right-wing censorship really hard to find these days
more YouTube censorship of leftist content (which, unlike Crowder's video, did not violate YouTube TOS)
youtube's TOS: don't be perceived as right-wing
interesting about the flag burning, as though the only people who burn flags are leftists, because they want to destroy the societies they live in or something?
On June 22 2019 00:57 Baalim wrote:
BTW where was the tattoo thing going? I made an effort to answer honestly and not try to anticipate the "trap", you probably don't believe it but I'm interested to see if I find contradictions in my thinking.
I couldn't figure out what the point of that was either, like Mexicans don't get tattoos or something?
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Jun 22 2019 13:51. Posts 5297
there is a lot of anti nazi propaganda in our society, I don't think i'd have a problem tattooing symbols of someone's favourite political ideology even if i was repulsed by that political system. I mean, if this was my job I'd have no problem with it. I don't see too much value in the left debating the right over freedom of speech, since it is obvious that the right is completely opposed to freedom of thought given their support of the private media-the main suppressors of thought in our society. And it is arguable that freedom of thought is more important than freedom of speech, given if you can't think something you can't say it. This ought to be the focus of left activists imo, if they want people to understand our society, and make the wailings of the JBP type's look silly.
Can't think of any examples off the top of my head baal. It seems unlikely as most of the major corporations are linked to states somehow. That said although freeport benefited from a couple of state sponsored genocides, i don't think they'd pack up and leave once the state disappears-the mercenaries they fund are very cheap.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
On June 22 2019 00:57 Baalim wrote:
BTW where was the tattoo thing going? I made an effort to answer honestly and not try to anticipate the "trap", you probably don't believe it but I'm interested to see if I find contradictions in my thinking.
You might be surprised but I like to think and I like to make people think. I didn't set out with a plan and I'm not trying to win a competition. That you expected a trap, beyond what I already said about how some people might see your actions as being authoritarian/anti-freedom of expression, says something relevant about you that is worth thinking about.
On June 22 2019 00:55 Baalim wrote:
The spanish didn't exterminate the natives in here and starving natives dont get killed because they stole an avocado ffs.
It looks like you completely missed the point. Let's just put real world examples aside for a minute, because I allowed us to be distracted from the theoretical arguments for the NAP (which you just reasserted in your previous post about "the right to defend your property''). The point is that you can abide by those principles and justify a genocide without running into any kind of contradiction, and that is why I provided an example of it. If you want to say "well that's the case, but people have morally advanced since that has happened and now they wouldn't", that's an entirely different argument.
The reason Canada doesn't do that either is not because there aren't natives, its because your society is much different than from 150 years ago.
That's exactly what I said. The way in which Canada oppresses its natives now is different. But that they are majorly oppressed still is very clear. The state and private entities work in tandem a round the world to take what little they have left and they are not consulted for what happens on their land.
Its a very small portion of the migrantns the ones fleeing from wars, the biggest exodus is Mexicans to the US by far and most European migrants aren't Syrians, obviously the US foreign policy is appauling and yes one of the libertarian core values is non-intervention and the army is for protection only, in regards to migration if you don't offer welfare then migrants are not an economic load so you can have lax borders, but the more welfare you offer the more a deficit is a migrant and border control has to be tigher to avoid the economic drain.
I didn't say they were specifically fleeing from wars. I said they were fleeing from the circumstances we have created for them, meaning the systems we have erected for us to exploit the global south and funnel their riches into our part of the hemisphere. It includes wars but also other kind of social problems, abject poverty/lack of basic resources and the results of climate catastrophe (the latter of which were a major contributor to beginning the Syrian civil war in 2011; water and climatic conditions have played a direct role in the deterioration of Syria’s economic conditions.)
Nobody said people would easily give up power, thats why downsizing the government is very difficult, but private power depends on the state size, when the state is downsized they are on their own governed by the laws of the free market and if they dont outperform the competition they fall, it doesn't matter if they want or not to give anything up.
The "size" of the government isn't the issue. The issue is how it is used to serve the interests of the few above those of most people. It tries to balance its citizens' welfare to prevent social unrest but also corporate welfare because the root socioeconomic orientation is growth in a capitalist system. As it is now, many institutions are too big to fail, and that is partly why there is no such thing as a "free market" and why a capitalist society cannot function as it does in your theoretical world. Corporations not only benefit from public investments but they also benefit from socializing their losses, and they will never let go of this, they will only defund parts of the government that benefits them, at least in the short term.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On June 22 2019 19:11 Loco wrote:
That you expected a trap, beyond what I already said about how some people might see your actions as being authoritarian/anti-freedom of expression, says something relevant about you that is worth thinking about.
I thought it was a trap because thats how they are often laid out, like "would you cheer on people punching Islamists", you know perfectly well where I"m going there, and that is the reason why you tip-toe around it.
I don't see how that is authoritarian, we essentially see freedom very differently, to me its quite simple, doing whatever the fuck you want as long as you dont stop anybody's freedom, authoritarian would be to foce anybody to tattoo something or bake the cake.
It looks like you completely missed the point. Let's just put real world examples aside for a minute, because I allowed us to be distracted from the theoretical arguments for the NAP
Again, I dont know what NAP is
That's exactly what I said. The way in which Canada oppresses its natives now is different. But that they are majorly oppressed still is very clear. The state and private entities work in tandem a round the world to take what little they have left and they are not consulted for what happens on their land.
That problem arises from the clash of a statist society, that assumes the state owns all the land and can sell to citizens but can also forcefuly take it back if it suits its needs.
Private corporations indeed use the state with its tools, I've said many times this is something I would also like to change, you believe my method wouldn't work but I think it would.
I didn't say they were specifically fleeing from wars. I said they were fleeing from the circumstances we have created for them, meaning the systems we have erected for us to exploit the global south and funnel their riches into our part of the hemisphere. It includes wars but also other kind of social problems, abject poverty/lack of basic resources and the results of climate catastrophe (the latter of which were a major contributor to beginning the Syrian civil war in 2011; water and climatic conditions have played a direct role in the deterioration of Syria’s economic conditions.)
Mexico's economy is bad because its the reflection of our society, the US have had little part in out situation, if you disagree please state specifically what the US has done to destroy our economy.
The "size" of the government isn't the issue. The issue is how it is used to serve the interests of the few above those of most people. It tries to balance its citizens' welfare to prevent social unrest but also corporate welfare because the root socioeconomic orientation is growth in a capitalist system. As it is now, many institutions are too big to fail, and that is partly why there is no such thing as a "free market" and why a capitalist society cannot function as it does in your theoretical world. Corporations not only benefit from public investments but they also benefit from socializing their losses, and they will never let go of this, they will only defund parts of the government that benefits them, at least in the short term.
Size of the government is important because the bigger it is the more corruptible it is, the more powerful and more tools it has, a government that only provides roads and public transportation is hard to exploit because it can't do much for you besides pave your entrance.
[b]I couldn't disagree more with the "too big to fail" its the opposite, too big to function, Its difficult to get anywhere when we have opposite views on this, you believe that bussinses can turn into allmighty monopolies virtually impossible to topple especially without the government, and I think its the opposite, these things cannot exist if there isn't a state involved.
In Mexico between 1960 and 1980-- twenty years-- the real GDP growth per person increased by 98.7%. In the 20 years following the implementation of NAFTA, however, it only increased by 19.7% -- this is about half of the rate of growth achieved by the rest of Latin America during the same period. The 80s onward saw a rise in the privatization and neoliberalization of the Mexican economy. It was known ahead of time that NAFTA would negatively affect over 70% of people and the plan was for it to be passed without people knowing. Some 2 million farmers lost their jobs/went bankrupt. Following NAFTA between 1994 and 2000, emigration to the US increased by 79%.
In the first half of the decade, the US backed the highly corrupt and murderous Carlos Salinas de Gortari. NAFTA was implemented without the approval of the North American people, and it was a death sentence for the indigenous Mexicans. When the Zapatistas rose up as a response, not to seek power, but merely to say "we are here, please listen to us, you've made a mistake", the US put a price on their heads. They backed another man, Ernesto Zedillo, who continued the same politics of deceit. He was given millions of dollars by the US, not to improve the lives of Mexicans, but to wage war against a bunch of poorly armed, poorly nourished brown people who were defending their basic human rights. During his presidency, Zedillo faced the worst economic crisis in Mexico's history.
Not only did NAFTA result in this war on the indigenous population of Mexico and in the near destruction of the agricultural industry but the shift towards a commodity exports-driven economy has led to an increase in manufacturing, which has resulted in increased environmental degradation. It also allowed foreign investors who believe their profits are being harmed by environmental or public health regulations to sue governments for cash damages within a secretive trade tribunal system. Its "mission statement" was that it would help Mexico reach first world status, but instead, it created a larger range of inequality within its population, killed numerous people, and it locked Mexico into a position where it must keep working standards and wages low or face losing the jobs that have come to the country.
According to the CEPR, "NAFTA also increasingly tied Mexico to the U.S. economy, at a time when the U.S. economy was becoming dependent on growth driven by asset bubbles. As a result, Mexico suffered a recession when the stock market bubble burst in 2000-2002, and was one the hardest hit countries in the region during the U.S. Great Recession, with a drop of 6.7 percent of GDP. The Mexican economy was even harder hit by the peso crisis in 1994-95, losing 9.5 percent of GDP during the downturn; the crisis was caused by the U.S. Federal Reserve raising interest rates in 1994."
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Another thing that happened was that in 1992 Mexico changed its previously progressive constitution of 1917, which had been drafted in response to the revolutionary Emiliano Zapata's agrarian demands. Instead of a constitution that dictated that land, subsoil and its riches were the property of the Mexican state and which recognized the collective right of communities to land through the "ejido" system, this new 1992 version allowed for the sale of lands to third parties, including multinational corporations. Combined with a new "law on foreign investment", the mining law of 1992 allowed for 100% foreign control in exploration and production of mines. Canadian mining companies were the biggest winners from these reforms. Few Mexicans benefited from Canadian mining operations in their country.
One journal wrote at the time, "Is this the contribution of that great country that is Canada to the development of our people? A new type of barbaric and predatorial colonialism that under the name of globalization imposes its companies in countries with weak and corrupt governments."
Canadian mining interests did not shy away from areas of Mexico facing political unrest. In Chiapas, Linear Gold Corp and Fronteer Development Group controlled concessions covering more than 300,000 hectares of land. These concessions were granted by Mexico’s federal government without consultation from local communities.
Bordering Chiapas, the state of Oaxaca was another impoverished and politically volatile state where Canadian companies dominated mining. Vancouver-based Continuum Resources had ten projects, covering more than 70,000 hectares of land. Protesting the company’s Natividad mine near Capulalpam, demonstrators blocked a highway for five hours in October 2007. Community members demanded an end to the mining concession, which they said destroyed many of the area’s streams and springs as well as the frogs that are a big part of the region's diet.
The most controversial Canadian mining venture in Mexico was Vancouver-based Metallica Resources' extraction of gold and silver from Cerro de San Pedro. Opponents of the project protested from Montreal to Mexico City where a hundred protestors, including several members of congress, blockaded the Canadian embassy for six hours in February 2007. More than 200 legislative deputies and 57 Mexican senators signed a bill to close the Cerro de San Pedro mine and to require Metallica pay for environmental damages. Opponents claimed that cyanide from the 1.5 km long and 300m deep mine contaminated a water supply used by 1.5 million people. The mine, which was in a nationally protected area, was demolishing a mountain that was an important part of the town's heritage and a symbol on the state's coat of arms. A mine opponent, who fled to Montreal after receiving death threats, compared it to destroying Mount Royal, Montreal's namesake.
Concern for environmental and historical degradation led Mexican courts to revoke the mine's permit on a number of occasions between 2002 and 2006. In September 2008 the mine’s environmental permits were once again revoked. But court orders were not enforced, leading many to believe that Metallica had close relations with the highest levels of Mexican government.
It's worth mentioning that business has been at the forefront of determining Canada's relations with Mexico at least since the 1910 revolution, which was a reaction to foreign economic domination and a brutal dictator. At the time Canadian corporate interests in Mexico were already substantial. About 75% of the country's tramways were in the hands of Canadian investors, and in the capital, the Bank of Montreal controlled half of all foreign exchange dealings. Canadian electricity was provided to Mexico through a concession acquired from the dictator Porfirio Diaz. Canadian bankers argued that investing in Mexico was safer than Canada where there were growing calls for publicly owned utilities. But many Canadian investors were worried that the revolutionary activity lead by Emiliano Zapata was hurting their profits, so they began calling for British troops to intervene to defend their property. That failed, so they called the Americans for help.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
"The largest oil refining complex on the East Coast caught fire Friday morning after a butane tank caught fire at the Philadelphia Energy Solutions facility in South Philadelphia and set of a chain of explosions culminating in a massive boom.
This explosion is one of several major incidents to occur at facilities that operate on dirty fuel in major American cities in the past six months. An explosion at a Con Ed electrical facility turned the New York City sky aqua in December. In March, the Intercontinental Terminals Company petrochemical facility in Houston suburb La Porte, Texas experienced a massive fire and burned for four days. Residents were asked to shelter in place."
...
"The PES facility was first constructed in 1866, according to the facility website, making it over 150 years old. Facilities such as the PES facility, which are owned and operated by private entities, have little incentive to invest in newer, safer facilities, or facilities that generate clean energy rather than processing fuel. These investments undermine corporate bottom-lines, even when the status quo isn’t profitable"
On June 23 2019 04:29 Loco wrote:
In Mexico between 1960 and 1980-- twenty years-- the real GDP growth per person increased by 98.7%. In the 20 years following the implementation of NAFTA, however, it only increased by 19.7% -- this is about half of the rate of growth achieved by the rest of Latin America during the same period. The 80s onward saw a rise in the privatization and neoliberalization of the Mexican economy. It was known ahead of time that NAFTA would negatively affect over 70% of people and the plan was for it to be passed without people knowing. Some 2 million farmers lost their jobs/went bankrupt. Following NAFTA between 1994 and 2000, emigration to the US increased by 79%.
In the first half of the decade, the US backed the highly corrupt and murderous Carlos Salinas de Gortari. NAFTA was implemented without the approval of the North American people, and it was a death sentence for the indigenous Mexicans. When the Zapatistas rose up as a response, not to seek power, but merely to say "we are here, please listen to us, you've made a mistake", the US put a price on their heads. They backed another man, Ernesto Zedillo, who continued the same politics of deceit. He was given millions of dollars by the US, not to improve the lives of Mexicans, but to wage war against a bunch of poorly armed, poorly nourished brown people who were defending their basic human rights. During his presidency, Zedillo faced the worst economic crisis in Mexico's history.
Not only did NAFTA result in this war on the indigenous population of Mexico and in the near destruction of the agricultural industry but the shift towards a commodity exports-driven economy has led to an increase in manufacturing, which has resulted in increased environmental degradation. It also allowed foreign investors who believe their profits are being harmed by environmental or public health regulations to sue governments for cash damages within a secretive trade tribunal system. Its "mission statement" was that it would help Mexico reach first world status, but instead, it created a larger range of inequality within its population, killed numerous people, and it locked Mexico into a position where it must keep working standards and wages low or face losing the jobs that have come to the country.
According to the CEPR, "NAFTA also increasingly tied Mexico to the U.S. economy, at a time when the U.S. economy was becoming dependent on growth driven by asset bubbles. As a result, Mexico suffered a recession when the stock market bubble burst in 2000-2002, and was one the hardest hit countries in the region during the U.S. Great Recession, with a drop of 6.7 percent of GDP. The Mexican economy was even harder hit by the peso crisis in 1994-95, losing 9.5 percent of GDP during the downturn; the crisis was caused by the U.S. Federal Reserve raising interest rates in 1994."
so NAFTA destroyed mexico's economy according to you, how so when the US as a trading deficit to México.
Also please explain to me, why Andres Lopez the new corrupt AF president you literally called "the best president in the world" (lol) went to the US to meet with Trump and agreed to stop south americans migrating to the US, making mass deportations and trying to employ others, all of that just to keep the NAFTA going that is suppoed to be the cause for massive economic problems, go ahead.
You will haev a lot of explaining to do with this best president in the world as his first 6 months have been disastrous but I assume you dont know much about it
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Jun 24 2019 06:50. Posts 5297
lol. Btw I don't think philosophers or scientists from todays time period have much of an excuse for being free market fundamentalists, imperialists, islamaphobes, ect. They have free access to all the criticism in the world, and do not get their heads chopped off for having views that contradict elite ideologies. Steven Pinker being one of these elite 'philosophers'.
Man i can't really let aristotle off the hook, his views on slavery and ethics seem idiotic even for 2500 years ago imo, they are extremely obvious internalizations of elite ideology. there were people that opposed slavery (aristotle points this out) and slave philosophers like epictetus during the early roman empire that made decent arguments against slavery. Before when people were talking about that quote about making war for peace, i don't know where he said that but it couldn't have been anything but the most orwellian hypocritical statement at the time. Just my views, there were some admirable philosophers back then but i don't think aristotle was one of them.
Idk about Kant's racism if its excusable or not. the 'scientific racism' was deeply embeded in his era, and many philosophers had views that made hitler look mild by comparison.
As for Nietzsche I find it hard for his views to be excusable given John Stuart Mill existed during the same time and was pro equality for both genders. Although Mill thought the British empire could do nothing wrong in foreign affairs, and it's like ok, Britain enthusiastically starving tens of millions to death in famines in India. I guess in the case of Mill it shows that even someone with the highest moral integrity can internalize elite ideology that results in genocidal policy.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
It's not "according to me". You asked me to provide specifics and I did. Those facts and statistics do not come from me. Don't ask me for evidence if you are going to turn away and refuse to look when I put it in front of you.
There's plenty of things to criticize in any government simply by virtue of it being a government, even if it's the best (i.e. least bad) within a specific geographical area. Morales is much better than AMLO. I don't have much to say about AMLO. He might be more of an opportunist than I had thought, or he might be constrained by circumstances. I'm leaning towards the former because his relationship with EZLN is not good. He had a 86% approval 100 days after he got into office, so it shouldn't be too surprising that he's playing the long game and not doing anything radical, especially when you consider that he's the first left-wing president in 70 years. I haven't followed what he's been doing in the last few months though but I see his approval rating has dropped a bit.
From what I know his government passed legislation that treats corruption as a more serious crime, and it gives the state power to confiscate criminal property, and to more efficiently and aggressively prosecute money laundering. I don't know how well they have been using that power. He travels on commercial planes instead of taking the usual presidential jet so Occam's razor would have me think he's not that likely to be "corrupted AF". For the most part he's been following a typical neoliberal agenda so he holds no special place in my heart.
His concession to Trump on immigration reflects Mexico's economic dependence on the US, which I've just highlighted. As Chomsky put it, "The point of NAFTA was to lock in the so-called reforms by treaty, so that even if there is a democracy opening — that hated danger — they won’t be able to do much about it, because they’re locked into these arrangements.” I think it's one area where he really does wish he could do better but he has to compromise somewhere in order to get a better deal in the new NAFTA.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
I hadn't read the piece he was linking to. Lol, he is writing for Quilette now? I shouldn't be surprised, it's such garbage.
"The Enlightenment was not the inventor of slavery, but it was the inventor of the notion that no one should be held as a slave.”
LMFAO.
He is completely misreading Nietzsche. A pillar of Nietzsche's philosophy is the view that suffering provides an opportunity for overcoming and self-actualization. He's saying the hardship of slavery can potentially lead to greatness, e.g. Epictetus, it's not exactly a wholesale endorsement of slavery. As for his views on women, they are pretty straight-forward for the times, especially considering the influence of Schopenhauer on his thought (and the fact that both had awful experiences with women). But unlike Schopenhauer, Nietzsche relativized his views, he wasn't pretending that he was painting an objective picture of women. He did read JS Mill (he had the complete works), pretty much the only American philosopher in his library outside of the Transcendentalists.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Last edit: 24/06/2019 07:53
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Jun 24 2019 09:21. Posts 5297
That statement from pinker is not at all laughable to me, It is obviously true that the enlightenment did not invent slavery, as for the second part:
Kant was opposed to slavery and colonialism, many enlightenment philosophers were, and i beleive this cultural movement was intstrumental in getting rid of slavery in Britian. The entire enlightenment project was about human beings standing on their own two feet and acting independently, to think independently, rather than to just blindly obey. I beleive anarchism has a lot of strong similarities with the enlightenment and is a continuation of that tradition. The development of racism comes from the modern era when the middle east and europe started exploring other parts of the world, I mean there were basic elements of it before then, but nothing like 15-16th century onwards. The enlightenment started around the same time, so it is natural that philosophers like hume and kant do not consider negroes to be much more than brutes, growing up in that environment. The important distinction is that they opposed slavery for human beings, but negroes to them were not human beings, so it was not contradictory to their values.
Yeah, i might be a bit harsh on Nietzsche's views on women. I mean proudhon had probably even worse views on women than he did, which he was challenged on at the time. Actually not sure if proudhon can be forgiven lol, he is so viscerely adamant in his views even when others critiqued him. The picture we get from history is that even intellectuals that selflessly argued for freedoms, had internalized many oppressive world views from their own culture. And you know i think anarchism did a lot to get rid of various oppressive systems, but it had its own extremely rascist, sexist and violent philosophers at times.
Also John stuart mill is british dawg.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
On June 24 2019 08:21 Stroggoz wrote:
That statement from pinker is not at all laughable to me, It is obviously true that the enlightenment did not invent slavery, as for the second part:
Kant was opposed to slavery and colonialism, many enlightenment philosophers were, and i beleive this cultural movement was intstrumental in getting rid of slavery in Britian. The entire enlightenment project was about human beings standing on their own two feet and acting independently, to think independently, rather than to just blindly obey. I beleive anarchism has a lot of strong similarities with the enlightenment and is a continuation of that tradition. The development of racism comes from the modern era when the middle east and europe started exploring other parts of the world, I mean there were basic elements of it before then, but nothing like 15-16th century onwards. The enlightenment started around the same time, so it is natural that philosophers like hume and kant do not consider negroes to be much more than brutes, growing up in that environment. The important distinction is that they opposed slavery for human beings, but negroes to them were not human beings, so it was not contradictory to their values.
Yeah, i might be a bit harsh on Nietzsche's views on women. I mean proudhon had probably even worse views on women than he did, which he was challenged on at the time. Actually not sure if proudhon can be forgiven lol, he is so viscerely adamant in his views even when others critiqued him. The picture we get from history is that even intellectuals that selflessly argued for freedoms, had internalized many oppressive world views from their own culture. And you know i think anarchism did a lot to get rid of various oppressive systems, but it had its own extremely rascist, sexist and violent philosophers at times.
Also John stuart mill is british dawg.
Yeah that was a brain fart. I understand that the Enlightenment gave birth to modern anarchist schools of thought. I was laughing because anarchist thought as a whole precedes the Enlightenment by quite a lot. Jesus, the Taoists, Zeno of Citium, Diogenes, etc. And I'm pretty sure people who resisted slavery like Spartacus, or colonial rule, "challenged the very idea" of it...
Bartolomé de las Casas, a Spanish Dominican friar, wrote "A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies" in 1542 -- literally while the Spanish genocided the Inca Empire. He spent his entire life trying to stop colonization and bring attention to Spanish atrocities in the New World. Samuel Johnson was a fierce critic of colonial wars, saying of them the following: "the enormous wickedness of making war upon barbarous natives, because they cannot resist, and of invading countries because they are fruitful". Meanwhile he was exhibited as an archetypal anti-enlightenment figure. Montaigne's "Essays" should be mentioned too.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
United States. Jun 22 2019 15:16. Posts 8554
