[ art / civ / cult / cyb / diy / drg / feels / layer / lit / λ / q / r / sci / sec / tech / w / zzz ] archive provided by lainchan.jp

lainchan archive - /civ/ - 1318



File: 1471516428133.png (42.14 KB, 300x165, kdljhakls.jpg)

No.1318

Because I don't tend to see fascism represented in a cogent way in any corner of the internet, I'd like to present the logical and social merits of a system like national socialism, the ideas that it embodies, and the general positives of centralized government. I certainly won't cover everything, but I hope that I touch on some points that will foster some sort of discussion. Before anything I'd like to note that there are some things I consider to be common sense which I'd rather not argue and ask that you assume them to be true as well for the sake of a more abstract discussion. I'd also like to separate fascism as an ideology from its historical examples. Also I'm not very interested in writing an essay, so I'm just going to put these in bullet points.
-National control over finances and resources keeps your economic interests in line with your political interests. This is more relevant than ever with the rise of globalism and all that it can do to fuck over your political aspirations.
-Denial of the man as an animal is absurd. Humans are subject to the same biological and genetic laws as any other species. The broad implications of these laws for our society are largely ignored. Eugenics while historically very malpracticed presents a means of improving (though certainly not perfecting) the human animal.
-It naturally follows that not all humans are of equal value or skill. The vast majority of people have some skills that make them useful to society, however there are some people that are demonstratably worthless in every practical sense. Egalitarianism is a system that is highly inefficient. Equal opportunity is good for society, equality kills it.
-A diverse set of opinions and abilities is very good as it allows you to tackle problems that a single mindset would not allow, however society needs all of its citizens to agree on certain things in order to function as a group. Other cultures are often incompatible with yours, and if you are to accept someone into your society, they should accommodate society, rather than the other way around.
-Nationalism (distinct from patriotism) is the only means by which the nation is formed, and the nation is what tends to hold society together.
-Private media more often reflects the interests of its owners than it does the public.

I'm quite sure that's not all, but it's all on my mind at the moment.

Also I'd like make the disclaimer that while I endorse the above points, I don't consider myself a fascist.

  No.1319

Huh.

First of all, commendations. Not only do you have the balls to put forth a fascist platform on a website that tends to lean left, but you also do it in a way cordial enough that I don't immediately want to attack you. Good job, that's not easy to do.

That said, I do have a rebuttal or two.
>I'd also like to separate fascism as an ideology from its historical examples.
This is going to be difficult. If you're talking to a hardline Leninist, then they'll claim that the USSR didn't represent "true communism;" a libertarian will claim that the USA isn't "true capitalism;" and so on and so on. However; Stalin and his successors deeply believed in communism, and as a result 10 million or so people died and millions more were oppressed until the state ultimately failed. Every president of the last century deeply believed in capitalism, but millions of Americans only scrape by with the help of welfare and crime. If you want to advance a fascist platform (even as a thought experiment), that entails owning the actions of fascist states. And by even calling your ideology fascist, that's effectively what you're doing: you're identifying with Mussolini et al.

That being said, I'd like to hear you detail your understanding of the "nation," if only because it means so many different, contradictory things to so many different people.

  No.1320

>>1319
Right, I don't actually mean to say that the historical examples weren't actually fascist, on the contrary I think they fit the bill pretty accurately. Really I just want to talk about fascism as an ideology rather than its legacy.

As for the definition of a nation I think I'd go with the vanilla: an nation is a group of people sharing a common history, belief system, or ethnicity occupying a territory with aims to establish a society in which they can realize their political aspirations with sovereignty. Nationalism therefore would be the belief that your nation has the right to control this territory and realize the political goals that the nation shares.

  No.1322

>>1320
Not how I would define nationalism. I'd define it more simply: nationalism is the belief that the nation is either more important or as important as its citizens.

This can take interesting forms. For instance, in America nationalism often takes the form of anti-government sentiment. However, in that case they are defending the perceived way the nation should be, in their reading of the constitution.

  No.1662

File: 1471647293802.png (27.88 KB, 200x135, rev up those gas chambers.jpg)

>commendations
I want to already say "opinion discarded" since you can't hold a single thought in your mind for long enough to write down a coherent sentence.
It's obviously a fault of your neurotic mind, but meh I'll give it a pass

>Not only do you have the balls to put forth a fascist platform on a website that tends to lean left

Jesus you lefties, to us emotions don't matter. We don't think "oh gosh, what is everyone around me feel like if I say that", I just think "is what I am saying truthful or not?". The whole emotional aspect is for Pavlovian dogs and little children, not humans capable of forming coherent thoughts. This "you're ballsy" says more about you than me or OP.

>but you also do it in a way cordial enough that I don't immediately want to attack you

Jesus, again with emotions. Either attack OP or don't. Don't be a "reactionary" as someone told to me.

>Good job, that's not easy to do

Again with pavlovian techniques. If its not easy to make you not attack someone based on what their political opinion is then you should really consider your life. Not life choices, but your life.

>This is going to be difficult

Just like socialism/anarchy no? You peeps keep on saying the "BUT SOCIALISM WAS NEVER TRIED" and "THAT WASN'T REALLY SOCIALISM".
To me OP is obviously trying to be a "good boi" and go along the lines of current "winners write the history" model of what we look at Nat Soc. It's obviously false, and there are plenty of reasons why, which are too long to write, but let's just say that I like the Nat Soc of past...what then?

>and as a result 10 million or so people died

20 million actually.

>but millions of Americans only scrape by with the help of welfare and crime

Mainly because it isn't free market capitalism, or the system isn't in real hands.
Now, if someone like Adolph came back and took over the central bank from those crooked nosebergs and nosesteins then he would make unemployment zero again and build infrastructure of country from ground up.

>If you want to advance a fascist platform

we are already, believe us

>even as thought experiment

hehehehehe

>you're identifying with Mussolini et al.

More like Pinochet and his amazing helicopter rides, but obviously you don't know about anyone other than mainstream propaganda fascists.

> I'd like to hear you detail your understanding of the "nation,"

One people, one culture, one mission, strength through unity, unity through faith, God among men to lead them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTryU1fp-zw

  No.1709

>>1662
Read the rules before posting again.

  No.1720

OP,
I am not extremely educated in politics and social behavior, but I would like to talk about one of your points.
>however society needs all of its citizens to agree on certain things in order to function as a group
Are these to be instated as a set of "laws" (or "constitutions") in this hypothetical system, or installed ethically among the people? And is the group think allowed to change or are the agreements supposed to be immutable?
Dissent of the core beliefs of a system (e.g. "gun control" today) can tear a populace into distrust, and ensuring a set of beliefs can only be attempted through manipulation and indoctrination, which are arguably unethical practices.

  No.1745

>>1319
>on a website that tends to lean left
I don't remember this website having any political connotation to it before this year, has it always been leftist or did this just happen?

  No.1747

>>1745
Anything neutral is "left leaning" to fascists.

  No.1759

>>1745
Compared to 4chan and 8chan, it's always been pretty far to the left. Of course, those places aren't really centrist.

  No.1791

>>1662
>One people, one culture, one mission, strength through unity, unity through faith, God among men to lead them.
Ignorance is Strength, War is Peace, Hate is Love, etc. etc.

  No.1792

File: 1472163433021.png (214.98 KB, 200x165, 1471868480990-4.png)

>>1791
Nice buzzphrase, leaf
Didn't your prime minister say something like "If you kill your enemies they win"?

Now, that we got that out of the way, your buzzphrase would imply that what I am saying is an oxymoronic idea.
I would like to believe that homogeneous society(group) that upholds the same moral beliefs, same cultural beliefs, and has sense of belonging to that society is stronger in its convictions than a heterogeneous filled with different ideologies and cultures.

Heterogeneous societies feel sort of alienating because you don't know that you can rely on person next to you if you were to fall down and break your leg (would they rob you or just ignore you), if you understand what I am saying.

Now, if you were in homogeneous where everyone knows that EVERYONE else has same kind of beliefs and morals as them then they would feel calm in knowing that everyone will do the same as they would.

Why you think that is oxymoron I don't know....could you elaborate on that please?

>>1745
A lot of a4narchists and fem1nists that had their generals on /cyb/ claimed that cyberpunk is inherently "punk" and therefore "4narchist".
Kalyx himself denounced them but they still keep on defending their stance.

>>1747
That doesn't answer >>1745 . He asked about political connotations of this chan, not political viewpoint of "fascists".
You are just trying to smear things and hold your narrative so strongly that you can't even answer questions directly.

>>1759
"Centrism" in my eyes is just a part of "Thesis + Anti-thesis = synthesis" process.
That is why 8/4chan denounce centrists and even most of conservatist5 as "cuc-kservativs".
"Centrism" isn't a political stance, it's a middle ground for people that don't know what they want to believe in.
It's a kid that always wants to calm down the fighting between the political sides by providing a "calm collected intellectual middle ground" to both sides.

It worked as a cool tactic of Thesis, Anti-Thesis Synthesis until centre was pushed so far to the left that it started to eat into the conservative movement.

Centrism in of itself isn't a political stance with clear cut political issues and narratives, it is just a leftists tool for "im better than both of you, you're both extremes" talk that I get whenever I talk to centrists.

  No.1793

File: 1472164442394.png (496.99 KB, 150x200, 1471869022574-1.png)

>>1720
>Are these to be instated as a set of "laws" (or "constitutions") in this hypothetical system, or installed ethically among the people?
Not OP but I would add that it would probably be culturally instilled in the collective ideas of population.
Laws and constitutions are just manifestations of culturally influenced moral convictions, nothing else.

>And is the group think allowed to change or are the agreements supposed to be immutable?

As long as it is beneficial to the people there is no reason to fix anything that is not broken.
If lets say we had a Nordic country with murder rate of zero, ZEROOOO, had massive social security and welfare (that no one used because everyone had a job) in 1964 but someone decided to push for immigration because "we need to share this heaven on earth to those poor third worlders", right?
Then you would go "well, why?". Altruism?
This is somehow effect of excess wealth, which is why I think people should always be given ENOUGH money to survive, but less than enough to live comfortably.

A human needs to strive for better and bigger.

And yes, you got that correctly, the country I was talking about is Sweden, which now is projected to have economy of a third world country by 2050.

>Dissent of the core beliefs of a system (e.g. "gun control" today) can tear a populace into distrust, and ensuring a set of beliefs can only be attempted through manipulation and indoctrination, which are arguably unethical practices.

Most gun grabbers are left leaning, most of them have been manipulated and indoctrinated through emotions (not numbers, stats or facts) to believe that guns are bad.

Anyone that learned about proper safety of firearms, learned the protocol of using a firearm and used it knows that it is just a tool, not an enemy or perpetrator of killings.

However, the narrative of "assault" weapons and "they're created with sole purpose of killing" has been showed down the throat of cuuuucks and leftists so hard that they fear any law abiding citizen with open carry.

Its sad how they claim at one hand how they would rather wait for police (minimum of 7 minutes) than feel safer in hands of gun enthusiast that has had more experience and training.

  No.1797

File: 1472189945004-0.png (53.17 KB, 200x131, guncontrol.jpg)

File: 1472189945004-1.png (133.46 KB, 153x200, follow-your-leader.jpg)

>>1792
>anarchists (the feminism is implied but nonetheless appreciated) not falling in line with hero worship

how very surprising

>>1745
it has always been left. just like cyberpunk. but >>1747 is also correct.

>>1793
don't equate gun control with the left. Liberals love gun control. The left is why they wanted gun control in the first place.

Here illustrated are the actions of the left and the right with guns.

  No.1800

File: 1472195837886.png (159.74 KB, 200x196, 1459229878519.png)

>>1792
>attacking a Canadian strawman based on a quote that doesn't actually exist
>I can't trust someone not to rob me when I get injured because they look different
>people who take a political middle ground because they don't quite know what they believe are actually leftists
Can we gas mongoloids like you to keep you from further dragging down the human race with your retardation?

  No.1802

File: 1472212330860.png (104.11 KB, 200x134, 23-clinton-health.w710.h473.2x.jpg)

>>1800
>>attacking a Canadian strawman based on a quote that doesn't actually exist
"Now, that we got that out of the way"....
It was just a banter warm up, calm down

>>because they look different

You missed the point I was trying to carry. Outward appearance is just one of indicators of different set of beliefs and ideals.
People that listen to metal, people that believe in allah.... Skin color is just one of those things.
The point I am trying to give is that THEY HAVE DIFFERENT SET OF MORALS AND BELIEFS.
That is why homogeneous society is better than heterogeneous.

>>are actually leftists

You should read into "Thesis, Antithesis Synthesis".
The semantics of words like "centre" and "right" is slanted when there have been decades of left wing propaganda.
That is why we call conservatists cuuuuckservatives, because they exhibit some left wing characteristics.

>Can we gas mongoloids like you to keep you from further dragging down the human race with your retardation?

I actually believe in eugenics, and if it were that I got rounded up with a lot of retards I wouldn't fight it, I would like to get sterilized, there are enough people on this planet anyways.

Anyways, why do you not contribute to conversation?
I understand the whole "smug animu gurl" method of arguing, but even your pic is old and used too much.
Seriously...

>>1797
>not falling in line with hero worship
They have their own heroes
But thanks for boiling my argument down to one sentence, THAAAANKKSSSSSSSS

>and the right with guns

This is why I can't talk to people like you.
They believe the slightest war propaganda.
Why would a guy that marched with his fellow NatSoc party members in front of guns of german army, in front row, shot himself?
I bet you also believe Bin Laden has been killed and his body dropped into water from a helicopter

  No.1808

File: 1472229234947.png (1.31 MB, 151x200, smug Mugi mug.jpg)

>>1792
>attacking a strawman based on fiction was just banter
>we resort to ad hominem whenever someone's beliefs don't perfectly align with ours
>wonders why others don't waste their time debating with him when he acts like a child

  No.1809

File: 1472231339605.png (4.35 MB, 200x113, trump is LITERALLY HITLER.webm)

>>1808
>>1808
>was just banter
Yea it was, that's why I said "Now that we got that out of the way". If its bugging you so much, I am sorry.

>>we resort to ad hominem whenever someone's beliefs don't perfectly align with ours

No, its just that your post was empty of all meaning.
It was just a buzzphrase. I explained how my opinion isn't oxymoronic as your phrase would imply.
I am yet waiting for proper elaboration on it.
Ad hominem was just there as banter, as a nudge to make you elaborate on the issue.
I see that I won't be getting that from you, only smug animu gurls.

>>wonders why others don't waste their time debating with him when he acts like a child

I enacted the labor to explain myself, you have done nothing but post smug reaction images and buzzphrases.

  No.1810

>>1802
>People that listen to metal, people that believe in allah.... Skin color is just one of those things.
>The point I am trying to give is that THEY HAVE DIFFERENT SET OF MORALS AND BELIEFS.
That's completely false. Having spent my youth listening to metal and going to concerts there were all kinds of people into it. I knew hardcore Christians and atheists that listened to metal. I knew both obnoxious straight-edge faggots and drug users that listened to metal. Listening to metal, even with the usual metal uniform, gives no meaningful indication of what kind of person someone may be.

I can actually say the same about Muslims. I knew two Muslims from my football team in middle/high school. One was named Muhammed and the other I don't remember. Both were really cool guys that, while very religious, never once complained about the coach's group prayers and always worked their hardest for the team. Everyone liked them despite this being a bible belt region. Then I also knew a Muslim kid named Yusuf. He was more Americanized and less outwardly religious than the guys I played football with and was a complete asshole. Never tried to get along with people and generally looked down on everyone. I think he grew out of it, but at the time he was an annoying person to deal with.

>That is why homogeneous society is better than heterogeneous.

How so? By what standard? If we look at engineering and technological sophistication the US and the USSR were well ahead of the rest, particularly in weapon and space development. Neither nation is homogenous by any standard. Even today Russia isn't at all homogenous.
Economically the US, China, and Japan are the largest or most powerful. The US and China are not homogenous by any standard. Japan is, very debatebly, ethnically homogenous, but is home to countless religious groups and has fairly large cultural divides throughout the nation. It has only been recently that these divides have started to melt as young people all move to urban centers, but Japan is in a state of economic decline. Also, the nation of Japan as we know it is a fairly recent invention.

>The semantics of words like "centre" and "right" is slanted when there have been decades of left wing propaganda.

>That is why we call conservatists cuuuuckservatives, because they exhibit some left wing characteristics.
What left-wing propaganda? There has been a constant flow of anti-communist, anti-socialist, and anti-anarchist propaganda since the late 19th century. What left-wing characteristics do conservatives exhibit? Left-wing, following the end of aristocratic rule, has generally referred to anti-capitalists. I fail to see how conservatives have promoted anything anti-capitalist.

  No.1811

File: 1472233219351.png (87.12 KB, 200x179, 1459810136814.jpg)

>>1809
>No, its just that your post was empty of all meaning.
The point about resorting to ad hominem was about your explanation of why you use ad hominem against political groups that don't align with your views here >>1802
>That is why we call conservatists cuuuuckservatives, because they exhibit some left wing characteristics.

>It was just a buzzphrase. I explained how my opinion isn't oxymoronic as your phrase would imply.

How are you managing to mix me up with someone else when this board actually has IDs? Not everyone has to regularly swap between international proxies to make it seem like more users share their views.

  No.1814

File: 1472236099449-0.png (100.7 KB, 139x200, muslims.png)

File: 1472236099449-1.png (511.09 KB, 200x145, israelis on racism.png)

>>1810
> I knew hardcore Christians and atheists that listened to metal. I knew both obnoxious straight-edge faggots and drug users that listened to metal
Your own personal experience =/= objective proof of collective morals and beliefs of one particular group.
What I am looking for when I look for set of beliefs and ideas that one group has is by looking at what "most" of them believes in.
If majority of them believes in something, then that characteristic is associated with that group.
pic related.
Just because "well I knew that one guy that liked screamo songs about rape and murder but also liked go to church" doesn't mean that it paints the picture of the group collective.

>I knew two Musl1ms from my football team in middle/high school

Pic related.
Does your personal experience OF TWO musl1ms trump the proof of millions of musl1ms surveyed about their beliefs?
Don't make me laugh
Here is also a video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg

>How so? By what standard?

Let's take a thought experiment.
Put a (hungry) musl1m, hindu, budhist, a j3w, a christian and a pagan up to a task. For instance, give them a goal of killing a cow, skinning it and making a meal. There would obviously be in group discussion, bickering, protests about the killing of the cow and HOW it needs to be done.
Now, let's take 6 hungry siberian slavs that haven't seen food since the time they ran away from a gul4g. Do you think they would bicker? Do you they would talk about kosher or not? Do you think they would want to sacrifice something to earth God?
If group is homogeneous, if they have same set of morals and beliefs, if they have same conviction to the task and goal at hand, they will strive to success, they will help each other and themselves.

>If we look at engineering and technological sophistication the US and the USSR were well ahead of the rest, particularly in weapon and space development. Neither nation is homogenous by any standard

Operation Paperclip, Operation Osoaviakhim and strong alphabet soup grip over the nation through fear of enemy (on both sides) pushed the country through the same goal narrative.
But don't forget, this was also the time of great civil rights movements that destroyed the cohesive nuclear family.

>Economically the US, China, and Japan are the largest or most powerful

US because of petrodollar and special interest economic hitmen that control the shadow government.
China because of their debt with US and manipulation of currency.
Japan has more debt that it can EVER pay off, its going in hyperinflation mode.

>The US and China are not homogenous by any standard

US has seen in few past years what this mult1cultural society can create. A lot of riots and lootings.
China is homogeneous, just not politically, but Jiang Zemin holds the party down (even after retirement) by his friends from inside. Xi Jinping isn't such a strong leader, Hong Kong might crack down on his rule.

  No.1816

File: 1472236429200.png (57.05 KB, 113x200, 13680731_854887617977672_709050414688315232_n.jpg)

>>165007
>Japan is, very debatebly, ethnically homogenous
>debatebly
elaborate

>but is home to countless religious groups and has fairly large cultural divides throughout the nation

The control over immigration, control over major policies are still over to people that want to have strong grip over homogeneous society.
But I want to hear what you think these "fairly large cultural divides" and "countless religious groups" are

>What left-wing propaganda?

See OP pic, not to mention how leftists use general self affirming terms like "its current year" and "the right side of history" that paints their worldview as if its widely approved of.

>There has been a constant flow of anti-communist, anti-socialist, and anti-anarchist propaganda since the late 19th century

Is that why B3rnie S4nders would have won if H1llary Cl1nton didn't rig the nomination, and pay off that j3w for him to endorse her?
The anti propaganda is there as a reaction of what Yuri explained.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x733SWGk6kA
Don't mind it, the 4 stages are already complete.
Late 19th century has came and went. "It's 2016 gawddd".

>What left-wing characteristics do conservatives exhibit?

Here is a j3wpedia propagandist version explanation of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cu ckservative#Definition
(remove the space)

>end of aristocratic rule, has generally referred to anti-capitalists

Yea, abolish aristocracy, here comes the plutocrats.
The left didn't do anything of value, just put on worse people to rule them.

> I fail to see how conservatives have promoted anything anti-capitalist.

I guess you didn't read the "Thesis AntiThesis Synthesis", but I will give a brief explanation.
The reason why conservatives are considered "leftists" now is because the left is so farrrrrr left that they pulled everyone with them.
So conservatives today actually use some of the liberal narratives that were used before.

  No.1817

File: 1472236482014.png (56.91 KB, 178x200, Pmzbze.jpg)

>>1811
>>That is why we call conservatists cuuuuckservatives, because they exhibit some left wing characteristics.
It isn't "perfectly align" , but they spit in our face with their leftist drivel.
They aren't conservatives, they don't deserve that name.
Ad hominem is only thing they deserve.
And trust me, I tried debating enough of them that it just makes no difference.

>How are you managing to mix me up with someone else when this board actually has IDs?

I don't care about this board that much tbh

>Not everyone has to regularly swap between international proxies to make it seem like more users share their views.

I think even a children can see by my style of arguing that I am not trying to do that.

  No.1818

File: 1472236718152.png (100.1 KB, 69x200, japanese comic on niggers.jpg)

>>1814
>If group is homogeneous, if they have same set of morals and beliefs, if they have same conviction to the task and goal at hand, they will strive to success, they will help each other and themselves.

I would like to add, that by making them all have similar goals and desires, they feel the group strength, a sense of belonging and they know that if something goes wrong that they can rely on person next to them.
This feeling is gone in multicultural society where a lot of ideologies and different cultures run rampant.

  No.1820

File: 1472244797117.png (200.6 KB, 173x200, 1459251892146.png)

>>1814
>What I am looking for when I look for set of beliefs and ideas that one group has is by looking at what "most" of them believes in.
>honestly thinking that people who like something as broad and mainstream as metal can be analyzed in such a simplistic way

>Pic related.

>Does your personal experience OF TWO musl1ms trump the proof of millions of musl1ms surveyed about their beliefs?
Protip: views can vary significantly by region, standard of living, level of education, and many of other factors. A Muslim in the US will not necessarily hold the same beliefs as a Muslim from a 3rd world shithole like Afghanistan who may not even be able to read or write. Your chart also appears to be way off, as it puts the support of the death penalty for adultery among Muslims who think Sharia should be the law of the land at about 68%, yet the 5 out of 20 countries in the Pew poll where about 68% or more Muslims who support Sharia also support death for adultery (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian territories) account for less than 21% of the world's Muslim population.

>China is homogeneous

You really aren't selling homogeneousness well with China as an example, especially when contrasted with your earlier example of why homogeneousness is a good thing involving being injured.

>>1816
>OP pic is an example of left wing propaganda
>a stick figure comic with no political connotations is left wing propaganda
I don't even.

>>1817
>Ad hominem is only thing they deserve.
>And trust me, I tried debating enough of them that it just makes no difference.
I have plenty of experience arguing with people who support more gun control. I however can still be civil when talking about them regardless of how much I dislike them.

>I don't care about this board that much tbh

Then leave.

  No.1822

File: 1472262577812.png (42.14 KB, 200x173, 9+11+pepe+is+about+as+rare+as+on+kotaku+_e82fadd11d57557018a81687b03cfae2.jpg)

>>1820
>>honestly thinking that people who like something as broad and mainstream as metal can be analyzed in such a simplistic way
What is Bayesian probability?

>Protip: views can vary significantly by region, standard of living, level of education, and many of other factors

move the goalpost a little further, maybe I won't score a goal

>Your chart also appears to be way off

>let me just point out one thing
It isn't my chart, but I am guessing they are adding up all the numbers from page 190 from "sometimes justified" and "often justified"
But I don't know the methodology used, so I dunno

>You really aren't selling homogeneousness well with China as an example

Communism/bad economy rots away human moral until there is none.
Before such harsh rule of communistic party chinese were moral shining example of monolithic society.

>>a stick figure comic with no political connotations is left wing propaganda

I thought I was in another thread

>I however can still be civil when talking about them regardless of how much I dislike them

At the moment the word cuuuckservative has stuck in the common vocabulary on political spectrum. With it, the word brings ideas and narratives that push and make way for idea that we want to propose to world.

You can go over 1000 times to a person trying to explain things to them, just saying things on more emotional and distilled condensed level is more impactful

>Then leave.

Make me :**
Love the punctuation, shows the bold determination of your post
Makes me think you're that pussy from mumble that said how he hates me

  No.1832

File: 1472350517053.png (41.82 KB, 200x124, wat2.jpg)

>>1822
>What is Bayesian probability?
Still doesn't change how analysis in a more specific way will be more likely to provide accurate information, IE a guess about the behavior of someone who likes metal and lives in a rural area could be inaccurate when just going off information about people who like metal in general where the statistics will be skewed toward the behaviors of people in higher population urban areas.

>move the goalpost a little further, maybe I won't score a goal

Do you even know what moving the goalposts means?

>I am guessing they are adding up all the numbers from page 190 from "sometimes justified" and "often justified"

That puts the chart's claim for percent of Muslims who support the death penalty for adultery is 46%, only 6 of the 23 polled countries (Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan) met or exceeded 46% support in that poll and those countries account for less than 22% of the world's Muslim population. There's also the problem of the procedure for how the data was extrapolated for the countries not polled not being explained.

>Communism/bad economy rots away human moral until there is none.

So if the economy and potentially other factors are that much larger of a factor in how people act that they can negate any advantages of cultural homogeneousness, why does cultural homogeneousness even matter?

>and make way for idea that we want to propose to world.

That you have the mentality of a child?

>You can go over 1000 times to a person trying to explain things to them, just saying things on more emotional and distilled condensed level is more impactful

>my low intelligence is actually an advantage
I don't even.

>Love the punctuation, shows the bold determination of your post

wat

  No.1833

>>1745
a lot of comrades from /leftypol/ on 8ch have been posting here since it's pretty popular there

  No.1834

File: 1472400763790.png (240.01 KB, 200x135, faggot.png)

>>1818
like a mighty faggot

  No.1844

>>1745
"-punk" implies left anti-authoritarian to most people though a lot of folk here were always right anti-authoritarian. I like places like this, as opposed to the ones that seek to "unite the left" or some such. I feel a lot more in common with libertarian capitalist types than communists for example though ultimately don't "agree" with either. After the revolution, I promise to stay off your lawn.

  No.1849

First, a disclaimer: I'm most familiar with British Union when it comes to fascist policies. It could be that NS can be very workable from a modern standpoint, but I just don't know.

Whilst I do generally agree with the principles of fascist thinking (collective > individual, one party allowd to act > multiple parties bickering, government should serve national interests, so on) I don't think it - the corporate state - can work today. Corporations today are much different to corporations as they were in the 1930s when fascism came into being under that term.

Unfortunately, fascism hasn't grown to meet the 21st century (oh my, I wonder why). Certain parts have stuck with me as generally good ideas, e.g. direct democracy via national referenda on policies of national contention, the technical parliament with representatives elected by the people in their respective industries, and generally trying to be more autonomous.

Other parts, such as the reliance on corporations as the pillars of society to name the most glaring one, don't meet the modern day very well at all due to how things have changed. It could be said that the corporations talked about back then were more akin to what we know as guilds, but that doesn't address the significant increase in globalism since the 1930s, the widespread use of computers, the internet, Free Software, or the huge levels of datamining done by various corporations.

I would suppose that means that these issues are left to posters like myself to mull over. On Free Software, for instance, I would imagine that fascism would be for it. One reason would be that citizens would be able to tangibly contribute to the national interest by way of contributing to government projects, perhaps. Another could be that it is better for the citizens that their data is held on a system that the government knows isn't stealing it. There isn't really a precedent for this, so it creates a situation that if it meshes with the belief system as a whole, no response is inherently wrong.

I believe I am now rambling, so I'll stop myself before this becomes truly incoherant.

>posting throttled by filter

Fuck sake.

  No.1857

>>1747
It's not 'neutral' if you spout your teenage mental acrobatics around.