Messages

This thread really cleared up why the whole "drop the soap" joke got so elaborate so quickly. Chaos Advocate possibly has a subconscious power fixation and is probably "anti-racist" , despite apparent total ignorance, in order to seem egalitarian and acceptable to others.

I mean that's possible. What I think is really going on here is newspag be like

I'M NOT RACIST!!

Nope, I hate it because it goes against my beliefs. Anti-Racism is part of my ideological beliefs. Racism = Nazism. Fighting against it = A Sacred War. NOBODY wants to be discriminated on the basis of what looks they were born with, anybody who does is stupid so why would I?

Oh! If I sell a bunch of turquoise jewelry and prayer wheel art and feather headdresses and talk about how perfect native american spirituality is without actually knowing anything about the history of native americans, I'm still not racist?

Not being intentionally racist but atleast you could just walk up to someone who does it and tell them what they should change in order to not offend others instead of bashing them and treating them like they are intentionally being hateful.

[All racists should be lined up and shot or punished.]

Here's how your shit is racist:

You are only counting "disorder" as conflicts between people who look the same.
You are assuming with no evidence that the locals lived in some kind of pre-contact utopia without major conflicts.

If you don't understand how these two things are racist, your definition of racism is broken and you need to educate your dumb ass.

Racist if my intention isn't racism, infact "race" is a social construct and does not exist. I count disorder as whenever a "social order" breaks down and there is a revolt against a government.

All racists should be lined up and shot or punished.

Are you saying you need help getting lined up and shot? I'm having issues interpreting what you're trying to communicate.

Nope I am not racist in intentions actually, all humans are equal. Just because I do not know some history does not make me "racist". What about you? Do you know their history?

Disorder in this context refers to a breakdown of a social order, a revolt from the inside of ANY social order.

So your a murderous totalitarian in a purely egalitarian sort of way?

Go fuck yourself.

I was just expressing my anger of how I feel for them, because it is greatly offensive to associate me with those who are against what I stand for. Its like saying "go die in a hole" but to someone else in a conversation. In practice I believe hate speech isn't free speech and should just be charged with fines/jail time.

2nd type of people I dislike just below that are staunch traditionalists who try to bring back rigidness of some of the old ways socially.

Here's how your shit is racist:

You are only counting "disorder" as conflicts between people who look the same.
You are assuming with no evidence that the locals lived in some kind of pre-contact utopia without major conflicts.

If you don't understand how these two things are racist, your definition of racism is broken and you need to educate your dumb ass.

Racist if my intention isn't racism, infact "race" is a social construct and does not exist. I count disorder as whenever a "social order" breaks down and there is a revolt against a government.

All racists should be lined up and shot or punished.

Are you saying you need help getting lined up and shot? I'm having issues interpreting what you're trying to communicate.

Nope I am not racist in intentions actually, all humans are equal. Just because I do not know some history does not make me "racist". What about you? Do you know their history?

Disorder in this context refers to a breakdown of a social order, a revolt from the inside of ANY social order.

Here's how your shit is racist:

You are only counting "disorder" as conflicts between people who look the same.
You are assuming with no evidence that the locals lived in some kind of pre-contact utopia without major conflicts.

If you don't understand how these two things are racist, your definition of racism is broken and you need to educate your dumb ass.

Not really racist if my intention isn't racism, infact "race" is a social construct and does not exist. I count disorder as whenever a "social order" breaks down and there is a revolt against a government. Racism is to intentionally hate/discriminate somebody for the colour they were born with.

All racists should go die.

In any case the communist version is just stupid.

It was apparently built on the premise that the Paris Commune in 1871's attempts to abolish the state on the spot did not work out(They lost and got massacred).

Many of their movements did believe though that the old must be demolished to be replaced by something new.

I like how he didn't address the fact that his questionable observation hinges on an inherently racist worldview.

Nope I'm saying that it was an invasion, a war done by one country on another. It was caused by outside factors and was not a rebellion war from within. You misunderstood and jumped to assumptions of what I'm trying to communicate, in this thread I was referring to conflicts that happen within and not an imperialist invasion ignited by one nation against another. Infact many have issues interpreting what I try to communicate but its not my fault.

Its not my fault if I do not have much knowledge on the history prior but what I do know is they lived pretty simple(not necessarily in a bad way). Was not taught much in my education aside from the fact the natives were invaded and are the rightful heirs of the land. They lived in tribes governed by the eldest people so there was very little need to revolt, they managed to get their system right before invasion.

And WTF directing this statement towards someone who would love to see racists shot at or punished for their beliefs? About the racism: Racism and Nazism are inseparable. To fight racism is to fight the exact same enemy defeated in the second world war. The approach to racists must be war-like as much as possible, even if it means deploying the entire ground and air forces of a military to eliminate them or capture their land(property they live on). People with those beliefs do not equal "human" and should not be allowed to even have them as an opinion. Having racism/racist ideology as an opinion should = state of war.

To reiterate QG's point

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_frontier_wars

The Australian frontier wars were a series of conflicts that were fought between Indigenous Australians and European settlers that spanned a total of 146 years. The first fighting took place several months after the landing of the First Fleet in 26 January 1788 and the last clashes occurred as late as 1934.[citation needed] The most common estimates of fatalities in the fighting are at least 20,000 Indigenous Australians and between 2,000 and 2,500 Europeans. However, recent scholarship on the frontier wars in what is now the state of Queensland indicates that Indigenous fatalities may have been significantly higher. Indeed, while battles and massacres occurred in a number of locations across Australia, they were particularly bloody in Queensland, owing to its comparatively larger pre-contact Indigenous population.

Also Australia has had several significant periods of political unrest and rebellions, and is a country where bushrangers, ie highwaymen and outlaws, are such a large part of the national culture that the government has banned films about them in the past and exerted pressure on publishers of literature related to them.

Weren't the frontier wars more of a result of colonization though? One country invading another thus a war caused by another country and not a conflict from within? And now most adays though they have draconian gun laws and this (http://theaimn.com/the-slide-away-from-democracy/) which just will not budge no matter what .

I was more referring to armed rebellions like the French Revolution or similar.

Well, where do we start?

1) You're only counting the white settlers' history.
2) You're only counting the white settlers' conflicts with other white settlers.
3) Australia as you understand it has existed for a much shorter time than literally any other human-occupied space, since you're not counting the actual history of all human occupation of the continent.
4) You're ignoring Canada.

This though for Canada?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellions_of_1837

I was wondering how people outside of the U.S prank call phones on skype without being traced and without using credit? Like in this video? Keep in mind the first word in this video is the name of the soundboard used and he called the police station, this is just an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqu7L7JJ2EI

"But now... living with (Insert Your Name Here)"?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSDzCuDHCpo

Most orderly place in the world, why? Compared to all other nations there have been no civil wars, major revolts or armed rebellions, significant change ever in history there. Only the expansion/establishment of more order. Even when its people get very frustrated with their government they have never revolted there bigly aside from a few strikes easily broken using military workforce in the past. Any idea why? Is it like the stronghold/headquarters of order or something? Maybe thats why it was also seen as the "dumping ground of choice"/containment facility of choice to British authorities for those who were more chaotic or defy the order.

Its what makes it extremely boring, needs more discord + chaos. If anybody is looking for a concentrated headquarters of order to bombard with chaos in workings, here is your best choice. Feel free to pump as much entropy/chaos as you want if any of you know how to do that. A mass murder of boredom occurs.

Eris/Discordia would probably puke at this sight?

Not sure why this is in the political section.

I was hoping for something concerning the school-prison pipeline, but I was disappointed.  Moving this to Richard Nixon.

Well I'll ask a question then. What do you mean by school - prison pipeline? Shitty OP aside I did notice that my old high school put outright prison like policies in place after 2000 when I graduated. Do you think that was social prepping or some such?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m2iO7lY7EI

Anyway here are several methods I've invented for safely picking up the soap:

Beat the crap out of someone and take their soap off of them or just snatch it off them, tell them to go pick up your soap for you if they want their soap back cause self preservation ftw.

Second, do a double backflip and make sure your foot touches the tip of the soap to send it flying. Now catch it asap and don't drop it again this time.

Third, kick the soap near the wall. Face your back to the wall and pick it up from there.

Fourth, bring a rope with you in which you tie the soap to everytime you have to shower.

Well, instead of comparing Russia during communism to Russia before and after communism to determine the effect of communism on russia's quality of life they instead compare Russia under  communism to a completely unrelated country, ie. the USA

Thanks, that clears up what the propositions are.
Now, who are the persons?

I'm still not clear if you are commenting on Demolition Squid vs. the Capitalism/Communism debate or on Capitalism vs Communism.
Or maybe you mean Common sense vs Capitalism? I just can't tell.

I'm commenting on capitalism vs. communism itself, and specifically how it is portrayed in western propaganda.

There are also elements of cherrypicking and post hoc ergo propter hoc to the standard narrative which essentially states that "Russia was a terrible place to live during communism therefore communism was responsible for everything that was bad about Russia was due to communism" but this narrative is wrong because  Russia was a very bad place to live prior to communism and continues to be a very bad place to live decades after communism, therefore communism only accounts for the relatively difference between bad and terrible. (and furthermore, all of this is ignoring the fact that the USSR (all communist countries in fact) was communist in name only; they were neither classless nor stateless)

EDIT:
While I'm on the topic of strawman arguments and stateless communist societies, I just thought of a great argument to troll neocons with; simply tell them that their opposition to big goverment means they are in favor of a stateless society and therefore a communist.

Communists(Marxists) want to achieve a stateless society by making people go through Socialism first(Unless they are Anarcho-Communist) with belief that humans in general are products of the conditions they grew up in, it was based off of the Paris Commune in 1871's system originally. "Classes" refers to classes of power, for example bosses/corporate CEOs are a class in that they have legal/economic power over their employees in all workplaces and can lobby to control politics. Apparently Eris/Discordia also dislikes them because of many being so controlling.

The "Communist"(Using Socialism as a means unless Anarcho-Communist) path to abolition of the state is slower, the Anarchist path is quick and immediate. That is the different between Anarchists and Communists.

I truly question how much Marxist and anarchist philosophy you have read, if you have come to these conclusions.

I mean in simplified terms. One wants to abolish the state by having civilization evolve through Socialism(Primitive statelessness/communism > slavery/aristocracy > feudalism > capitalism > mutation into corporate feudalism/crony-system then revolution eventually > socialism > communism). The other wants to do it right on the spot.

The differences I can think of is you do not have to worry about dropping the soap in high school and you can go home?

Now what are the similarities? Especially in Australia's high school where all must dress the same?