Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 57

" The Independent is a British online newspaper. .... it was sold to Russian oligarch Alexander Lebedev in 2010."

" Known for former KGB officer "

Good place to receive information wp


On a more serious note :
https://citizenlab.org/2017/05/tainted-leaks-disinformation-phish/



P.S. dont try to send me another pm with retarded insults,there s a better chance i take a 2yo kid's opinion more seriously.

On May 25 2017 07:30 Spitfiree wrote: What are you talking about. How is there no solid proof of pointing towards that? Putin is the supreme leader of Russia, there is not a single person in the country that doesn't answer to him. His political opposition randomly dies and billionaires that don't act on his behalf have all of their property in the country seized and are put on trial. Saying all of that to just paint the picture of how far the guy will go for absolute control. That being said nationalist leader's main idea is to weaken the EU, which just happens to be the priority number one for Putin as well. Considering 90% of them have ties to Russia you are saying thats not a direct evidence? Obviously no one will go out in public and say " I receive money from Russia to try and destroy the EU " as thats what you imply would be the direct evidence. Russia is afraid of NATO expansion and EU, undermining those organizations is the main political goal for the country.

Again, the Clinton foundation received 134 million dollars from Russian magnates, so that means Putin also supports the left?

Also Clinton was heavily funded by the Saudis, who support ISIS, who want a Caliphate... ergo Clinton want a Caliphate right?

These are the kind of leaps in conclusions you are making, you are basically painting a world where you substitute the word Rothschild/Rockefeller with Putin, and while your theory is obviously valid and perhaps holds some truths the world does not work like a fine tuned clockwork handled by a mastermind, its more like a silly and broken contraption fueled with self interest and ran by chaos.

I usually dont like to reply specific arguments with vague philosophical analogies but I can't think of a more effective way to express what I mean.

On May 25 2017 20:17 VanDerMeyde wrote: "It's not Muslims or people with mental health problems who are most likely to kill you in a terrorist attack – it's men" http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/terrorist-attack-muslims-mentally-ill-japan-france-germany-men-its-toxic-masculinity-a7158156.html

are you linking this satirically?

It supports nothing even close to my views, just too dumb to realize it.

Its an obvious lame attempt of propaganda to turn some more dumbasses into feminazis. You are the same as feminazis except on the other part of the specter thats whats hilarious

edit: actually whats even worse is that you find the article hilarious but actually share it and spread its content to reach more people which is the exact opposite of what seem to be your beliefs, what a joke

On May 26 2017 18:06 Spitfiree wrote: It supports nothing even close to my views, just too dumb to realize it. Its an obvious lame attempt of propaganda to turn some more dumbasses into feminazis. You are the same as feminazis except on the other part of the specter thats whats hilarious edit: actually whats even worse is that you find the article hilarious but actually share it and spread its content to reach more people which is the exact opposite of what seem to be your beliefs, what a joke

No, the article is so daft that he is spreading it so people realize how stupid the postmodernists are

I just read it. Doesn't fully align with my views but I honestly don't even think it's that stupid or inaccurate. I'm not gonna defend every sentence or every straw grasped at, but this author isn't unreasonably hating on all men or whatever, it's far from Valerie Solanas territory, it's far from 'guys spreading their legs are patriarchal oppressors'.. I read it as a slightly tongue in cheek comment on how terrorists and mass murderers share gender more than they share religion and political affiliation.. I don't see how 'toxic masculinity' is something positive, and I totally understand what the writer means when she uses that term.

Today I did however see one of the first instances where I myself thought that 'SJW's need a reality check, because apparently in Portland there's some 'boycott white restaurants serving ethnic food because that's cultural appropriation' movement going on. And every part of that is just.. pure fucking stupid.

i mean fuck, I'm not gonna die on some hill defending this, but I don't get what exactly is so ridiculous that out of all the things on the internet, this is singled out as ridiculous. The national review is one of the better conservative news/opinion outlets out there, I think, but I still think most stuff I see there is more ridiculous than this.

editidiculous!!

.... Do you know how extremist islam and women work? They wouldn't give them the responsibility to wipe their own ass let alone execute a terror attack

Just because extremist islam is significantly more opposed to female rights doesn't mean western society has achieved gender equality..

Gender equality will never be achieved just because different groups of people have a different definition of the term. Some feminazis try to bend the system in their favor claiming its "equality" while others try to implement The Handmaid's Tale type of society, where the women are just for babies and keeping the house clean. Clearly, men and women have as many similarities as differences, however, when it comes to human rights and protection by the law, I think Western societies have done a pretty proper job the past 100 years. You do realize that changing the system on a topic so fundamental is extremely hard to do, right? That's why I'm also against bashing on Islam with extreme methods, cause actually letting them change their moral system and reform it would take at least a few decades in the best case scenario, and if you implement extreme methods, you would also kill the process of progress.

See for example

Toxic masculinity hinges on having power over others; it demands inequality. As our world becomes more unequal, it becomes more violent.

It implies that the world is becoming more unequal which is fucking absurd. And it implies that the world is becoming more violent which is complete bullshit as well.

Gender equality has definitely improved, no question about that. Wealth inequality on a global scale also. But GINI coefficients of many western countries has indeed been on the rise. That's not the only metric to which violence is related, but it's not a stretch to say there is a relation between the two.

I also don't think 'gender equality will never be achieved' should be followed by 'so we should stop trying to attain it' - my idea is that more gender equality is better so the closer we get the better it is. I don't mean this in the 'we need 50% of car mechanics to be female', but rather in a 'if a girl wants to be a car mechanic she should have the same chance at accomplishing this goal as any guy would have'. That might require some degree of structural changes in how society views masculinity and femininity or whatever. Anyway, like I said, I'm not really aiming to fully defend this article, there's stuff in there I don't agree with. I just didn't think it was nearly dumb enough to warrant satirical linking. I agree more with it than with every single opinion piece I've read on breitbart, that's for sure.

On May 27 2017 02:40 Liquid`Drone wrote: I read it as a slightly tongue in cheek comment on how terrorists and mass murderers share gender more than they share religion

I read a response to that ridiculous male terrorist argument not long ago claiming that 93% of Terrorists are Muslims, but only 86% are male (im trying to find it but I cant, long timelines).


Also the argument about male terrorist is idiotic because it implies that terrorism is because of sexism and it obviously fucking isn't, they are the first ones to claim Islam is a religion of peace and that terrorists arent real muslims, they also do not denounce misogyny I dont think I should keep going on the hypocrisy of SJW beliefs do I?

On May 27 2017 10:05 Liquid`Drone wrote: Just because extremist islam is significantly more opposed to female rights doesn't mean western society has achieved gender equality..

If you mean gender inequality as women being overall disadvantaged please elaborate on specifics.

If you mean gender inequality as both genders having disadvantages and disadvantages then obviously we arent equal but pursuing is madness, we are biologically different, we have different needs, interests and strengths that will naturally develop into unequal results in society.


If you want to talk more specifically, what are your thoughts on the wage gap?

On May 28 2017 04:46 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On May 27 2017 02:40 Liquid`Drone wrote: I read it as a slightly tongue in cheek comment on how terrorists and mass murderers share gender more than they share religion I read a response to that ridiculous male terrorist argument not long ago claiming that 93% of Terrorists are Muslims, but only 86% are male (im trying to find it but I cant, long timelines). Also the argument about male terrorist is idiotic because it implies that terrorism is because of sexism and it obviously fucking isn't, they are the first ones to claim Islam is a religion of peace and that terrorists arent real muslims, they also do not denounce misogyny I dont think I should keep going on the hypocrisy of SJW beliefs do I?

I guess in actual war-zones like iraq and stuff you have more female suicide bombers than non-muslim suicide bombers, so if you include those the numbers might add up, but there is no way that's an accurate figure for the west, or it'd have to be a super-selective time frame and definition of terrorist attack. (So selective that it's basically truth-distorting.)

On May 28 2017 04:55 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On May 27 2017 10:05 Liquid`Drone wrote: Just because extremist islam is significantly more opposed to female rights doesn't mean western society has achieved gender equality.. If you mean gender inequality as women being overall disadvantaged please elaborate on specifics. If you mean gender inequality as both genders having disadvantages and disadvantages then obviously we arent equal but pursuing is madness, we are biologically different, we have different needs, interests and strengths that will naturally develop into unequal results in society. If you want to talk more specifically, what are your thoughts on the wage gap?

Firstly, from what I've read, the wage gap is real in most western countries, but that which can actually be attributed to gender is in the 5% range, the 20-30% is total bs. I also can't remember the last time I saw a leftist argue for the 30% number though, I mostly see that coming from people who argue against the wage gap being a real thing, but I know it's not gonna be hard to find if you look for it.

In general, gender inequality today isn't of the in your face 'you're not allowed to do this because of your gender' type of thing. I'd say there are two ways gender inequality expresses itself in western society today. First; guys and girls being treated differently from birth in a way that can be expected to influence their future behavior in a way that goes beyond genetic / hormonal differences. I totally accept that there are genetic&hormonal differences and that this is likely to influence behavior, but I think that for example it is negative that girl babies are coddled while male babies are encouraged to explore. (And this is still a real thing.) I've read studies indicating that 6-7 year olds have a pretty good understanding of behavior that is expected from them based on their gender, and this makes no sense from a biological pov, as there are hardly significant biological differences between boys and girls at that age. The idea that there should still be a cultural difference in how guys and girls behave, that makes no sense to me, even though I understand the historical origin for those differences. I basically think certain gender-traits are propagated for no reason other than a traditional view of genders, not really because 'a scientific examination of the genders has determined that they biologically differ in these key aspects' or whatever. And I think that's negative.
The second part is that there exists a certain degree of 'gender nepotism' which makes guys at the top hire male proteges to replace them in the future. Of course it's not impossible for girls, or black people, or hispanics, to succeed in a certain field, but it is harder than it is for white males. Not sure how to solve this, but I'm not opposed to affirmative action as a temporary solution to somewhat even out gender distribution.

Like, I don't want to pursue equal distribution of people in all types of jobs, 50% of car mechanics being female is no goal of mine. 50% of CEOs being women isn't necessarily a goal for me, either. I think it's entirely plausible that there are more guys than girls who want to sacrifice themselves for work in the way that is required to make it to the top. But I want any girl who wants to be a car mechanic or a CEO to have an equal opportunity to achieve this goal as a guy would have. And to pretend that they currently do, is to be willfully ignorant.

Now, it's important to note that I also think men are disadvantaged in other ways. I haven't seen statistics for 'the entire west', but in Norway, girls perform way, way better at school than guys do. Significantly better average grades, way lower dropout rate. Guys are more likely to be imprisoned, to have problems with drugs and addiction, to commit suicide. This problem seems to increase as physical jobs are phased out and more males fail to find an avenue for mastery and personal happiness. Custody cases is another where males are definitely discriminated against. I don't necessarily think that the structural problems girls face are more important so solve than the structural problems guys face, but that's not an argument against solving the structural problems girls face, it's an argument for also solving the structural problems guys face.

As a piece of anecdotal evidence, I dunno if any of you have experiences with swedish girls. My experience is that they are far less influenced by gender stereotypes than girls from any other country (that I know of). And the reason is quite simple; they were raised on Pippi Longstocking.

I'm not trying to shut down free speech anywhere.. Individuals from the left trying to shame people into not expressing their thoughts is an issue, I think relatively minor, but I recognize it is a problem. I do however not believe it's something you can really blame 'the left' for, it's not like there exists some centralized leftist thought-organ that which all leftists have to adhere to, or whatever. This is just people being people, imo. I'm not grouping all right wingers with dogmeat.

As for the 'alliance with muslims', I think Norwegian law has to be adhered by anyone in Norway and other than that I think it's an important principle that people are free to believe whatever they want to believe and act however they want to act. The muslims I know myself are really friendly and nice guys who act like everyone else except they don't eat pork and only half of them drink alcohol. That said I totally think it's important that when people come to Norway they are subject to some degree of civic education because I realize that a lot of people from countries where muslims live have a negative view on homosexuality and women's rights which is not compatible with life here, but I think this is actually stuff that we as society are equipped to handle, at least as long as immigration is not completely unhinged. I also think it's fair to criticize Sweden for having been naive and irresponsible - although personally I prefer erring on the side of naivete rather than erring on the side of cynicism.

On May 28 2017 14:46 VanDerMeyde wrote: - A lot more women than men is getting a higher degree from university now (maybe more than 50% women as CEO in future?)

Pretty sure this has been going in any western country for decades, its just that women are naturally better learners at least in the educational system as it is atm, generally they learn to read, write and do basic math at a much younger age and they don't lose that edge for the next 20years. Its one of the factors why women go for men that are 2-3 years older than them, as they are on the same intellectual level averagely speaking.

I think there was statistic somewhere about there being much more women with university degree for the past 3 decades at least, and women being CEOs under 15% globally. Can't really remember where i read that though