do with the post you quoted?Originally posted by mmQ Is there an informal scale to dictate between labels? A formal one? Nobody ever seems to answer this and I've asked before.
What quantifies a person as a left or right?
Or the ever popular 'liberalism is a mental disease.' Maybe you're right. How do i know if I have the liberalism disease? If my views are scattered does that mean I only have a little of this disease, or do I need to have a large majority of liberal ideals in order to be diagnosed with liberalism disorder?
What's the criteria for this shit? Honestly.
Do support rule by law, ie a constitution, or rule by the whim of the majority at any given moment? -
2017-11-25 at 9:17 PM UTCI really just want to know if I have liberalism disease and I've looked all over WebMD but there's no info so like wtf you're making me nervous.
I'm really liberal when it comes to putting toppings on nachos, and I'm really conservative with who I share the nachos with. I don't know. Is that enough information? I don't have any rashes or sores on my body that I can see. -
2017-11-25 at 9:22 PM UTCI'm more of the belief that leftism is a personality type than a political/economic/social orientation
-
2017-11-25 at 9:23 PM UTCAlso liberalism has nothing to do with leftism - I am a classical liberal who promotes free and open dialogue on how we can achieve national socialismThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-11-25 at 9:35 PM UTC
-
2017-11-25 at 9:37 PM UTC
-
2017-11-25 at 9:40 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Didn't you say earlier you support ethnostates? How exactly does that fit in with liberalism?
I don't see how ethnic democracy opposes liberalism. You can have a majority ethnic group (let's say 98%+ AKA ethnostate) and still have liberal policies. Unless you think mass immigration of people with non-liberal policies (e.g. Muslims) is some kind of progressive liberal eureka idea? -
2017-11-25 at 9:44 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ So to be clear, people can't or don't necessarily choose to be a leftist, like a person can't choose to be an extrovert, for example?
I believe in free will and discipline, so I think a leftist with certain characteristics (inferiority complex, physically weak, strongly believes in egalitarianism in order to level out the playing field of the dominance/competence hierarchy to no longer feel inferior, hyper-empathy, etc) can have the Will to evolve
Post last edited by Daily at 2017-11-25T21:56:03.121441+00:00 -
2017-11-25 at 9:48 PM UTC
Originally posted by Daily I don't see how ethnic democracy opposes liberalism. You can have a majority ethnic group (let's say 98%+ AKA ethnostate) and still have liberal policies. Unless you think mass immigration of people with non-liberal policies (e.g. Muslims) is some kind of progressive liberal eureka idea?
Seeing as few (no?) western countries have your proposed degree of ethnic homogeneity advocacy of ethnostates would seem to require some strategy for getting there. How do you turn ethnically diverse states into homogenous ones democratically? Forced ethnic exodus, if you support it, doesn't exactly seem to uphold classical liberal values like equality and liberty. -
2017-11-25 at 10:12 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Seeing as few (no?) western countries have your proposed degree of ethnic homogeneity advocacy of ethnostates would seem to require some strategy for getting there. How do you turn ethnically diverse states into homogenous ones democratically? Forced ethnic exodus, if you support it, doesn't exactly seem to uphold classical liberal values like equality and liberty.
It would take a multi-generational effort - incentivise higher fertility rates among the native population (like Italy and Poland are attempting - most likely through money/benefits/resources), restrict shitty immigration in favour of fruitful immigration (educated people, regardless of race, who are willing to integrate culturally).
That's it? It's really not that complicated Lanny. Not everything has to be intellectualised. I am willing to admit my wrongness, however. Any ideas? -
2017-11-25 at 10:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by Daily It would take a multi-generational effort - incentivise higher fertility rates among the native population (like Italy and Poland are attempting - most likely through money/benefits/resources), restrict shitty immigration in favour of fruitful immigration (educated people, regardless of race, who are willing to integrate culturally).
That's it? It's really not that complicated Lanny. Not everything has to be intellectualised. I am willing to admit my wrongness, however. Any ideas?
I have come to the conclusion that the eventual master race will be the offspring of Swedish women and Arab men. They inherit the looks, intelligence and clear minds of the Swedish women, but the ethnocentrism, religious single-mindedness and nastiness of the Arab men.
All a group has to do to win out is to remain technologically advanced (this is where the Amish, etc lose out), breed (where the Ashkenazim and Anglos lose out), keep a low profile (Ashkenazim again), and maintain a eugenic culture (where everyone loses out, besides the few Arabs who aren't completely inbred). Then just bide your time, stockpile resources, and wait for society to hit a low ebb so you can genocide everyone without hitting any major walls of resistance. -
2017-11-25 at 11:02 PM UTCHow can a population of two different ethnic groups (half nordic, half arab) be ethnocentric?
-
2017-11-25 at 11:05 PM UTC
Originally posted by Daily It would take a multi-generational effort - incentivise higher fertility rates among the native population (like Italy and Poland are attempting - most likely through money/benefits/resources), restrict shitty immigration in favour of fruitful immigration (educated people, regardless of race, who are willing to integrate culturally).
That's it? It's really not that complicated Lanny. Not everything has to be intellectualised. I am willing to admit my wrongness, however. Any ideas?
Ok, sure, there at least doesn't seem to be any a priori reason a liberal democracy couldn't undertake this kind of program (I mean you might argue any elimination of a culture is inherently illiberal, even if it's multi-generational and non-violent, but that gets complicated and for the sake of argument we can grant it). Do you actually expect any such policy is democratically viable give the level or racial and ethnic diversity which exists in most western countries today?
Also what about a policy which aims to homogenize culture (which fundamentally must start from some quantification of cultural purity, then a model of how state policy affects it) counts as simple? Just answering the question of "what constitutes an immigrant who's willing to integrate culturally?" seems fraught with complexity. -
2017-11-25 at 11:18 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Ok, sure, there at least doesn't seem to be any a priori reason a liberal democracy couldn't undertake this kind of program (I mean you might argue any elimination of a culture is inherently illiberal, even if it's multi-generational and non-violent, but that gets complicated and for the sake of argument we can grant it). Do you actually expect any such policy is democratically viable give the level or racial and ethnic diversity which exists in most western countries today?
Also what about a policy which aims to homogenize culture (which fundamentally must start from some quantification of cultural purity, then a model of how state policy affects it) counts as simple? Just answering the question of "what constitutes an immigrant who's willing to integrate culturally?" seems fraught with complexity.
No, I don't expect any such policy to ever be democratically viable in multi-cultural countries, only through authoritarianism/fascism/gulags. I think they can be democratically viable in states which are already ethnically homogeneous (obv)
By cultural homogeneity, I'm referring to law (e.g. no marrying 14 year olds), religion/secularism (e.g. no sharia courts), language (e.g. no not knowing the language) and customs (e.g. no blood feuds, if we're in Japan, we bow, if we appreciate the union between man and woman, don't be using faggotry as your identity, no offering a toast with an empty glass, etc). If somebody can emigrate and "integrate efficiently enough so as to not draw negative unnecessary attention to themselves" then there shouldn't be a problem
I bet you're going to try and make this even more complicated then it should be, Lanny
It's not -
2017-11-25 at 11:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by Daily I still don't know what alt-right even is
Do they just want ethnostates (like nearly every single country in the world) while no longer encouraging destructive degenerate behaviour?
How controversial
Lefties are fucking deranged
I never checked into the actual meaning of the term or the beliefs of the practitioners, but based on the way I've seen assorted branches of the MINITRU describe and talk about them, my interpretation is that the alt-right is anyone that doesn't believe in the MINITRU propaganda of pro-handsome and well tanned individual/fag/feminazi rhetoric along with anti-white-male practices while being pro-white.
