Debate @The Projects about various political stuff

[The Projects]

A prime example of early ZOG propaganda maybe.
Ver archivo adjunto 8023554

>Doesn't support Chad White Man bleaching a brown babe
Pathetic. You could never be a trve Roman.

 

[Deo Volente]

You should go talk to them, and see what they actually think of you, most people don't think this way at all. You perceive all of these people as hating you because you are only exposed to the worst of them. You should interact with as many different people in the world as you possibly can, it teaches you a lot.

Honestly, I think if you knew me, we'd be good friends because I'm a funny guy, friendly and chill! :^D

Counterpoint, I told some friends of mine that making jokes about Charlie Kirk being murdered hours after it occurred was distasteful behavior. Like you say most were willing to admit it wasn't a great way to act but others got very angry at me because I apparently don't understand how evil he was. These people are legitimately deranged. Up until that conversation I thought I could just avoid talking about politics with them and get along, but that evidently is not an option anymore.

 

[FlappyBat]

You should go talk to them, and see what they actually think of you, most people don't think this way at all. You perceive all of these people as hating you because you are only exposed to the worst of them. You should interact with as many different people in the world as you possibly can, it teaches you a lot.

Honestly, I think if you knew me, we'd be good friends because I'm a funny guy, friendly and chill! :^D

Counterpoint, I told some friends of mine that making jokes about Charlie Kirk being murdered hours after it occurred was distasteful behavior. Like you say most were willing to admit it wasn't a great way to act but others got very angry at me because I apparently don't understand how evil he was. These people are legitimately deranged. Up until that conversation I thought I could just avoid talking about politics with them and get along, but that evidently is not an option anymore.

I have quite a few liberal friend, some moderate and some would probably count as far left. Even for the moderates a super majority of them when a conservative is murdered for political reasons refuse to condemn it and are clearly pleased it happened. When there is a close call, they're reaction is "why did the bullet have to miss."

 

[The Projects]

Counterpoint, I told some friends of mine that making jokes about Charlie Kirk being murdered hours after it occurred was distasteful behavior. Like you say most were willing to admit it wasn't a great way to act but others got very angry at me because I apparently don't understand how evil he was. These people are legitimately deranged. Up until that conversation I thought I could just avoid talking about politics with them and get along, but that evidently is not an option anymore.

Well, what I would say to that is that most people operate in a state of doublethink, murder is wrong, except when it's someone I don't like, because then it's reasonable. But when the other side feels that exact same way, it's wrong and morally reprehensible, and backwards. Actually, a lot of people in this thread have been doing this exact thing! Charlie Kirk's murder is wrong, but those radical leftists, well they deserve it.

The truth is, none of those people, and very likely none of the people posting here either, are equipped for violence, and if you witnessed violence or even threats of violence firsthand, you'd probably be decently shook up. It's easy to joke about and justify when it's far away from you. There's a reason the boot camp is so hard on soldiers, and drills in the idea of having to be a killer and experience violence, it's because it's a terrifying thing and it's one of the most difficult things to cope with as a human being.

Another thing you have to understand is gallows humor and dark humor, this is extremely common among people, especially these days. Personally, I don't usually make jokes about recently deceased people. I didn't like Charlie Kirk, but getting shot dead in front of your family is a pretty gruesome way to go.

 

[Thomas Talus]

My issue lies with the heavy reliance on Executive Orders, and the loyalist-packed Supreme Court that will practically rubber-stamp everything Trump does. It proves a model where the Executive is able to rule by edict and have it backed up legally.

In the Current Year we actually live in, waiting for the Legislative branch to do anything by means other than budget reconciliation as the only proper means to implement policy is effectively ceding control of the government to the agencies that are staffed by DC lifers who are hardcore Dems. Congress is dominated by safe seats funded by national/international organizations with ideological agendas, so there's no incentive to compromise (which would result in those orgs pulling your funding and running someone else). More could get done by the legislature if they got rid of the filibuster for all bills, but that would also result in massive reversals whenever the other side gets power again.

You're complaining that those damned machine guns don't allow for proper gentlemanly cavalry charges anymore.

When there is a close call, they're reaction is "why did the bullet have to miss."

Tell them it's because they touch themselves.

 

[The Projects]

You're complaining that those damned machine guns don't allow for proper gentlemanly cavalry charges anymore.

It has nothing to do with being "gentlemanly" it's that I do not want to invest unchecked power into a single office. The president is already able to veto anything Congress does, and to override a veto requires a 2/3rds majority. Legislating belongs to the elected legislative body of Congress, and no one else. There is no good reason to circumvent Congress, even if it means achieving goals quicker. That is my opinion on the subject.

If Congress cannot legislate properly, then Congress needs reform, not giving its legislative power to someone else.

 

[Smashed & Slamed]

Actually, a lot of people in this thread have been doing this exact thing! Charlie Kirk's murder is wrong, but those radical leftists, well they deserve it.

If you kill your enemies they win type thinking. If you want those who murder or support the murder of your side to suffer consequences then you're just like them.

The truth is, none of those people, and very likely none of the people posting here either, are equipped for violence, and if you witnessed violence or even threats of violence firsthand, you'd probably be decently shook up.

They will most likely never have to see first hand the violence they support and they also saw in 4k the neck of the vile enemy explode and celebrated it. Danger =/= death. As long as they are not in any danger there is no reason for them to shy away from pushing for your death.

Another thing you have to understand is gallows humor and dark humor, this is extremely common among people, especially these days. Personally, I don't usually make jokes about recently deceased people. I didn't like Charlie Kirk, but getting shot dead in front of your family is a pretty gruesome way to go.

This is such a bold faced attempt at misdirection and white washing it paints all your posts as blatant concern trolling and subversion.

 

[Irrational Exuberance]

You should go talk to them, and see what they actually think of you, most people don't think this way at all. You perceive all of these people as hating you because you are only exposed to the worst of them.

Question for you: do you believe that any of these people truly hold these hateful beliefs, and if so, why?

 

[The Projects]

Question for you: do you believe that any of these people truly hold these hateful beliefs, and if so, why?

Oh definitely. There are weird people in this world who just want to see the world spin into chaos, and smell flesh burn, personally I think society's job is to give these people as little power as possible. If our society isn't doing that, society needs reform. There are, without a doubt, hateful leftists who aren't just operating under doublethink, this is truly how they believe things had ought to be done.
It's uh, Hanlon's razor. Don't attribute to malice what can more easily be attributed to ignorance. Most people are ignorant, not malicious. This does not, however, mean that malicious people don't exist.

 

[Thomas Talus]

It has nothing to do with being "gentlemanly" it's that I do not want to invest unchecked power into a single office. The president is already able to veto anything Congress does, and to override a veto requires a 2/3rds majority. Legislating belongs to the elected legislative body of Congress, and no one else. There is no good reason to circumvent Congress, even if it means achieving goals quicker. That is my opinion on the subject.

If Congress cannot legislate properly, then Congress needs reform, not giving its legislative power to someone else.

Horse is looooong out the barn door, and it's not going back in. You can't make the congressional power players forget how they've arranged things to arrive at this result. "Just show up, mug for the cameras, and collect your official and unofficial paychecks" is the dominant strategy for congresscritters, everyone knows it, and anyone who rocks that boat too much gets left out in the cold. It's not even a matter of quicker vs. slower, it's whether you can do anything at all, ever.

Congress has spent the last 70-ish years foisting rule-making responsibility off onto the executive agencies they created. What would make them reverse that now?

 

[bookers]

I'm upset that I can't use the politisperging reaction.
But I guess that makes sense since this a politics thread.

Oh definitely. There are weird people in this world who just want to see the world spin into chaos, and smell flesh burn, personally I think society's job is to give these people as little power as possible. If our society isn't doing that, society needs reform. There are, without a doubt, hateful leftists who aren't just operating under doublethink, this is truly how they believe things had ought to be done.
It's uh, Hanlon's razor. Don't attribute to malice what can more easily be attributed to ignorance. Most people are ignorant, not malicious. This does not, however, mean that malicious people don't exist.

you're just saying a lot of dumb shit that doesn't mean anything.
"hey shouldnt people be normal?"
yeah, definitely. but they're not, so here we are.

 

[The Projects]

This is such a bold faced attempt at misdirection and white washing it paints all your posts as blatant concern trolling and subversion.

Sour grapes from a guy who can't handle a different worldview. "I disagree, so everything you're saying is a troll"

Horse is looooong out the barn door, and it's not going back in. You can't make the congressional power players forget how they've arranged things to arrive at this result. "Just show up, mug for the cameras, and collect your official and unofficial paychecks" is the dominant strategy for congresscritters, everyone knows it, and anyone who rocks that boat too much gets left out in the cold. It's not even a matter of quicker vs. slower, it's whether you can do anything at all, ever.

Congress has spent the last 70-ish years foisting rule-making responsibility off onto the executive agencies they created. What would make them reverse that now?

Personally, I'm , the powers that be WANT you to sit on your ass and do nothing and say "Well, there's no choice now!", there is a choice! And it's refusing the false dichotomy! But it requires a lot of effort on the part of the people, we have to discuss the real issue of faulty legislation in spite of astroturfed controlled opposition, find candidates who will oppose the filibuster, rally enough people around these candidates to get them elected (Or at least enough to spook the Senate into doing it themselves out of fear for losing their jobs), and we have to do it all across the nation.

It's a real David and Goliath situation, but if we drop the pitchforks for a minute and all work together, it's not that difficult actually. Grassroots movements have succeeded countless times throughout our history! It starts with you!

 

[Irrational Exuberance]

Oh definitely. There are weird people in this world who just want to see the world spin into chaos, and smell flesh burn,

So you define them as "weird". Okay.

personally I think society's job is to give these people as little power as possible.

"As little power as possible" as in...? Freezing their assets? Arresting them? Killing them?

If our society isn't doing that, society needs reform.

As long as society does so to the "right people", of course.

There are, without a doubt, hateful leftists who aren't just operating under doublethink, this is truly how they believe things had ought to be done.

These are the "weird people" you're referring to, then? What makes them "weird"? Was it something they were born with, or something learned from somewhere else? If so, by who?

It's uh, Hanlon's razor. Don't attribute to malice what can more easily be attributed to ignorance.

Ignorant about what, exactly? I'm sure that any of the people discussed here would take great offense to being called "ignorant", especially if they had a college or university degree of some sort.

Most people are ignorant, not malicious. This does not, however, mean that malicious people don't exist.

So in your eyes, if they were "ignorant" then they couldn't be "malicious" as well?

 

[Deo Volente]

It has nothing to do with being "gentlemanly" it's that I do not want to invest unchecked power into a single office. The president is already able to veto anything Congress does, and to override a veto requires a 2/3rds majority. Legislating belongs to the elected legislative body of Congress, and no one else. There is no good reason to circumvent Congress, even if it means achieving goals quicker. That is my opinion on the subject.

If Congress cannot legislate properly, then Congress needs reform, not giving its legislative power to someone else.

Congress has been conceding power to the executive for decades because it's easier to let bureaucrats come up with policies that are in any way controversial. All they care about is winning their next election which is much easier when they have never done anything of note besides having a letter next to their name and being the incumbent from the last election. You can't blame Trump for that.

Well, what I would say to that is that most people operate in a state of doublethink, murder is wrong, except when it's someone I don't like, because then it's reasonable. But when the other side feels that exact same way, it's wrong and morally reprehensible, and backwards. Actually, a lot of people in this thread have been doing this exact thing! Charlie Kirk's murder is wrong, but those radical leftists, well they deserve it.

Feel free to enlighten me, but the only case I can think of where there was a comparable reaction on the right was when Kyle Rittenhouse shot the guys chasing him, and even then, it was alongside saying Kyle was a retard for being where he was in the first place.

Another thing you have to understand is gallows humor and dark humor, this is extremely common among people, especially these days. Personally, I don't usually make jokes about recently deceased people. I didn't like Charlie Kirk, but getting shot dead in front of your family is a pretty gruesome way to go.

The people who could acknowledge their actions were inappropriate were engaging in dark humor. The ones who doubled down were expressing their belief that conservatives should be killed in a way they felt was socially acceptable in a group of people who they thought were ideologically aligned with them.

 

[GameratePTSD]

It's uh, Hanlon's razor. Don't attribute to malice what can more easily be attributed to ignorance.

This isn't the case at all, and I never liked this phrase. The leftists aren't ignorant. They don't actually believe Charlie Kirk is a psychotic murderous neonazi. They just call him that because of the moral framing. They know he's a regular white Christian conservative guy. They still want to kill him just for debating.

we have to discuss the real issue of faulty legislation

Buddy there's foreign gangs taking over apartment buildings, terrorist training camps in Alabama, antifa bombing churches and ambushing ICE with guns, AG candidates hoping the children of Republicans would die, convicted pedophiles demanding access to kids. I could go on. At some point it ceases to be "politics" and starts to be an existential crisis. But sure man, if we just put down our pitchforks the conservatives can forget these non-issues like "do we have the right to be alive" and unite with the left in a grassroots movement against the filibuster! Come on.

 

[Smashed & Slamed]

Sour grapes from a guy who can't handle a different worldview. "I disagree, so everything you're saying is a troll"

I didn't call you a troll. I called your tactics concern trolling. There is a difference, one you know seeing as you're referencing Hanlon's razor.
I will boil down your points so far:
Do not fight back.
The people calling for your violent suppression are not your enemy.
The right should not use the political power it has because it doesn't fit my definition of justified.
We could all come together.

There are two trends with your posts. Passive do gooder verbiage that seeks to take the moral high ground. And calls for the right to be toothless.

 

[The Projects]

The people who could acknowledge their actions were inappropriate were engaging in dark humor. The ones who doubled down were expressing their belief that conservatives should be killed in a way they felt was socially acceptable in a group of people who they thought were ideologically aligned with them.

Well, at the end of the day, I wasn't there. I've said all I had to say on the subject, the rest is for you to decide. I'm speaking from my own point of view, I'm not the arbiter of morality. That's God.

These are the "weird people" you're referring to, then? What makes them "weird"? Was it something they were born with, or something learned from somewhere else? If so, by who?

This entire segment is a really interesting series of questions actually! The people I'm describing, I'd call them psychopaths, destructive people who don't really operate with a sense of common morality. And yes, I think society at large should be designed to negate psychopathic traits and deny psychopathic people power. The question of "born with or learned?" is incredibly fascinating! I'm not an expert on the subject, but this has been a debate for a long time.

What is a true psychopath? If an otherwise normal person is desensitized to violence due to a lifetime of being surrounded by it, are they a psychopath? If a person who, by and large, operates in a transactional manner with little regard for collateral damage to other people, but has a soft spot for animals and children, are they NOT a psychopath?
I'm being a bit obtuse in explaining it, so I'll just jump to my opinion on the subject, critique if you like. Personally, I am of the belief that there are what you could call "True psychopaths", generally psychopathic traits include a transactional understanding of the world, pleasure-seeking, empathy-poor, generally out of touch with emotion, little disregard for stated rules if it inconveniences them. Note, psychopathy is not like the movies, they aren't guaranteed to be good businessmen, or good liars, or even smart, or necessarily prone to violence either.

So a true psychopath to my eye is a person who, for no discernable reason, exhibits the aforementioned traits.
However, a lot of these traits can be exhibited by people who do respect rules, do feel emotions strongly, do care about other people's wellbeing, this is through socialization. You can be socialized into behaving a certain way. Social behaviors can be passed on as memes in society, and be perpetuated, and even encouraged by society. On the reverse, a psychopathic person can be socialized into behaving empathetically, masking, as it were. Social behaviors can be changed, but with a lot of people, internal logic either cannot, or is incredibly difficult to change.

The obvious thoughts on your mind are probably, 1. "How can you tell for certain if someone is a true versus a socialized psychopath?", and 2. There are differing levels of psychopathic behavior, so policing it is going to be difficult.
For #1, it's incredibly difficult, and can be almost indistinguishable to the naked eye, it basically requires observing someone very closely, or subjecting them to a battery of psychological evaluations.
For #2, there are indeed differing levels, but I'm not worried about someone being a bit self-centered, being a bit unemotional, being a bit self-serving, everyone does this to some degree. I'm more about Capital P Psychopathic behavior, violence, blatant disregard for outcomes of others, little care for societal rules like "Don't steal", "Don't lie", "Don't manipulate people". And I don't believe in policing, so much as I think we need better parents who raise their children with virtue, and teach them, instead of letting public schools, television, and random strangers on the internet raise them.
Societal reform.

So I think generally, society should be designed to disempower psychopathic people, and to discourage psychopathic traits. But this is operating under my view on the subject, which could be wrong! However, my opinion has served me well in my real life, so I continue to follow it until I find an explanation that works better.

Spoiler: xd

Truly a wall of text, sorry!

 

[Your Girlfriend's Dad]

This entire segment is a really [...]

Forgive me, but this all kind of comes off as mealy-mouthed pontificating. Deigning what society should or shouldn't be is trying to move hundreds of millions of moving pieces at once. It's far easier to just go after scumbags undermining our civilization than to wax poetic about who is an actual psychopath.

I don't care who is a psychopath. I care about their actions. Their mentation has no bearing on their punishment.

 

[The Projects]

I didn't call you a troll. I called your tactics concern trolling. There is a difference, one you know seeing as you're referencing Hanlon's razor.
I will boil down your points so far:
Do not fight back.
The people calling for your violent suppression are not your enemy.
The right should not use the political power it has because it doesn't fit my definition of justified.
We could all come together.

There are two trends with your posts. Passive do gooder verbiage that seeks to take the moral high ground. And calls for the right to be toothless.

Yes, do not fight back. We are a nation, not enemies. Have a conversation, don't wage war against them, figuratively or literally because you will only drive them deeper into their beliefs. You are constantly working under the assumption that the other team is a hivemind of aliens whose end goal is to see your head on a pike! Tyranids! I'm not going to contest the fact that yes, there are some, maybe even a good few who really do, but the vast majority do not think this way, you live in a bubble where you only see the worst of humanity!

You and a bunch of the people in this thread are waxing about how you're under threat of violence, with the insinuation (in lieu of direct fedposting) that you might have to meet force with force, but have you experienced violence for your political beliefs? Or just namecalling and dismissal? Have you met someone who has experienced violence for their beliefs? And I don't mean some guy on the internet issuing a blanket statement about how "All Nazis must die!".
You point at Charlie Kirk, and Donald Trump, but they're also figureheads of an extremely controversial movement with goals that a large chunk of the population finds abhorrent. You can't suddenly act shocked and pearl clutch when lunatics end up shooting at them, and average joes don't really give a damn about it.
Truth is, that shit would never happen to you, and if someone really has threatened your life over your beliefs, please DM me your location, because I'll take a week off work, and go out there to talk to them, and I'll stand on that.

Hell, fucking Gerald Ford, milquetoast of milquetoast politicians was almost assassinated twice in one month, both times by women funnily enough

What do you say of Christchurch?
Guy like you, I'm sure you can't be fond of Muslims, the killer was pretty explicitly right wing. Was Brenton Tarrant a good guy for killing them? Was he kind of justified, even if murder is wrong, because they're in the wrong country spreading their evil beliefs? Would you laugh at a meme making fun of the dead?
You know what's in your heart, would you? They're subhuman after all, yeah?

Did you give a shit when Paul Pelosi got attacked with a hammer, or did you laugh because that was the enemy?
To my eye, those guys are fucking lunatics, just like the lunatics that killed Kirk, and attempted Trump.
A large number of the people in this thread have called for violent suppression of the enemy, what do you say of them?
Is it just a joke?

But I bet I can predict a good bit of what you're gunna say, it's not the same, false equivocation, the lefties do it too, why should we disarm and be passive because a couple of right wingers have done some bad things? That doesn't represent all of us! Or it'll probably just be the same thing everyone does on the internet, respond to only the part of my post that the most people will disagree with, and call me a bad goy who's stupid and wrong and wants all right wingers to die!

And yes, in my opinion, the right should not break the checks and balances of the Republic to achieve its goals, and no, I don't think it's a worthwhile end
Also, I'm not going to lie, I have no idea what concern trolling means, lurkmoar, I know, I know.

 

[Gay Sex Enjoyer]

No offence man but your name is way too pink for me to read all that.