Topic: How Social Justice Warriors Are Creating An Entire Generation Of Fascists (Read 4761 times)

Given the recent events on this forum, I believe this thread needs a good bump and review by its users. My OP is now more relevant than ever.

It is true, those articles only demonstrate how corrupt spineless bastards politicians are.

The fact that corporations pay them is more like a tribute they pay so that in return they can benefit from lower taxes, but the politicians are the tyrants here not the corporations.

The corporations are greedy bastards only that do whatever to make more money. But the real tyrants are the politicians with their police state.

Oh really, i never seen a period in humanity's existence where no tyrants existed.

From the tribal era the tribe chief and their minions subjugating the other tribesman, from the city states with kings and queens, to the feudal era where the nobles acted as the minions of the king, to the modern era where the corporations act the minions of the government.

It's all the same, you got 1 huge tyrant or a coalition of tyrants who use their minions to subjugate the rest of the humans.

It's the same shit over and over again for thousands of years.

And your solution is what? Create a local "tribal style" socialist paradise. So you only change the currently terrible and overreaching government with a local, more tribalish tyrant. And then it starts over again...

Well goob job, you really give freedom don't you.


Who said anything about utopia, there would be plenty of conflict in my world too, however it could be resolved more rationally and relationships would be more voluntary, rather than forced upon us.

Definitions of words are almost never static, but are organic and slowly evolve over time. But I agree that having a deep understanding of language is important now more than ever.

"The term libertarianism originally referred to a philosophical belief in free will but later became associated with anti-state socialism and Enlightenment-influenced political movements critical of institutional authority believed to serve forms of social domination and injustice. While it has generally retained its earlier political usage as a synonym for social anarchism through much of the world, in the United States it has since come to describe pro-capitalist economic liberalism more so than radical, anti-capitalist egalitarianism."

The right wing political machine has coopted the term libertarian to refer to pro-capitalist that is leans liberal on social issues, with the important exception of income inequality, class, and related socio-economic problems.
Only you and a relative handful (~15 mil of 350 mil of 7 billion) of other white, mostly-christian, mostly-male republican-voting idiot americans slanders the word libertarian to mean ANYTHING pro-capitalist.

And the right is desperately trying to coopt the word anarchy itself, by creating insane oxymorons such as "anarcho-capitalist".

Spend a few minutes doing research next time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

I wish that were true.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130819/00581624225/50-retiring-senators-now-become-lobbyists-up-3-few-decades-ago.shtml

http://www.thenation.com/article/166809/when-congressman-becomes-lobbyist-he-gets-1452-percent-raise-average

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_%28politics%29

For about 99.9% of the past five hundred thousand years or so.

Your utopian fantasy version of capitalism never existed, you mean. Nor will it ever. So why even bother discussing it? It's even more absurd than socialist utopian fantasies.

I`m not so sure about that. Corporations do lobby and finance the election campaings of politicians, but to say that they buy them is absurd.

Politicians have way more power than corporations and they only use corporations as their puppets to finance elections, in return they get tax exeption and pay as little as 1-2% taxes, while the burden is shifted to the middle and poor class.

So it's the govenrment that uses the corporation as a tool to congregate the markets, and have more isigght into it, such as surveilance, tax control and prevent 3rd parties (which are not affiliated with the maffia system) to rise to either political or economic power.

In short, they act like a maffia.


Oh really, when did we in the existence of humanity got no government?

Capitalism was always under constand attack from the govenrments, so your point is bullshit, you keep bashing capitalism, but you fail to realize that capitalism never existed, because govenrments always prevented it!!!!

How hard is it to understand that.

At this point it'd be more accurate to say that the government is the extended arm of the corporations. Corporations buy politicians, not the other way around.

"Yeah, and there'd be no crime, either! And no poverty! Definitely no exploitation happening, and no pollution!"  

This is the way capitalism evolved because it was the only way capitalism could have evolved. You can't create an alternate reality for a convenient defense of capitalism, and still expect to be taken seriously.

That's nonsensical, live in reality for fuck's sake.

Don't forget Lenin, Pol Pot, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Mengistu Haile Mariam,Josip Broz Tito ,and every other single fucking leftist that existed had blood tied to his hands.

Yes so this shows how well they care about our children, to use some emotional propaganda, like they do.

They care about our children and grandchildren isnt it?

Starving children during the Ukrainian famine of 1932 resulted from the magnificent leadership of the communist scum:

Why don't you combine a few more ideologies in there so you can be absolutely sure that if your logic is questioned you can just default to another belief system to escape from self examination or admission of the flaws in your logic. I am quite positive Libertarians and socialists are not at all compatible, they are quite antithetical. You might as call yourself a short, tall, long haired, bald, man, woman.  Additionally the claiming of logical supremacy is also a nice humble touch, especially considering you have not backed a single one of your arguments with facts or logic, just more emotional appeals, claims of superiority, repetition of buzzwords, and deconstructions of other people's logic without declaring your own standpoints. It really does not get any more cowardly than some one who claims superiority but is too afraid to detail their own ideology. In my opinion, most "social justice warriors" are just supremacist totalitarians wrapping themselves in the warm fuzzy cloak of humanitarianism to prevent detection of their psychopathy.



1. I never called myself a libertarian. You declared me a libertarian. I agree with many libertarian ideals, but I don't think I would go as far as giving myself the label of libertarian.

2. This is a logical fallacy called equivocation. You do not have a right to use the same word to have one meaning for others while another meaning for yourself. Words have definitions which are static and mean things. Words are not just tools you can use to mean anything you personally choose while telling everyone else how they should use them.

3. Regardless of your statistics, you are still wrong and are still guilty of racial bias.

4. Again, you declare me libertarian, I did not.

5. This is a reasonable assumption, but still an assumption.

6. See number 5

You can try to use unsourced statistics to try to defend your prejudice, but the fact is you are prejudiced. Also, you never explained why it is you assumed I am capitalist. You seem to be very willing to apply labels to others, yet it seems you are no so fond of labeling your own ideologies, or backing them up with facts. You also repeatedly make statements about the horrors of capitalism that I don't think even the most ardent capitalist would be in favor of, as if they would be. This is quite disingenuous and presumptive. Instead of having a discussion with individuals, you have a compulsion to categorize every statement from the standpoint of your preexisting biases, and then place those individuals within your ideological framework of choice, then act as if it is undeniable reality. This is the definition of confirmation bias.

Look I can post pictures of the horrors of socialism too!

Again this is all sensationalist,  appeal-to-emotion bullshit.

I`ve heard the same bullshit "do it for your children or grandchildren"... you behave exactly as socialists, with all the appeal to emotion you do.

You fail to respond to my earlier posts with logical arguments, yet you now try to appeal to the weak-minded by emotional propaganda just as your other comrades are doing the social warriors, like the OP said.

However i happen to agree with you on the ecological devastation!!!

You know why? Because fucking corporations do the ecological devastation. And you know what a corporation is?

It's the fucking extended arm of the government. The government gives them immunity of prosecution, so they can do all the shit they want.

Oil spills, forest devastation, global warming, etc etc. All caused by the henchmen of the govenrments.

You still fail to recognize that capitalism has nothing to do with this. This is fascist-corporative greed that we live in right now, attributed solely to government.

In a true capitalist world, there would be no corporations, and nobody could avoid being prosecuted for devastating the enviroment.

-------

So at this point you must be either a troll or you have serious comprehension issues  

Simple observation and deduction, my good man.

1. You have identified yourself as a libertarian.
2. Your use of the word libertarian in the american sense - political right pro-capitalist, rather than europe's libertarian meaning political left, often anti-capitalist
3. 94% of american libertarians are white, non-hispanic.
4. 68% of american libertarians are male.
5. You're a bitcoiner, so definitely male. Only 4% of bitcoiners are female.
6. You're a bitcoiner, so probably younger than the average libertarian, likely between 20 and 40.

Communism is even dead than capitalism, one might as well identify as a Franciscan Monk Radical. I'm a social anarchist / anarcho-socialist / libertarian socialist / person who is better at pattern recognition than you. Take your pick.

By the way, I'm happy to go on record admitting that yes, I do enjoy making libertarians (and other capitalists) squirm by exposing them to the cruelty, indifference, and global ecological devastation of capitalism.



Honestly now, if we continue down this selfish, short-sighted path, where do you people think it ends? What is the logical conclusion of capitalism in your mind? Because it's certainly not a planet your grandchildren will thank you for. The science is clear on that much.
Sooner or later we're going to have to face the facts: our current economic structures are both genocidal and suicidal, and then we're going to have to answer some hard questions about the future. All I'm saying is, why the hell should we wait?!

Your friendly local SJW,

World Citizen Beliathon

Dont be fooled and dont underestimate the stupidity of the leftists. After all these people murdered 70 million people in the 20 century.

This forum has been infiltrated by leftists and hardcore statists, so i think he is a genuine communist.

Personally, I think you underestimate the capacity for ignorance in true believers.

I think there is a pretty good chance that Belithon is a hard-core Libertarian and is playing to opposite side for effect.  Just a hunch because some of his/her material is somewhat over-the-top.  That would be technically 'trolling', but I've got nothing against trolling and do so in a variety of ways myself often enough.  I don't use a technique of creating an anti-natural persona that dominates my presence and don't use sock puppets since I find these things a bit too disingenuous, but I've got nothing in particular against people who do.  Trolls get their jollies out of a response pretty much by definition, but if their activities also fosters discussion and contemplation, so much the better.

Oh but you did. I linked a video about a man arguing AGAINST limiting people's speech in order to protect people from offense, and your response:


You clearly disagree with the man's statements. Therefore either you:
A) Agree that speech should be limited to prevent offense.
B) Didn't even bother watching it and are just being contrarian because that is what you do.
C) you don't understand any of this and are just pretending you do.

If I did not clearly state your point, perhaps you should actually declare your position instead of defining your points only by the deconstruction of the arguments of others. This is the kind of things that cowards who can not back up their own beliefs do. If you never declare your position, then how can anyone argue against it? Better to just criticize the standpoints of others, it is much safer that way and your precious believee feelees wont ever be challenged.



But you did after all say this:


So what about your statement about arguments being fruitless applies to me but not you? By making this statement you either mean just me, or everyone (including yourself). Again you seem to pretend as if you are on some higher level of thought that no one else is capable of. Not at all arrogant and bias



First of all, what makes you think I am an American white male libertarian capitalist? Speaking of biases this is a pretty big one. There is no way you could know my race, gender, or nationality, and thinking you can judge this by my words alone makes you - A RACIST & A SEXIST- because you are judging people by your own prejudices about skin color and gender. Additionally I love how when a man judges people for being female it is sexist, but when a woman judges people for being male, it is just evening the balance of power! Not at all sexist. This statement also it makes clear your incredible bias, because any argument that counters your worldview MUST be from an American white male libertarian capitalist now must it? Not bias at all.

I like how almost every single one of your arguments uses emotion as a basis, as if it is equivalent to logic. A sure sign of an intelligent person with the ability for critical thought.

Not to offend you, but you are either wilfully ignorant or just nuts.

The whole suffering in africa,middle east and other impoverished places were done by the government!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The colonial era pillaged and looted all resourced from natives.

And now they are looting it through the established central banking system.

You know the whole OECD, IMF and World Bank's mission to eradicate poverty, IS CREATING THE FUCKING PROVERTY IN THE FIRST PLACE.
With their fucking fractional ponzi scheme that they force on the whole world.

How naive must be a person to not comprehend it?

If we would let africa trade freely, without capital controls, it would turn into Hong-Kong in 2 years.

Instead the governments ship AIDS there through the catholic church and other bullshit propagandists and destroy them.

If you really cared about them then you wouldn't advocate the same beast propaganda that has been SEEN hundreds of years ago...

===========

Also you didnt even had the courage to respond to my early post, so did you chickened out or you have no logical argument against it because you realized deep down that your theory is full of crap.

Why do you feel the need to put words in my mouth? If I believed that, I'd have said it.

Yet again, not something I said. Being incapable of reason is not the same as having a closed mind about certain issues which make libertarians feel uncomfortable. Modern wage slavery and inhumane working conditions, for example. Or the wholesale abandonment of Detroit.

I wonder how much mental energy it takes to support the cognitive dissonance present in a white male libertarian capitalist american in 2015? A stunning vacuum of awareness when it comes to privilege. How finely you have sculpted your mind to avoid these truths, truly it is a work of art.



Deep down you know it is only good fortune that spares you from their suffering. Just as easily could have been you, just as easily could be your grandchildren. Try not to think about it, empathy hurts!

As usual the socialists run away when confronted with the faults in their logic, because they have no actual substance behind their arguments, just platitudes that play on your emotions.

So you believe that speech should be controlled in order to protect people from offense? How does this effect the free exchange of ideas and discussion of how to improve the world by doing so? Please explain to me exactly what about his argument is incorrect and why. Just because he used reductive examples does not automatically make his arguments incorrect or fallacious.

As far as your video, if your opinion is all humans are incapable of debate and reason, then what are you doing here wasting your time pushing your worldview?

The powerstructures are getting more and more interconnected : UN, EU, Bilderberg and more

It's not regional, if it were regional then only the region leader has power over the region, and not on the entire planet.

The USA military is pretty much inside every western country, thats not regional.

We long surpassed the regional era, which was with the middle ages, and self-sustaining city-states each with their own tyrant. It's a much bigger tyrrany now.


No, you hijack my words. I only said that an an-cap society would tolerate an-socialist local regions, if they would play by capitalis rules as of:
-Purchase their own land, and build their own socialist paradise there
-Don't threaten outside capitalist by taking over the world and converting people to socialism
-Respect the non-agression principle with outsiders and neighboring properties

If they follow these rules, then inside their compound they can do anything they want, however the outside world would be capitalist an they should respect other's property then, even if inside their territory they would have "no property"

This can't be said vice versa. Because if the whole world would be anarcho-socialist, they would persecute an-cap people as they would claim that all property is common and I can't own a house for example.

So this is why an-cap is freedom, and an-socialist is just another form of tyrrany.


Yes i deny. The background of tyrrany is a long tradition of tyrranical rule that people got used to it.

There was anarchy some hundred thousand years ago, but then some caveman thugs decided to rule above all other caveman, and since the cavemen was frightened and didnt understood the things clearly, he subjugated himself to it.

Today we can defend ourself agains tyrrany, even a weak woman can defend himself agains a muscular thug by using a gun, the world got more "fair" today.

The only reason nowadays people accept tyrrany is because of tradition and their own ignorance, that they got used to it and never see the alternative peaceful solution to things.