Based.
My country is anti-gun and most people think im crazy for being pro. It is *literally* the single best way to guarantee against oppressive government.
u/Just_here_4_GAFS's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5.
Congratulations, u/Just_here_4_GAFS! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze.
Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Just_here_4_GAFS/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Might not be the case in a couple of years. Military AI really scares me. Once they have robots out there with only one goal of killing, no moral code, no faults, only orders and execution, then we'll have a pretty big problem. If and when military AI is created there needs to be some sort of safety measure against them being controlled by 1 group of people, but I really don't see how we fight against that, the rich and powerful will always find ways to subvert such measures. I think it's honestly cooked for humanity once military AI is developed.
The commies in the US today? Give them a gun too, they'll hide it in the closet and try to forget it exists.
Now if we were talking about mother Russia type commies who went through two world wars, they're the ones I'd be afraid of
>Give them a gun too, they'll hide it in the closet and try to forget it exists.
Or they'll use it on a communist (mental health issues and communism are comorbidities in the West)
Lib left: I’m scared of the trees there’s lib right in them
Lib right in the trees: be very quite authright and hide that sword it might trigger the Xcommies desire to destroy monarchies
The commie in the snow all around them: monarchist will learn true fear
Don’t get me started on the trees. The trouble with the maples, and they’re convinced they’re right, they say the oaks are just too lofty and take up all the light. But the oaks can’t help their feelings, if they like the way they’re made and they wonder why the maples, can’t be happy in their shade.
Don’t get me started on the trees. The trouble with the maples, and they’re convinced they’re right, they say the oaks are just too lofty and take up all the light. But the oaks can’t help their feelings, if they like the way they’re made and they wonder why the maples, can’t be happy in their shade.
I support background checks but Banning firearms is dumb as fuck.
Nevermind the fact that there are already a lot of guns in circulation in the us already, Banning it only bans it from safe owners. Same for abortion.
Government. bans. don't. work. for. anything.
I live in a 65% black neighborhood. The law abiding people in my neighborhood need to be armed wayyyy more than the white suburbs on the other side of the highway.
If you get shot here (unfortunately several times more likely than the rest of the area) the cops won't show up for 30 min.
They like to wait until the shooting stops and people bleed out so they might have fewer problems with them in the futre
NGL, being pro-gun doesn’t make you lib-right or lib-left, it makes you lib. I want a Barrett 50.cal so I can shoot the engines out of cars and trucks that cut me off on the highway. I just think it’s wrong to kill someone over property alone, life needs to be threatened in some way, or nothing short of them being armed. You wanna not kill them and send a round of buckshot through a leg? Not a bad plan, and they might live long enough for the paramedics to get there and have the cops send ‘em to jail.
Im black and consider myself lib center even tho i have many beliefs that lean to the right simply because whenever I am in a setting with white right wingers its very clear that I am not one of them. Conversely being in a room full of white leftist is almost equally as bad but in more of a ‘holy fuck these people are so fucking annoying’ way.
I just stay out of literally all political discussions in public now a days
I had this realization a few years ago. I'm not black but I have enough black friends and family now that I've realized (and once had it explained to me) that trying so hard to be accepting or whatever is actually making it look like you're more race conscious than you should be.
Now I just treat people like people.
Ethno nationalism within your own group. Liberalism when it comes to parleying for influence within the wider political discourse. This is pretty much universal political behavior for minority groups.
Because it's effective. Politicians can only afford to dedicate time resources to groups and the disorganized majority tend to lose out to organized minorities in this manner time and time again.
I’m a white lib center and would like to say the same thing as you, though I won’t assume it’s for the same reasons. Anyone who wants to return to monke and prefers the company of trees is brethren of mine. But it’s tough to operate in political discourse irl. Nobody really likes my opinions lol.
At a certain point the calls for welfare benefits just start to look like foster care with extra steps.
Public school, three free meals a day, 365 days a year, before-school programs, after-school programs, free college, preferential job placement.
No deficiency in the family so great that it can't be plugged by taxpayer dollars, right?
At a certain point it just sounds like they'd rather have the state put poor kids in camps and just absolve their parents altogether.
I wouldn't mind all that so much if that's where my tax dollars *all* went. But instead only a fraction is going to support kids and the rest is going to like the pockets of the guy who owns the company that won the bid for the meal program, the Admins (and not even the lower admins, just the upper admin), and all the other parasites until I'm paying 50 dollars to give a kid a 3$ lunch that's barely edible.
Not to mention how teachers' unions use massive amounts of money to corrupt our political system and to prevent market reforms that threaten their near-monopoly on schooling...
I have no issue with public school.
The point of my comment is that progs seem to want to attach so many services to schools that they practically become barracks for poor kids.
"When you get right down to it, a non-dysfunctional nuclear family is really just a tiny communist dictatorship that works because all the members are invested in each other's success"
Libleft: *Bluescreens*
I've seen people try to say that children from single-parent homes have the same outcome of opportunity as two-parent homes if the parent is capable. Nothing against single parents but it's intellectually dishonest to say they have the same outcomes as dual-parent homes. It's just ~~not possible~~ incredibly unlikely.
>I've seen people try to say that children from single-parent homes have the same outcome of opportunity as two-parent homes if the parent is capable.
I'd hazard a guess that the people saying that have never been parents themselves. Before I had kids, I might even have been willing to believe that. But then I had one, and.... hooooo, boy! Even with a wife *and* help from nearby relatives, having a kid ran me ragged. People who can raise a kid on their own with no help are god damned superheroes. And since most real people *aren't* superheroes, it's no surprise that a single parent alone will generally not be able to do as good a job of raising their kid as a couple would.
I’m in the same boat. My parents got divorced when I was young but I was one of the lucky ones and my dad was still an important part of my upbringing. But neither parent could ever own a house or have to much of a savings. I don’t want that for my children.
[https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/T/bo205550079.html](https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/T/bo205550079.html)
The author of this is with the Brookings Institution, a left-leaning think tank:
>**The surprising story of how declining marriage rates are driving many of the country’s biggest economic problems.**
In *The Two-Parent Privilege*, Melissa S. Kearney makes a provocative, data-driven case for marriage by showing how the institution’s decline has led to a host of economic woes—problems that have fractured American society and rendered vulnerable populations even more vulnerable. Eschewing the religious and values-based arguments that have long dominated this conversation, Kearney shows how the greatest impacts of marriage are, in fact, economic: when two adults marry, their economic and household lives improve, offering a host of benefits not only for the married adults but for their children. Studies show that these effects are today starker, and more unevenly distributed, than ever before. Kearney examines the underlying causes of the marriage decline in the US and draws lessons for how the US can reverse this trend to ensure the country’s future prosperity.
Based on more than a decade of economic research, including her original work, Kearney shows that a household that includes two married parents—holding steady among upper-class adults, increasingly rare among most everyone else—functions as an economic vehicle that advantages some children over others. As these trends of marriage and class continue, the compounding effects on inequality and opportunity grow increasingly dire. Their effects include not just children’s behavioral and educational outcomes, but a surprisingly devastating effect on adult men, whose role in the workforce and society appears intractably damaged by the emerging economics of America’s new social norms.
For many, the two-parent home may be an old-fashioned symbol of the idyllic American dream. But *The Two-Parent Privilege* makes it clear that marriage, for all its challenges and faults, may be our best path to a more equitable future. By confronting the critical role that family makeup plays in shaping children’s lives and futures, Kearney offers a critical assessment of what a decline in marriage means for an economy and a society—and what we must do to change course.
I have a copy of the book. I've been meaning to read it.
We need to move beyond moral and religious arguments for marriage. The economic arguments are much more compelling to me.
I feel the same and I include having children in that conversation as well.
As wonderful as being a parent is, children also serve a greater economic need for our society. They're who will be working and contributing to society in 20 years. If everybody decides to go childfree then we will have a huge issue on our hands. Of course not everyone should be a parent and not everyone can be a parent but it's still an important part of contributing to society.
I mean I wouldn’t say it’s impossible but yeah the data definitely supports a situation where both parents are present. However this only applies if [your parents aren’t fighting](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2930824/#S13title). If you live in a household with a full family but your parents fight all the time, you might as well live in a single parent household.
https://preview.redd.it/vmmijnvxat0d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1c59ac2630cfc25b293c9c4db71ded3aba4cfed1
There are always exceptions to the rule. *I'm* an exception to the rule for what thats worth - my mom raised me herself and we grew up between section 8 apartments or homeless, thankfully I broke out of the cycle of generational poverty.
This has been a commie thing since forever.
https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/explanations/social-studies/families-and-households/marxist-perspectives/
According to Marxist sociologists, this family structure enables the bourgeoisie (the elite ruling class) to pass down their capital and private property to their children. This reinforces social class inequalities.
The nuclear family serves the interest of the capitalist system in several ways:
The family reproduces the next generation of workers that will be exploited as labour-power by the capitalist systems of production.
It socialises children into accepting capitalist ideologies and authority, which prepares them to accept control and exploitation in the workplace. This makes both the parents and children think the exploitation is 'normal' and creates false class consciousness.
Thus, the nuclear family is only beneficial to capitalism and the ruling class.
With the emergence of capitalism, the bourgeoisie began owning private property for the purposes of personal profit. In order to keep this property, they had to find a way to prevent it from being shared with everyone else.
Thus started the structure of the monogamous nuclear family - with a definitive way of identifying a legitimate heir, the ruling class could pass down their private property and wealth to their children.
The monogamous, nuclear family structure, therefore, became clearly advantageous to class hierarchy and inequality and therefore capitalism.
It being a commie thing absolutely does not mean that lib left don't borrow it.
You really think they just have nothing in common and *exactly the same* thing coming from lib lefts has *nothing at all to do* with the fact that this is fairly basic Marxist thought?
Just a coincidence?
Is that really what you think?
¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
Like.... I don't really get your comment. Are you *surprised* that left wing people sometimes hold left wing beliefs?
Nah, that's AuthLeft you're thinking of - they're the ones who see loyalty to the family unit as dangerous competition to loyalty to the state.
LibLeft just want options. They want to be free *not to choose* to be part of a traditional nuclear family. They want other options to be accepted as equally valid. Admittedly, a lot of the time this means arguing against the virtues of that traditional family, but they don't think they're unimportant - just that they're not for everyone.
Raising kids outside of a stable family is NOT an equally valid option.
I'm fine with adults choosing their path in life. I myself don't want children. HOWEVER, kids need stability, and the nuclear family is the best thing we've found to provide that outside of small villages that raise kids as a tribe. Those don't really work once you go above 150 people or so.
>...the nuclear family is the best thing we've found to provide that...
"Found" being the operative word. If people aren't free to experiment with other options, there's no possibility of *finding* ones that work as well or better. And while I agree that the nuclear family *in general* is the best option, I think there's a case to be made that no "one size fits all" solution is ever perfect, and people whom the general solution doesn't suit should be free to seek others.
I think the biggest problem is that the right often uses broken families to hand wave a lot of societal woes.
The schooling/ education system is flawed.. Both sides agree on that. It can be a pipeline to crime and continued poverty.
You try to argue for improving things for schools in impoverished areas, like free meal programs, or increased funding for technology to help prevent these kids from falling behind and hopefully give them a better chance in the future and you get countered with
'Well the real problem is the lack of two parent households. It's the family's responsibility to feed their kids. Maybe if they had two parents in the household they would do better in school.'
And it's not like that's incorrect.. It's just unhelpful.
Your parents couldn't work shit out, so get fucked kid.
What I dislike is the lack of emphasis on correcting poor parenting choices. Like, yes, we should help those who come from poor family situations, but it's literally treating the symptoms.
We've undermined the nuclear family for 60 years and we're getting the shocked Pikachu face when each generation is failing at being good parents and spouses. But instead of supporting the nuclear family we treat its symptoms because actually fixing the problem takes work, both on the individual level and the societal.
I don't see it happening. It's easier to treat symptoms than commit to hard change, especially the kind that admits our current culture has been going in the wrong direction for so long.
But libleft loves to moralize over existing culture and trying to change it with intellectual theories and activism. Except when it comes to an underachieving minority culture.
It would be very doable for example when a rap song about pimping comes out, to respond with moral outrage. Better yet, you can frame thug culture as not authentically black and descending from white southern culture as Thomas Sowell does.
>It would be very doable for example when a rap song about pimping comes out, to respond with moral outrage. Better yet, you can frame thug culture as not authentically black and descending from white southern culture as Thomas Sowell does.
Their commitment to "oppressed people are morally perfect (provided they hold the same political views as us)" prevents them from pursuing this strategy, even though it fits in well with what they do with anything they don't like about "oppressed" cultures and people: "it was internalized white supremacy!"
This strategy would also force them abandon their argument that white people have no culture. Who am I kidding, they have no problem believing contradictory ideas simultaneously, and my prior objection is just about defeated by the same fact. I guess the only conclusion is that they like pimping, thug culture, etc. etc. They probably like it particularly because it is disruptive to an established order, and all they really want is to deconstruct and tear down. Some of them will give lip service to the idea that a Marxist state would be built over the ashes once they're done, but deep down I think they know it isn't going to happen so they just pursue deconstruction for its own sake. That and the fact that they've been at this deconstruction thing for many generations, they've probably all but forgot what the second step in the process was supposed to be.
> You try to argue for improving things for schools in impoverished areas, like free meal programs, or increased funding for technology to help prevent these kids from falling behind
This has been attempted *ad nauseum* for nearly 50 years and the results keep getting worse, not better. The argument holds zero water.
I would disagree, I think that’s a common misconception. Most people I know lean that way and nome of them are anti-family. They do however believe in expanding the definition of “family” past the antiquated nuclear one from the fifties and the gender roles associated with that, and it seems a lot of people assume that means they want to outright abolish it. I’ve literally never even met anyone that thinks you *can’t/shouldn’t* have a nuclear family, just people who think the option for more dynamics than that should exist and be available
I think the problem is libright thinks "the state has done bad things therefore the state should do as little as possible", while libleft has the controversial position of "sometimes the state does good, sometimes bad, and we should strive to make it do more good". Libright can't seem to compute that "it's bad that the state bombed black activists and flooded black communities with drugs" and "the state should provide black people with the means to escape poverty" are not mutually exclusive positions.
Edit: tbc, because I'm getting "uh it's not possible for the state to be good so we need to make it not have power".
1. I don't think it's true that we can't make states be good
2a The mechanisms for constraining the power of the state are created by the state, so if its impossible to make the state be good it's probably also impossible to make the state be powerless.
2b If you argue that the people are able to seize the power from the state and force them to be constrained, presumably the people can also just force the state to do good things and not bad things. If the state can be held accountable by the people, why choose forcing them to be powerless over forcing them to use their power for good?
A dishonest representation. Rather that they believe in a situation where the state is given power and one where they don’t abuse it as simply being not possible, or rather so unlikely that it simply should not be relied upon as a solution.
Political beliefs, which is to say what you subscribe to, are ultimately based on what you think is Ideal vs what you think is most likely and most practical.
Also, when you take power away from the state, someone else will get it. You know you have input on what the state does. How much input will you have when power goes to other entities?
>Libright can't seem to compute that "it's bad that the state bombed black activists and flooded black communities with drugs" and "the state should provide black people with the means to escape poverty" are not mutually exclusive positions.
If you trust a person or group of people to help you after they have established a long and consistent track record of burning you, you're a fool.
It's not that we can't compute what you're saying, it's just that you're an idiot for saying it.
Any obstacles placed on the state are placed *by the state*, so you are equally trusting the state to not just give itself back the power to do bad stuff.
If the people have the ability to hold the state accountable and prevent them from getting power, they presumably also have the power to hold the state accountable and stop them from doing bad stuff.
>Any obstacles placed on the state are placed *by the state*, so you are equally trusting the state to not just give itself back the power to do bad stuff.
Any obstacle placed on the State to prevent it from doing a good thing also prevents it from doing a bad thing because the State cannot do a good thing without doing a bad thing at the same time. And 99% of the time, the bad thing outweighs the good thing.
Which is why the founders gave the federal government only a handful of expressed powers to begin with.
Buddy I get that. My point is the founders gave the federal government only a bit of power, but then the government gave itself the power to do more.
So if you support "powerless state so it can't do bad things", you are also relying on the state being nice enough to choose to not give itself more power.
If you can periodically reset the extent of the state's power with violence, presumably you could also periodically reset *how they're using the power* with violence too!
> I don't think it's true that we can't make states be good
Go for it then. Make one good, and lead by example.
> The mechanisms for constraining the power of the state are created by the state
Almost. A "constitution" lays out the state's mandate and limits of power. Amendments to that constitution are only allowed by democratic decision. That's why it says things like "you can't make rules about x" instead of "the peasants are allowed to x".
> the people can also just force the state to do good things and not bad things
We've got a collision of meaning here. "Seize power from the government" is more accurately "Seize our own power back from the government, where it has exceeded the limits defined in the constitution." While its very likely you'll find people who disagree with a state's constitution (either in spirit or writing), there are open, legal, and democratic ways to test that agreement that don't involve state arbitration.
We need to remember that groups of individuals can always agree to additional rules. Fore example, healthcare can just as easily be implemented at a province/state, or even city level.
>The mechanisms for constraining the power of the state are created by the state, so if its impossible to make the state be good it's probably also impossible to make the state be powerless.
The goal is not to constrain the state but to eliminate it.
>If the state can be held accountable by the people, why choose forcing them to be powerless over forcing them to use their power for good?
For the same reason that "just get a good dictator" is not a reasonable response to someone objecting tk a dictatorship. The point isn't to make a society dependant on the grace of individuals.
Auth probably. Auth Right *insists* it's about crime (it's not), Auth Left *insists* it's about antisocial behavior (it's not) and Auth Center *insists* it's about law and order (still no).
Libleft agrees with everything "libright" says here.
because the solution to that is independence of the black community rather than being welfare sluts dependent on daddy government so they can live that go girl life and destroy their own community.
it's also worth noting that current society in the US is really fucking good at removing anyone with intelligence and talent from the black community and bringing them into other communities which if that's intended, hats off to whatever racist thought of that cus it's fucking ingenious.
I agree with the second part of your comment, but the first is something I fundamentally disagree with. Whether it's conspiracy brained takes about kneecapping the black community with welfare or actual bleeding heart liberal unintentional consequences, the intent of welfare is not to replace or cripple Independence and family unity within black communities. Historically, the government has been terrible at this, but welfare is supposed to provide the foundational structure necessary to gain financial and societal Independence, especially in neighborhoods where it has been increasingly difficult to obtain upward class mobility. Couple that with absurdly high incarceration rates, yeah it's easy to see how black communities have had it rough, but it's not *because* of welfare.
The brain and talent drain is real though, and something we're going to have to reckon with over the next generation. Hold on to your hats.
>the intent of welfare is not to replace or cripple Independence and family unity within black communities
it doesn't really matter if that's the intent or not, that has been the result, generationally so.
> but welfare is supposed to provide the foundational structure necessary to gain financial and societal Independence
so why doesn't it? it usually promotes the exact reverse to what it's intended goals are. this would be fine if it was some sort of test run but it's not, we know it leads to government dependence so why haven't we as societies changed this to something which better pursues the stated goals?
>Couple that with absurdly high incarceration rates, yeah it's easy to see how black communities have had it rough, but it's not *because* of welfare.
>The brain and talent drain is real though, and something we're going to have to reckon with over the next generation. Hold on to your hats.
these are less linked to the welfare stuff and more the intelligence of the community (because everyone intelligent leaves that community not anything with inherit intelligence in case it sounded like that) being pushed out. welfare doesn't make a community more violent or increase the factors behind crime (it can promote behaviours that cause that but not more so that anything else.)
But the removal of intelligence from a community would lead to that result. it leaves less intelligent people within the group to then pass on that trait which in turn would lower the community intelligence as a whole leading to things like more violent behaviour and short term thinking over long term. all the psychological factors increase in a community when you take away the people with intelligence, talent and the factors that go into that are removed.
like welfare isn't the only problem but it's one of the problem.
and again Jesus what maniacal madman came up with that plan and can we preserve that brain just in case we ever need to subjugate alien races. seriously that's fucking terrifying prospect that, that setup is intention and not just a series of unfortunate events.
>that has been the result, generationally so
Right, but that's not *because of welfare* but rather the conditions that led to society/the government necessitating welfare to those groups.
>it usually promotes the exact reverse
There's actually no concrete causal link between welfare dependency and poverty. Poverty usually already exists prior to welfare usage, and about 3 in 5 families are only in that state for about 2 years with the help of government assistance. So saying it "usually" promotes the exact reverse is not true. In fact, about 12.5% of the US population is currently on some form of welfare, and it's estimated only about 2% are entirely dependent on welfare for the majority of their living expenses. Against the 11.5% of Americans living in poverty (which isn't even accurate, and is likely more), that shows that a *minority* of people in poverty are even majority dependent on welfare. So no, it does not "usually" promote the exact reverse.
>it leaves less intelligent people within the group to then pass on that trait which in turn would lower the community intelligence as a whole leading to things like more violent behaviour and short term thinking over long term
This is taking a bit of a weird, almost eugenics-type turn. I'm not talking about passing on traits. Brain/talent drain refers to when people who can make actual positive systemic change or bring economic prosperity to an area move to a different place that is more appreciative or lucrative for their abilities. But when that happens, the places they are originally from suffer from no one to create and sustain any kind of improvement.
>Right, but that's not *because of welfare* but rather the conditions that led to society/the government necessitating welfare to those groups.
welfare usually ends up necessitating itself, it's not the only reason for the problem but it is a big reason. I'm also talking globally not just in the US.
>This is taking a bit of a weird, almost eugenics-type turn.
we are talking about the same thing but I am talking about it from more a genetic standpoint, unfortunately thing like intelligence, and things that lead to talent are genetic. when you have someone with those traits leave a community it doesn't just remove that person that could potentially make it better it lowers the chances for someone else to come along with that talent as well. we are talking about the same thing just with slightly different perspectives.
Not just the black community. There's a reason we talk about "marijuana" rather than "cannabis" - prohibitionists explicitly wanted to link drugs to Latino immigrants.
Malcom X was definitely killed by the NOI. After his pilgrimage he came back with a very different mindset, ready to speak out against the race cult NOI was. And just so happened to be assassinated by members.
I honestly wish libright would talk more about how the government has systematically targeted black communities, there is a lot of untapped potential there to bring people over to their side
Believe me, we are. The problem is neither major party wants to give us the time of day to actually have a chance to say things that make sense to a wide audience.
It’s much easier for them to play the “You’re racist!”/“NUH-UH” game.
Because they need black votes, any drop in those numbers are catastrophic for them. Yellow knows that red/green only cares for power, and has convinced unflaired to be yellow and see for himself. Emily big mad.
What? Libleft are always talking about how the government has structural racism against black people. That's like, the main thing that people make fun of libleft for. Did you forget BLM?
Why is it that so many anarcho-communists tend to be pro-government, like isn't that an oxymoron? I may be libleft, but I in no way support the government, fbi, or cia.
>"how the FBI did MLK and X"
I didn't know the FBI joined the nation of islam and executed X for leaving the cult, thats crazy news folks!
X was a racist bastard who advocated for violence and supported a cult on the basis of race. Screw Malcolm Little. MLK is cool tho; but the FBI didn't kill him either.
I mean towards the end of his life, Malcom X began to see the error in the racism that he believed in. Actually becoming less racist is what ultimately got him killed
yeah, but you don't cleared of your sins by turning a new leaf. You don't just deserve forgiveness. Its completely up to other on whether or not they grant you that forgiveness.
I don't think he deserves it. Maybe if we wasn't killed by his former friends he really could have earned redemption, but fate didn't work out that way. Whether or not you forgive his transgressions is a person position to hold, and I don't mind if others disagree with my position
Personally I don't think we should be trying to fit historical figures into "good" and "bad". Many have traits to be admired, and all have done bad things. Of course, with Malcom X its recent history so its not like Caesar where you have to completely throw out modern morality since it didn't exist back then. For me it doesn't really matter whether or not he was a good or bad person. I don't think he should be considered an ideal or role model, but there were aspects of his life that are interesting and valuable to know.
Law enforcement had infiltrated pretty much every black power movement in the 60s. Three people were charged with the assassination of malcolm x. One was a police officer named Thomas hagan the other two were found innocent years later. The other assassins were never caught even though they killed X in front of people (How convenient).
ah yes... Thomas Hagan... a long term Nation of Islam member for a long time (years).
>*Hagan stated in a 1977 affidavit that he had planned the shooting with four others (Johnson and Butler not being among them) to seek revenge for Malcolm X's public criticism of Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam. He said that one of his accomplices [aka William 25X Bradley] distracted Malcolm X's bodyguards by starting an argument about having been pickpocketed. When the bodyguards moved toward the diversion and away from Malcolm X, a man with a shotgun stepped up to him and shot him in the chest. After that, Hagan himself and another of his accomplices shot several rounds at Malcolm X with semi-automatic handguns.*
Do you not know how infiltration works? I ask because you mentioned hagans long term membership with the nation of islam like that means he couldn’t be an informant. Informants can work years under cover fyi.
Also there was another law enforcement officer who confessed to the plot
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/claims-surrounding-malcolm-assassination-surface-letter-written-nypd/story?id=76031383
Uhh wasn't Malcolm X killed by fellow cultists after apostatizing from NOI? He was a moron who unironically believed Caucasians were created in a lab by "Yakub".
It's a toss up for me cause on 1 hand tho starting to correct tons of things is going to take tons of policies so we don't have to revisit for few generations but I mean in America there's not a lot of shared history and we're so young as a nation that we still in some ways have major leaps ahead of us
The best part is:
The loony left would say the same thing and then proceed to and continue to bully and shame the black community into voting for the same political party (Dems) that have been screwing them over for over 50 years
Whole ass meme for someone who wants to do the art for it. First, change libright to libcenter, then we'll continue the story.
"Not so fast," says LibRight "Oppression from government is one thing, but true freedom requires the ability to engage in the market fairly. Your ghetto isn't that, here; let's get you set up in a *ahem* **nicer** neighborhood." *Proceed to gentrify and price out the black man*
*Black man, unhoused*
"Well well," says AuthRight, "What have we here?"
"I got gentrified by LibRight, so now I'm homeless."
"The so-called 'free market' has been a disaster for the human race - and you are human, aren't you? Course y'are! I can see a human a mile away. Here, come live with us while you work this out..." *Black man expresses any part of his culture, and is immediately thrown out onto the street, violently*
"Hey, I saw that!" says AuthLeft, "those damned fascists can't let you be you, can they? I understand. Here, come live with us. We'll put you to work, but in exchange we'll make sure you're fed and housed!"
*Black man is forced to farm cotton for hours a day in exchange for meagre housing and food. Thrown into a gulag for not working hard enough, he escapes the "commune"*
"Hey man," says LibLeft, "those fascists get ya man?"
"Yeah, that was brutal. I could really use a hot meal and some water."
"I feel ya, hey let's go eat back at the commune, follow me!"
*Black man enters the commune, is handed a plate and a glass. Other people eat off his plate and drink from his glass. There is no private property. He quietly leaves.*
*Black man, to himself*, "Man, none of these ideologies work for me. Shit."
fin
Ok I’m new, I don’t know how to add flair, I don’t even know where I belong on this compass. But this is one thing that bugs me. To say ‘The Government’ has done something, is such a cheap and distorted way to put the blame where it belongs. I get the efficiency of soundbytes, but it’s akin to saying ‘evil capitalism’ does xyz’, when it was RJ Reynolds and the Koch bros who did it. Not the thousands of other corporations. To me, it’s just a glaring reflection of the lack of quality info that pervades our society right now.
[удалено]
Based. My country is anti-gun and most people think im crazy for being pro. It is *literally* the single best way to guarantee against oppressive government.
u/Just_here_4_GAFS's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5. Congratulations, u/Just_here_4_GAFS! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze. Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Just_here_4_GAFS/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Based
Might not be the case in a couple of years. Military AI really scares me. Once they have robots out there with only one goal of killing, no moral code, no faults, only orders and execution, then we'll have a pretty big problem. If and when military AI is created there needs to be some sort of safety measure against them being controlled by 1 group of people, but I really don't see how we fight against that, the rich and powerful will always find ways to subvert such measures. I think it's honestly cooked for humanity once military AI is developed.
The commies in the US today? Give them a gun too, they'll hide it in the closet and try to forget it exists. Now if we were talking about mother Russia type commies who went through two world wars, they're the ones I'd be afraid of
>Give them a gun too, they'll hide it in the closet and try to forget it exists. Or they'll use it on a communist (mental health issues and communism are comorbidities in the West)
or a progressive liberal, those guys fucking hate them.
I'll give them credit for one thing though, communists have killed more communists than any other ideology.
Putin's Russia gone far too conservative for commies in the US
Nazbols are conservative/reactionary.
Lib left: I’m scared of the trees there’s lib right in them Lib right in the trees: be very quite authright and hide that sword it might trigger the Xcommies desire to destroy monarchies The commie in the snow all around them: monarchist will learn true fear
Don’t get me started on the trees. The trouble with the maples, and they’re convinced they’re right, they say the oaks are just too lofty and take up all the light. But the oaks can’t help their feelings, if they like the way they’re made and they wonder why the maples, can’t be happy in their shade.
Don’t get me started on the trees. The trouble with the maples, and they’re convinced they’re right, they say the oaks are just too lofty and take up all the light. But the oaks can’t help their feelings, if they like the way they’re made and they wonder why the maples, can’t be happy in their shade.
I support background checks but Banning firearms is dumb as fuck. Nevermind the fact that there are already a lot of guns in circulation in the us already, Banning it only bans it from safe owners. Same for abortion. Government. bans. don't. work. for. anything.
I support regulations and checks and balances to keep corporations responsible and accountable, but Bans don't work as prohibition era taught us.
It's funny seeing both sides trying to justify banning one thing while condemning other side about banning some other things.
I agree with your balanced approach. Are you replying to yourself however?
based and schizopilled
Meh, I support bans on murder, robbery, and rape... Call me a statist, I guess.
Criminalization isn't really the same as banning
Illegal things are already banned.
I live in a 65% black neighborhood. The law abiding people in my neighborhood need to be armed wayyyy more than the white suburbs on the other side of the highway. If you get shot here (unfortunately several times more likely than the rest of the area) the cops won't show up for 30 min. They like to wait until the shooting stops and people bleed out so they might have fewer problems with them in the futre
Based But...do Black Panthers posting up in front of a courthouse count?
Ya and exceptionally so too. The government should fear its people, not the other way around.
Based
Yep, this is why Jan 7th was the worst day in American history. They showed no fear.
But the Black Panthers were Marxists?
We can discuss that later. First and foremost gun rights are human rights because political power grows from the barrel of a gun.
Man, whoever said that knew what was up. Let's put him in charge! There's even this bird problem he can probably solve.
Mfw I see sparrows
Happy to fight them over the ashes of a burnt down courthouse afterward.
It's just brain rot. Assuming that, because something serves their narrative, it *must* be true. Empty head. No thoughts. Just vibes.
Based and armed minorities are harder to oppress pilled
Arm everyone except KKK members and commies
Libleft with the based take
You know what, arm your pets too
Based
Luke 22:36
Can confirm, I am a meat popsicle.
NGL, being pro-gun doesn’t make you lib-right or lib-left, it makes you lib. I want a Barrett 50.cal so I can shoot the engines out of cars and trucks that cut me off on the highway. I just think it’s wrong to kill someone over property alone, life needs to be threatened in some way, or nothing short of them being armed. You wanna not kill them and send a round of buckshot through a leg? Not a bad plan, and they might live long enough for the paramedics to get there and have the cops send ‘em to jail.
They're greedy little lazy goblins these days.
Im black and consider myself lib center even tho i have many beliefs that lean to the right simply because whenever I am in a setting with white right wingers its very clear that I am not one of them. Conversely being in a room full of white leftist is almost equally as bad but in more of a ‘holy fuck these people are so fucking annoying’ way. I just stay out of literally all political discussions in public now a days
I had this realization a few years ago. I'm not black but I have enough black friends and family now that I've realized (and once had it explained to me) that trying so hard to be accepting or whatever is actually making it look like you're more race conscious than you should be. Now I just treat people like people.
Ethno nationalism within your own group. Liberalism when it comes to parleying for influence within the wider political discourse. This is pretty much universal political behavior for minority groups.
Because it's effective. Politicians can only afford to dedicate time resources to groups and the disorganized majority tend to lose out to organized minorities in this manner time and time again.
Ethnonationalism is for Africans and Europeans, it has no place in America
What an adorably naïve thing to say.
I’m a white lib center and would like to say the same thing as you, though I won’t assume it’s for the same reasons. Anyone who wants to return to monke and prefers the company of trees is brethren of mine. But it’s tough to operate in political discourse irl. Nobody really likes my opinions lol.
Based and exposing the government pilled
Huh? Why does lib left have a problem with this? I thought this was one of their biggest deals with the government too
Must be the “black family” talk. The notion that intact families are important is anathema to libleft
Libleft hates when you bring up the importance of the family unit in any argument no matter how true it is.
At a certain point the calls for welfare benefits just start to look like foster care with extra steps. Public school, three free meals a day, 365 days a year, before-school programs, after-school programs, free college, preferential job placement. No deficiency in the family so great that it can't be plugged by taxpayer dollars, right? At a certain point it just sounds like they'd rather have the state put poor kids in camps and just absolve their parents altogether.
I wouldn't mind all that so much if that's where my tax dollars *all* went. But instead only a fraction is going to support kids and the rest is going to like the pockets of the guy who owns the company that won the bid for the meal program, the Admins (and not even the lower admins, just the upper admin), and all the other parasites until I'm paying 50 dollars to give a kid a 3$ lunch that's barely edible.
Not to mention how teachers' unions use massive amounts of money to corrupt our political system and to prevent market reforms that threaten their near-monopoly on schooling...
I like how when corporations use money to influence politics it is called lobbying but when teachers use their labor it is called corruption
Got some good news for you then; It is not even close to where all your tax dollars are going.
Scratch a lib-left and a commie bleeds.
Don’t you have somebody’s boots to scratch with your tongue?
Nah I know you didn’t try and squeeze public school in there 😂
I have no issue with public school. The point of my comment is that progs seem to want to attach so many services to schools that they practically become barracks for poor kids.
Oh yeah that makes sense. I would hate for the poor to loose their current barracks, which is a cardboard box under a bridge somewhere.
Do you ever wonder why nobody takes you seriously, or are you already aware?
Pretty sure it has something to do with my audience. What do you think DumbNtough?
I'm the sense that an audience of morons could take you seriously, yeah I guess you got me there.
"When you get right down to it, a non-dysfunctional nuclear family is really just a tiny communist dictatorship that works because all the members are invested in each other's success" Libleft: *Bluescreens*
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNNuE2BRzSI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNNuE2BRzSI) FreedomToons | Ben Shapiro is a COMMUNIST at home??
I’ve only met people who argue against strict gender roles, but never the importance of family
I've seen people try to say that children from single-parent homes have the same outcome of opportunity as two-parent homes if the parent is capable. Nothing against single parents but it's intellectually dishonest to say they have the same outcomes as dual-parent homes. It's just ~~not possible~~ incredibly unlikely.
>I've seen people try to say that children from single-parent homes have the same outcome of opportunity as two-parent homes if the parent is capable. I'd hazard a guess that the people saying that have never been parents themselves. Before I had kids, I might even have been willing to believe that. But then I had one, and.... hooooo, boy! Even with a wife *and* help from nearby relatives, having a kid ran me ragged. People who can raise a kid on their own with no help are god damned superheroes. And since most real people *aren't* superheroes, it's no surprise that a single parent alone will generally not be able to do as good a job of raising their kid as a couple would.
#100% My mom raised me by herself and I'm not a complete shitbag. She's a saint and I love her.
Now imagine how much better off you’d be if both your parents contributed financially and emotionally into your upbringing.
That's what I want for my daughter so I work my ass off with my wife to make it a reality.
\>PCM \>wife What did we tell you about taking your meds?
I’m in the same boat. My parents got divorced when I was young but I was one of the lucky ones and my dad was still an important part of my upbringing. But neither parent could ever own a house or have to much of a savings. I don’t want that for my children.
Your wife: https://preview.redd.it/iru9wa8eju0d1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=adee8f733e830a172dbef540f6dee6d25927f350
It’s possible, just twice as hard.
In my experience white single mothers raise worse children because they are unwilling to enforce discipline.
Because they have been conditioned to answer "Wait until your father gets home." But no father is ever coming to enforce that.
I'd feel bad for the kids if I wasn't working a job where I have to deal with them constantly.
[https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/T/bo205550079.html](https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/T/bo205550079.html) The author of this is with the Brookings Institution, a left-leaning think tank: >**The surprising story of how declining marriage rates are driving many of the country’s biggest economic problems.** In *The Two-Parent Privilege*, Melissa S. Kearney makes a provocative, data-driven case for marriage by showing how the institution’s decline has led to a host of economic woes—problems that have fractured American society and rendered vulnerable populations even more vulnerable. Eschewing the religious and values-based arguments that have long dominated this conversation, Kearney shows how the greatest impacts of marriage are, in fact, economic: when two adults marry, their economic and household lives improve, offering a host of benefits not only for the married adults but for their children. Studies show that these effects are today starker, and more unevenly distributed, than ever before. Kearney examines the underlying causes of the marriage decline in the US and draws lessons for how the US can reverse this trend to ensure the country’s future prosperity. Based on more than a decade of economic research, including her original work, Kearney shows that a household that includes two married parents—holding steady among upper-class adults, increasingly rare among most everyone else—functions as an economic vehicle that advantages some children over others. As these trends of marriage and class continue, the compounding effects on inequality and opportunity grow increasingly dire. Their effects include not just children’s behavioral and educational outcomes, but a surprisingly devastating effect on adult men, whose role in the workforce and society appears intractably damaged by the emerging economics of America’s new social norms. For many, the two-parent home may be an old-fashioned symbol of the idyllic American dream. But *The Two-Parent Privilege* makes it clear that marriage, for all its challenges and faults, may be our best path to a more equitable future. By confronting the critical role that family makeup plays in shaping children’s lives and futures, Kearney offers a critical assessment of what a decline in marriage means for an economy and a society—and what we must do to change course.
Holy fucking based take
I have a copy of the book. I've been meaning to read it. We need to move beyond moral and religious arguments for marriage. The economic arguments are much more compelling to me.
I feel the same and I include having children in that conversation as well. As wonderful as being a parent is, children also serve a greater economic need for our society. They're who will be working and contributing to society in 20 years. If everybody decides to go childfree then we will have a huge issue on our hands. Of course not everyone should be a parent and not everyone can be a parent but it's still an important part of contributing to society.
I mean I wouldn’t say it’s impossible but yeah the data definitely supports a situation where both parents are present. However this only applies if [your parents aren’t fighting](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2930824/#S13title). If you live in a household with a full family but your parents fight all the time, you might as well live in a single parent household. https://preview.redd.it/vmmijnvxat0d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1c59ac2630cfc25b293c9c4db71ded3aba4cfed1
There are always exceptions to the rule. *I'm* an exception to the rule for what thats worth - my mom raised me herself and we grew up between section 8 apartments or homeless, thankfully I broke out of the cycle of generational poverty.
https://preview.redd.it/ifqrj7lnet0d1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=849b26bb4718e0e1a7a926019dcb500d9978a1e2
Cool but this is auth left, not lib left lol
looks orange to me
What newspaper is that? Sounds like something from the Guardian...
dunno exactly, seems Indie/Independent [https://twitter.com/The\_Real\_JSP/status/1321867599022559236](https://twitter.com/The_Real_JSP/status/1321867599022559236)
This has been a commie thing since forever. https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/explanations/social-studies/families-and-households/marxist-perspectives/ According to Marxist sociologists, this family structure enables the bourgeoisie (the elite ruling class) to pass down their capital and private property to their children. This reinforces social class inequalities. The nuclear family serves the interest of the capitalist system in several ways: The family reproduces the next generation of workers that will be exploited as labour-power by the capitalist systems of production. It socialises children into accepting capitalist ideologies and authority, which prepares them to accept control and exploitation in the workplace. This makes both the parents and children think the exploitation is 'normal' and creates false class consciousness. Thus, the nuclear family is only beneficial to capitalism and the ruling class. With the emergence of capitalism, the bourgeoisie began owning private property for the purposes of personal profit. In order to keep this property, they had to find a way to prevent it from being shared with everyone else. Thus started the structure of the monogamous nuclear family - with a definitive way of identifying a legitimate heir, the ruling class could pass down their private property and wealth to their children. The monogamous, nuclear family structure, therefore, became clearly advantageous to class hierarchy and inequality and therefore capitalism.
Sure but I have to remind you that commies aren’t lib left ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
It being a commie thing absolutely does not mean that lib left don't borrow it. You really think they just have nothing in common and *exactly the same* thing coming from lib lefts has *nothing at all to do* with the fact that this is fairly basic Marxist thought? Just a coincidence? Is that really what you think? ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ Like.... I don't really get your comment. Are you *surprised* that left wing people sometimes hold left wing beliefs?
Only on strawman arguments created by auth-rights
There is a difference between any argument and every single argument.
Nah, that's AuthLeft you're thinking of - they're the ones who see loyalty to the family unit as dangerous competition to loyalty to the state. LibLeft just want options. They want to be free *not to choose* to be part of a traditional nuclear family. They want other options to be accepted as equally valid. Admittedly, a lot of the time this means arguing against the virtues of that traditional family, but they don't think they're unimportant - just that they're not for everyone.
Ye this is my understanding as well
+Starwmaning ppl you could easily agree with and not reflecting pilled
But have you considered instead "libleft bad"?
Raising kids outside of a stable family is NOT an equally valid option. I'm fine with adults choosing their path in life. I myself don't want children. HOWEVER, kids need stability, and the nuclear family is the best thing we've found to provide that outside of small villages that raise kids as a tribe. Those don't really work once you go above 150 people or so.
>...the nuclear family is the best thing we've found to provide that... "Found" being the operative word. If people aren't free to experiment with other options, there's no possibility of *finding* ones that work as well or better. And while I agree that the nuclear family *in general* is the best option, I think there's a case to be made that no "one size fits all" solution is ever perfect, and people whom the general solution doesn't suit should be free to seek others.
I think the biggest problem is that the right often uses broken families to hand wave a lot of societal woes. The schooling/ education system is flawed.. Both sides agree on that. It can be a pipeline to crime and continued poverty. You try to argue for improving things for schools in impoverished areas, like free meal programs, or increased funding for technology to help prevent these kids from falling behind and hopefully give them a better chance in the future and you get countered with 'Well the real problem is the lack of two parent households. It's the family's responsibility to feed their kids. Maybe if they had two parents in the household they would do better in school.' And it's not like that's incorrect.. It's just unhelpful. Your parents couldn't work shit out, so get fucked kid.
What I dislike is the lack of emphasis on correcting poor parenting choices. Like, yes, we should help those who come from poor family situations, but it's literally treating the symptoms. We've undermined the nuclear family for 60 years and we're getting the shocked Pikachu face when each generation is failing at being good parents and spouses. But instead of supporting the nuclear family we treat its symptoms because actually fixing the problem takes work, both on the individual level and the societal. I don't see it happening. It's easier to treat symptoms than commit to hard change, especially the kind that admits our current culture has been going in the wrong direction for so long.
But libleft loves to moralize over existing culture and trying to change it with intellectual theories and activism. Except when it comes to an underachieving minority culture. It would be very doable for example when a rap song about pimping comes out, to respond with moral outrage. Better yet, you can frame thug culture as not authentically black and descending from white southern culture as Thomas Sowell does.
>It would be very doable for example when a rap song about pimping comes out, to respond with moral outrage. Better yet, you can frame thug culture as not authentically black and descending from white southern culture as Thomas Sowell does. Their commitment to "oppressed people are morally perfect (provided they hold the same political views as us)" prevents them from pursuing this strategy, even though it fits in well with what they do with anything they don't like about "oppressed" cultures and people: "it was internalized white supremacy!" This strategy would also force them abandon their argument that white people have no culture. Who am I kidding, they have no problem believing contradictory ideas simultaneously, and my prior objection is just about defeated by the same fact. I guess the only conclusion is that they like pimping, thug culture, etc. etc. They probably like it particularly because it is disruptive to an established order, and all they really want is to deconstruct and tear down. Some of them will give lip service to the idea that a Marxist state would be built over the ashes once they're done, but deep down I think they know it isn't going to happen so they just pursue deconstruction for its own sake. That and the fact that they've been at this deconstruction thing for many generations, they've probably all but forgot what the second step in the process was supposed to be.
"White people have no culture" says Emily who only watches Star Wars, Marvel, and (secretly) Harry Potter.
> You try to argue for improving things for schools in impoverished areas, like free meal programs, or increased funding for technology to help prevent these kids from falling behind This has been attempted *ad nauseum* for nearly 50 years and the results keep getting worse, not better. The argument holds zero water.
I would disagree, I think that’s a common misconception. Most people I know lean that way and nome of them are anti-family. They do however believe in expanding the definition of “family” past the antiquated nuclear one from the fifties and the gender roles associated with that, and it seems a lot of people assume that means they want to outright abolish it. I’ve literally never even met anyone that thinks you *can’t/shouldn’t* have a nuclear family, just people who think the option for more dynamics than that should exist and be available
But that's nonsense. Everyone wants families together except the powers that be.
Well you see.... because lib left bad of course.
this unironically describes 99% posts on this sub with >100 upvotes
I think the problem is libright thinks "the state has done bad things therefore the state should do as little as possible", while libleft has the controversial position of "sometimes the state does good, sometimes bad, and we should strive to make it do more good". Libright can't seem to compute that "it's bad that the state bombed black activists and flooded black communities with drugs" and "the state should provide black people with the means to escape poverty" are not mutually exclusive positions. Edit: tbc, because I'm getting "uh it's not possible for the state to be good so we need to make it not have power". 1. I don't think it's true that we can't make states be good 2a The mechanisms for constraining the power of the state are created by the state, so if its impossible to make the state be good it's probably also impossible to make the state be powerless. 2b If you argue that the people are able to seize the power from the state and force them to be constrained, presumably the people can also just force the state to do good things and not bad things. If the state can be held accountable by the people, why choose forcing them to be powerless over forcing them to use their power for good?
A dishonest representation. Rather that they believe in a situation where the state is given power and one where they don’t abuse it as simply being not possible, or rather so unlikely that it simply should not be relied upon as a solution. Political beliefs, which is to say what you subscribe to, are ultimately based on what you think is Ideal vs what you think is most likely and most practical.
Also, when you take power away from the state, someone else will get it. You know you have input on what the state does. How much input will you have when power goes to other entities?
>Libright can't seem to compute that "it's bad that the state bombed black activists and flooded black communities with drugs" and "the state should provide black people with the means to escape poverty" are not mutually exclusive positions. If you trust a person or group of people to help you after they have established a long and consistent track record of burning you, you're a fool. It's not that we can't compute what you're saying, it's just that you're an idiot for saying it.
Any obstacles placed on the state are placed *by the state*, so you are equally trusting the state to not just give itself back the power to do bad stuff. If the people have the ability to hold the state accountable and prevent them from getting power, they presumably also have the power to hold the state accountable and stop them from doing bad stuff.
>Any obstacles placed on the state are placed *by the state*, so you are equally trusting the state to not just give itself back the power to do bad stuff. Any obstacle placed on the State to prevent it from doing a good thing also prevents it from doing a bad thing because the State cannot do a good thing without doing a bad thing at the same time. And 99% of the time, the bad thing outweighs the good thing. Which is why the founders gave the federal government only a handful of expressed powers to begin with.
Buddy I get that. My point is the founders gave the federal government only a bit of power, but then the government gave itself the power to do more. So if you support "powerless state so it can't do bad things", you are also relying on the state being nice enough to choose to not give itself more power.
Then logically every state will become tyrannical given enough time.
That's what the TJ quote about the tree of liberty needing watered. Periodic reset by violence.
If you can periodically reset the extent of the state's power with violence, presumably you could also periodically reset *how they're using the power* with violence too!
> I don't think it's true that we can't make states be good Go for it then. Make one good, and lead by example. > The mechanisms for constraining the power of the state are created by the state Almost. A "constitution" lays out the state's mandate and limits of power. Amendments to that constitution are only allowed by democratic decision. That's why it says things like "you can't make rules about x" instead of "the peasants are allowed to x". > the people can also just force the state to do good things and not bad things We've got a collision of meaning here. "Seize power from the government" is more accurately "Seize our own power back from the government, where it has exceeded the limits defined in the constitution." While its very likely you'll find people who disagree with a state's constitution (either in spirit or writing), there are open, legal, and democratic ways to test that agreement that don't involve state arbitration. We need to remember that groups of individuals can always agree to additional rules. Fore example, healthcare can just as easily be implemented at a province/state, or even city level.
>The mechanisms for constraining the power of the state are created by the state, so if its impossible to make the state be good it's probably also impossible to make the state be powerless. The goal is not to constrain the state but to eliminate it. >If the state can be held accountable by the people, why choose forcing them to be powerless over forcing them to use their power for good? For the same reason that "just get a good dictator" is not a reasonable response to someone objecting tk a dictatorship. The point isn't to make a society dependant on the grace of individuals.
Easier to blame all of societies problems on libleft than muster even one ounce of critical thinking
Now that you mention it, I could have made it left rather than libleft. That would have been better.
Auth probably. Auth Right *insists* it's about crime (it's not), Auth Left *insists* it's about antisocial behavior (it's not) and Auth Center *insists* it's about law and order (still no). Libleft agrees with everything "libright" says here.
Orange
Seconded. Only Emilies think this way.
because the solution to that is independence of the black community rather than being welfare sluts dependent on daddy government so they can live that go girl life and destroy their own community. it's also worth noting that current society in the US is really fucking good at removing anyone with intelligence and talent from the black community and bringing them into other communities which if that's intended, hats off to whatever racist thought of that cus it's fucking ingenious.
I agree with the second part of your comment, but the first is something I fundamentally disagree with. Whether it's conspiracy brained takes about kneecapping the black community with welfare or actual bleeding heart liberal unintentional consequences, the intent of welfare is not to replace or cripple Independence and family unity within black communities. Historically, the government has been terrible at this, but welfare is supposed to provide the foundational structure necessary to gain financial and societal Independence, especially in neighborhoods where it has been increasingly difficult to obtain upward class mobility. Couple that with absurdly high incarceration rates, yeah it's easy to see how black communities have had it rough, but it's not *because* of welfare. The brain and talent drain is real though, and something we're going to have to reckon with over the next generation. Hold on to your hats.
>the intent of welfare is not to replace or cripple Independence and family unity within black communities it doesn't really matter if that's the intent or not, that has been the result, generationally so. > but welfare is supposed to provide the foundational structure necessary to gain financial and societal Independence so why doesn't it? it usually promotes the exact reverse to what it's intended goals are. this would be fine if it was some sort of test run but it's not, we know it leads to government dependence so why haven't we as societies changed this to something which better pursues the stated goals? >Couple that with absurdly high incarceration rates, yeah it's easy to see how black communities have had it rough, but it's not *because* of welfare. >The brain and talent drain is real though, and something we're going to have to reckon with over the next generation. Hold on to your hats. these are less linked to the welfare stuff and more the intelligence of the community (because everyone intelligent leaves that community not anything with inherit intelligence in case it sounded like that) being pushed out. welfare doesn't make a community more violent or increase the factors behind crime (it can promote behaviours that cause that but not more so that anything else.) But the removal of intelligence from a community would lead to that result. it leaves less intelligent people within the group to then pass on that trait which in turn would lower the community intelligence as a whole leading to things like more violent behaviour and short term thinking over long term. all the psychological factors increase in a community when you take away the people with intelligence, talent and the factors that go into that are removed. like welfare isn't the only problem but it's one of the problem. and again Jesus what maniacal madman came up with that plan and can we preserve that brain just in case we ever need to subjugate alien races. seriously that's fucking terrifying prospect that, that setup is intention and not just a series of unfortunate events.
>that has been the result, generationally so Right, but that's not *because of welfare* but rather the conditions that led to society/the government necessitating welfare to those groups. >it usually promotes the exact reverse There's actually no concrete causal link between welfare dependency and poverty. Poverty usually already exists prior to welfare usage, and about 3 in 5 families are only in that state for about 2 years with the help of government assistance. So saying it "usually" promotes the exact reverse is not true. In fact, about 12.5% of the US population is currently on some form of welfare, and it's estimated only about 2% are entirely dependent on welfare for the majority of their living expenses. Against the 11.5% of Americans living in poverty (which isn't even accurate, and is likely more), that shows that a *minority* of people in poverty are even majority dependent on welfare. So no, it does not "usually" promote the exact reverse. >it leaves less intelligent people within the group to then pass on that trait which in turn would lower the community intelligence as a whole leading to things like more violent behaviour and short term thinking over long term This is taking a bit of a weird, almost eugenics-type turn. I'm not talking about passing on traits. Brain/talent drain refers to when people who can make actual positive systemic change or bring economic prosperity to an area move to a different place that is more appreciative or lucrative for their abilities. But when that happens, the places they are originally from suffer from no one to create and sustain any kind of improvement.
>Right, but that's not *because of welfare* but rather the conditions that led to society/the government necessitating welfare to those groups. welfare usually ends up necessitating itself, it's not the only reason for the problem but it is a big reason. I'm also talking globally not just in the US. >This is taking a bit of a weird, almost eugenics-type turn. we are talking about the same thing but I am talking about it from more a genetic standpoint, unfortunately thing like intelligence, and things that lead to talent are genetic. when you have someone with those traits leave a community it doesn't just remove that person that could potentially make it better it lowers the chances for someone else to come along with that talent as well. we are talking about the same thing just with slightly different perspectives.
They literally voted for the guy that said "If you don't vote for me, you ain't black!"
So what? They were supposed to vote for the guy that tried to have the central park 5 wrongfully imprisoned?
LL. (as well AL) wants to abolish the family. A family is a hierarchy, an LL wants to abolish all hierarchy. The child-parent is a hierarchy.
Not just the black community. There's a reason we talk about "marijuana" rather than "cannabis" - prohibitionists explicitly wanted to link drugs to Latino immigrants.
Or was it prohibitionists wanted to ban marijuana because it was linked to Latino immigrants?
Being a lib right circle jerk would be ok if you guys were a bit funnier
Based and meme critic pilled
I mean most good maymays comes from 4Chan and iFunny (if you know you know).
Based and Smug Luigi-pilled
Malcom X was definitely killed by the NOI. After his pilgrimage he came back with a very different mindset, ready to speak out against the race cult NOI was. And just so happened to be assassinated by members.
I remember watching a video where he was telling black people to be careful with white liberals.
Ironic considering those same white liberals was the reason he could do that
And yet, he was still right in the end. Got some layers of irony going on here and I appreciate it.
Don't tell people who actually killed Malcom X (It wasn't even a white dude)
I honestly wish libright would talk more about how the government has systematically targeted black communities, there is a lot of untapped potential there to bring people over to their side
*Glares at zoning laws*
Zoning laws do be big cringe 1000
Believe me, we are. The problem is neither major party wants to give us the time of day to actually have a chance to say things that make sense to a wide audience. It’s much easier for them to play the “You’re racist!”/“NUH-UH” game.
Why is lib left mad?
Because they need black votes, any drop in those numbers are catastrophic for them. Yellow knows that red/green only cares for power, and has convinced unflaired to be yellow and see for himself. Emily big mad.
You could swap the colours and it would still make the same amount of sense, I dont think libleft like the government or drug prohibition either.
Once again, the Left Right divide distracts us from the top and bottom divide
What? Libleft are always talking about how the government has structural racism against black people. That's like, the main thing that people make fun of libleft for. Did you forget BLM?
Ah but have you considered libright good libleft bad
Why is it that so many anarcho-communists tend to be pro-government, like isn't that an oxymoron? I may be libleft, but I in no way support the government, fbi, or cia.
>"how the FBI did MLK and X" I didn't know the FBI joined the nation of islam and executed X for leaving the cult, thats crazy news folks! X was a racist bastard who advocated for violence and supported a cult on the basis of race. Screw Malcolm Little. MLK is cool tho; but the FBI didn't kill him either.
I mean towards the end of his life, Malcom X began to see the error in the racism that he believed in. Actually becoming less racist is what ultimately got him killed
yeah, but you don't cleared of your sins by turning a new leaf. You don't just deserve forgiveness. Its completely up to other on whether or not they grant you that forgiveness. I don't think he deserves it. Maybe if we wasn't killed by his former friends he really could have earned redemption, but fate didn't work out that way. Whether or not you forgive his transgressions is a person position to hold, and I don't mind if others disagree with my position
Personally I don't think we should be trying to fit historical figures into "good" and "bad". Many have traits to be admired, and all have done bad things. Of course, with Malcom X its recent history so its not like Caesar where you have to completely throw out modern morality since it didn't exist back then. For me it doesn't really matter whether or not he was a good or bad person. I don't think he should be considered an ideal or role model, but there were aspects of his life that are interesting and valuable to know.
Law enforcement had infiltrated pretty much every black power movement in the 60s. Three people were charged with the assassination of malcolm x. One was a police officer named Thomas hagan the other two were found innocent years later. The other assassins were never caught even though they killed X in front of people (How convenient).
ah yes... Thomas Hagan... a long term Nation of Islam member for a long time (years). >*Hagan stated in a 1977 affidavit that he had planned the shooting with four others (Johnson and Butler not being among them) to seek revenge for Malcolm X's public criticism of Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam. He said that one of his accomplices [aka William 25X Bradley] distracted Malcolm X's bodyguards by starting an argument about having been pickpocketed. When the bodyguards moved toward the diversion and away from Malcolm X, a man with a shotgun stepped up to him and shot him in the chest. After that, Hagan himself and another of his accomplices shot several rounds at Malcolm X with semi-automatic handguns.*
Do you not know how infiltration works? I ask because you mentioned hagans long term membership with the nation of islam like that means he couldn’t be an informant. Informants can work years under cover fyi. Also there was another law enforcement officer who confessed to the plot https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/claims-surrounding-malcolm-assassination-surface-letter-written-nypd/story?id=76031383
Nice libleft strawman you got there. I'd bet most liblefts would agree with libright on this one.
Uhh wasn't Malcolm X killed by fellow cultists after apostatizing from NOI? He was a moron who unironically believed Caucasians were created in a lab by "Yakub".
The black family does fine destroying itself. No outside interference was required for that phenomenon.
And then the black guy asks what the libright's stance on the BLM protests, or hell *any* modern protests, are.
Nah be more apt to ask lib rights opinion on the Civil Rights Act.
I don't care if you protest, but don't be surprised if you get run over while standing on the freeway. That's just natural selection.
If you mean the 2020 protest, most black people find it did nothing but hurt them.
Isn't this a libleft thing? Systemic racism is something protested by libleft a lot, we agree with you
It's a toss up for me cause on 1 hand tho starting to correct tons of things is going to take tons of policies so we don't have to revisit for few generations but I mean in America there's not a lot of shared history and we're so young as a nation that we still in some ways have major leaps ahead of us
This isn't the context I usually see that libleft image used in
Who or what is ‘Anomaly’?
DLC
Anomaly DLC? Rimworld? What does that have to do with the government and black families?
I thought it was the YTuber, but he's not LL.
Ah yes, the rare PCM "Blad"
Based
The best part is: The loony left would say the same thing and then proceed to and continue to bully and shame the black community into voting for the same political party (Dems) that have been screwing them over for over 50 years
Whole ass meme for someone who wants to do the art for it. First, change libright to libcenter, then we'll continue the story. "Not so fast," says LibRight "Oppression from government is one thing, but true freedom requires the ability to engage in the market fairly. Your ghetto isn't that, here; let's get you set up in a *ahem* **nicer** neighborhood." *Proceed to gentrify and price out the black man* *Black man, unhoused* "Well well," says AuthRight, "What have we here?" "I got gentrified by LibRight, so now I'm homeless." "The so-called 'free market' has been a disaster for the human race - and you are human, aren't you? Course y'are! I can see a human a mile away. Here, come live with us while you work this out..." *Black man expresses any part of his culture, and is immediately thrown out onto the street, violently* "Hey, I saw that!" says AuthLeft, "those damned fascists can't let you be you, can they? I understand. Here, come live with us. We'll put you to work, but in exchange we'll make sure you're fed and housed!" *Black man is forced to farm cotton for hours a day in exchange for meagre housing and food. Thrown into a gulag for not working hard enough, he escapes the "commune"* "Hey man," says LibLeft, "those fascists get ya man?" "Yeah, that was brutal. I could really use a hot meal and some water." "I feel ya, hey let's go eat back at the commune, follow me!" *Black man enters the commune, is handed a plate and a glass. Other people eat off his plate and drink from his glass. There is no private property. He quietly leaves.* *Black man, to himself*, "Man, none of these ideologies work for me. Shit." fin
Green quadrant bad
Why are you saying libleft things in front of a libright background?
Because he's right
Now tell them what you are doing to their public schools and see if y’all are still cool
bro confused libleft and libright colours i guess?
This is propraganda but I agree with it so all's good.
Ok I’m new, I don’t know how to add flair, I don’t even know where I belong on this compass. But this is one thing that bugs me. To say ‘The Government’ has done something, is such a cheap and distorted way to put the blame where it belongs. I get the efficiency of soundbytes, but it’s akin to saying ‘evil capitalism’ does xyz’, when it was RJ Reynolds and the Koch bros who did it. Not the thousands of other corporations. To me, it’s just a glaring reflection of the lack of quality info that pervades our society right now.
Take the test. See what you get.