Board 8 > Freedom, Liberty, Ron Paul - Where all da white refugees at? [dwmf]

(+) Yeah! (+)

That article would've been great with a playable explanation. Make people figure out what their actual line is, and realize how it's probably far lower than Hitler and Bin Laden. And their line likely excludes a "protected group" or some other non-violent group (which is always gonna be the easy caveat to make when you only point out Hitler etc).
---

SmartMuffin posted...

The react to Trump has absolutely not been, "Gee, I guess the government should have less power and we shouldn't pick who is in charge with a giant popularity contest."

Also Im not sure how you would expect that reaction given that he decidedly lost the giant popularity contest
---

Also Im not sure how you would expect that reaction given that he decidedly lost the giant popularity contest

Eh, not a whole lot of "let's abolish the electoral college" talk either, honestly. I mean, a bit of it in the immediate aftermath sure, but not any more this time than when it happened with Bush/Gore.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

I mean, that was the great libertarian hope, and foolmo keeps acting like it will happen, but it just isn't.

It does happen here and there, just in little ways. Like the border family separation thing, it was brought back to its Bush/Obama status quo by the executive order, but (some) people aren't satisfied with that anymore.

The overton window is definitely still moving towards totalitarianism though.

We'll see how the next presidential election goes though, whether people were able to remember 4 years ago or if the media machine still has total power.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

I mean, that was the great libertarian hope, and foolmo keeps acting like it will happen, but it just isn't.

how is foolmo "acting like it will happen"? he's been very consistent in saying that trump being president is terrible.

but yeah, not to pull an ulti, but i've always said that all the libertarians who supported trump because "omg he's so unique and anti-establishment he's going to totally change the way people look at politics!" were being incredibly dumb. glad you finally saw the light too. not sure why you still feel the need to passionately defend and cheerlead everything trump does now that you've come to this realization, though...
---

Thats probably because theres no functional means for that to happen as long as one party has total control

Also I think your view of delusional leftists just comes from the liberal elite dunderheads. Down here on the ground the sentiment is just Weve lost and no amount of voting can fix it, so we need to just support each other and fight oppression on a grass roots level.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

This is actually pretty cool. Trump may not be shaking people's faith in the government and in democracy in general, but maybe he's gonna get us to a place where people start to believe in the freedom of association again.

LOL

These people do not believe in freedom of association. They believe in their arbitrary set of beliefs that sometimes fall under different umbrellas like freedom of association.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

We'll see how the next presidential election goes though, whether people were able to remember 4 years ago or if the media machine still has total power.

Do you actually believe this question doesn't already have a foregone conclusion?
---

HotDogButts posted...

Do you actually believe this question doesn't already have a foregone conclusion?

Sure

Mindless cynicism isn't a virtue
---

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/25/trump-says-hes-surprised-by-harley-davidson-moving-some-production-.html

Trade wars are good and easy to win!
---

foolm0r0n posted...

HotDogButts posted...

Do you actually believe this question doesn't already have a foregone conclusion?

Sure

Mindless cynicism isn't a virtue

Why do you see it as mindless? You yourself recognize the overton window moving towards totalitarianism. If you are diagnosing the current political climate as moving away from what you would consider progress, is the cynicism not well founded and the optimism rooted in greater relative mindlessness?
---

HotDogButts posted...

Why do you see it as mindless

Because if you take that idea to its logical conclusion, it's obviously absurd. Even if you take it just a little bit down the road (50-100 years), it reaches absurdity pretty quickly. And even stronger, you could argue that the past election has already contradicted that idea.

So it can only be an idea that someone who has given no thought would hold. Mindless.
---

Humanity is inherently absurd though
---

That's also a middle school tier idea
---

foolm0r0n posted...

HotDogButts posted...

Why do you see it as mindless

Because if you take that idea to its logical conclusion, it's obviously absurd. Even if you take it just a little bit down the road (50-100 years), it reaches absurdity pretty quickly. And even stronger, you could argue that the past election has already contradicted that idea.

So it can only be an idea that someone who has given no thought would hold. Mindless.

And yet you argue that things are moving in the opposite direction, presently. How is that not ultimately a contradiction? Are you taking umbrage with "foregone conclusion" indicating 100% chance rather than 99%? I understand what you're saying, and yeah it's obviously true (and was considered before even making that post on my end). But we're not talking about ultimate logical conclusions and we're not talking about 50 years down the line, we're talking about 2. At this point Trump is Trump, and the reaction is the reaction. There is little to no reason to believe that the next thing he does that people don't like are going to make them question the foundation of our political system. It could happen, but there is no rational reason to expect it to happen, as far as I can see. If you have some reasonable reason as to having that expectation, ok, I maintain the possibility of being wrong/not having considered something. But that doesn't make the cynicism mindless, and given what we presently know and are experiencing, the optimism certainly seems like the more mindless of the two choices for some radical philosophical shift of the American populace in the next 2 years for reasons unstated.
---

HotDogButts posted...

And yet you argue that things are moving in the opposite direction, presently

Sure, I just don't see these issues and society in general as linear. It's really easy to understand my position if you drop that kind of thinking.

HotDogButts posted...

But we're not talking about ultimate logical conclusions and we're not talking about 50 years down the line, we're talking about 2

50 years is just 25 * 2 years. That's my point. At some point, something happens in those 2 years. It would be stupid to assume that 2020 can't be that point.

Especially since 2016 was arguably already one of those points.
---

The tipping points are the anomalies though. I am not arguing that there is a 0% chance as already stated. 2020 certainly can be that point. Given the current political climate it certainly appears to be far more likely that it won't. These things obviously are not stuck on a track headed in one direction, but the track definitely has to start shifting or the direction reversed before we even start approaching the possibility of a full on paradigm shift. My contention is that shift or reversal hasn't even begun to take place yet as a result of a Trumps presidency and there has already been the loudest outrage over his presidency/the government in at least the last 40 years. Given that, the likelihood of some seminal event transpiring at this point, to even start moving the needle, let alone fundamentally changing how we decide to govern ourselves, in the next 2 years seems infinitesimally small. 50 years might just be 2*25, but the time it takes for these things to occur is real. I can't brush my teeth in 2 seconds but I can brush it in 50. I can finish brushing my teeth in 2 seconds if I'm already 48 seconds into it. I'm contending we're not 48 seconds into it. We just took the cap off the toothpaste.
---

I mean the previous president was the first black one in literally all of history. The current one copied Reagan so it's not THAT special but still fairly rare.

So with 2 weird elections in a row, the next one going back to standard would be the anomaly. We are in an era of seminal events right now (no small part due to the internet). And the next election is very ripe for something big. It could be the first non-2 term president in a while, or the first woman, more 3rd party resurgence, actual anti-war (trade or military) stuff, cryptocurrency shenanigans.

I mean don't get me wrong, voting is still useless. But the political machine is definitely getting stirred up.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

So with 2 weird elections in a row, t

Wouldnt that be 3?
---

foolm0r0n posted...

We are in an era of seminal events right now (no small part due to the internet).

The Casual Revolution of 2007 strikes again.
---

He lost all credibility when he said it ended in 2016
---

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/opinion/harvard-asian-american-racism.html

Harvards lawyers will soon tell the highest court in the land that Casey Pedricks Asian students are less respected because they are less likable, less courageous, and less kind than all other applicants. The university has decided that this is necessary for the greater good. The reality is that it is a carefully considered act of slander.

This is going to be epic. Harvard is really backed into a corner here, and because this case has such huge cultural ramifications, they cannot back down or settle. They have to argue this. Because the entire "diversity" mindset is so critical to SJW theory and practice, they have to fight for it. They have no choice but to go in public court and declare that Asians simply have worse personalities than whites, who have worse personalities than Hispanics, who have worse personalities than blacks.

It's gonna be spectacular. Not that I'm predicting they'll lose in court. I'm sure the right-thinking judges will find some ridiculous loophole wherein their obvious racist discrimination will be considered legally permissible. But culturally, I think this is about to turn. It's about to be exposed for the cold, hard, race-based discrimination that it is.

(The part about how this all started as a way to discriminate against Jews is also a nice touch for a society that is now freaking out about the prospect that there's a Nazi hiding behind every rock, and that the refusal to accommodate open borders is Step 8 on a 10-Step plan to re-instituting the holocaust)
---

because the "diversity" mindest is so critical for harvard, harvard is fighting against asians being there? wut?
---

SmartMuffin posted...

It's about to be exposed for the cold, hard, race-based discrimination that it is.

You know you're talking about ivy league admissions right?
---

Yes, that's exactly right. The diversity mindset is one that suggests diversity is so overwhelmingly positive, it overrides all other terminal goals, such as merit-based admissions. The university therefore solves for what it sees as the desirable end-state, which is a very diverse class. It's not that they hate Asians with a passion and want a class with zero Asians, they just want more diversity than merit would provide them on its own. Particularly, merit-based admissions would see them with far too few blacks and hispanics to suit their diversity preferences.

Since we're dealing with a finite good and there are only so many spots, the only way they can increase black and hispanic students is by decreasing asian (and white) students. And they can't do that based on objective criteria such as test scores and GPA, so all that's left is for them to invent 100% subjective criteria whose sole purpose is to judge positively otherwise unqualified blacks/hispanics, and judge negatively otherwise qualified asians/whites. So what we're left with is a "personality assessment" that inevitably concludes that blacks have, on average, significantly "better personalities" than Asians. And now Harvard has to defend this - or admit that it's gaming the system for the sole purpose of admitting more blacks and fewer Asians.

There's another longer discussion regarding how the really extreme SJWs don't even believe in merit. They'd take this a step farther and suggest that the only reason the Asians and whites appear to be more deserving is because of systematic racism/sexism/oppression/whatever - but that's probably beyond the scope of this particular lawsuit and question.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

SmartMuffin posted...

It's about to be exposed for the cold, hard, race-based discrimination that it is.

You know you're talking about ivy league admissions right?

please

literally every college does this

most white-collar employers do too

any place that has any "diversity" employees/programs of any kind is dedicated entirely to this exact sort of thing
---

You're missing my point

How is it a groundbreaking exposal when it's been common knowledge (an explicit feature of the system even) for centuries?

The only thing new here is that they are using the diversity angle to justify dumbass whites deserving to go to Harvard more than highly qualified asians.
---

lol @ how you desperately try to group whites with asians in this case

Whites lose in a strongly merit-based system. That's the ONLY reason this is an issue right now. That's the ONLY way Harvard can reasonable justify the "better personality" angle. Whites have a much more "Harvard" personality than asians - this is a plain fact. Their argument exists 100% only to justify their white preference. They couldn't care less about blacks and hispanics, that's your SJW rage projection.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Since we're dealing with a finite good and there are only so many spots

Ive never understood this with regard to colleges

If enough people who meet your standards want to pay you 6 figures to attend your school, is it really that hard to add more classes?
---

No which is why all elite colleges have been doing that since the higher education bubble. They're all massively diluting their student base and education standards.

Well to be more exact, they are diluting the vast majority 95% of students. A certain 5% are still given elite and exclusive extra benefits so that they can graduate and carry on the image of "elite ivy league student" to attract the next batch of 6 figure suckers.

This system works great because there's literally no limit. They could have 1 million mediocre students and still if there's just 200 super elite graduates every year who get super rich jobs and there's a kid from Somalia or whatever who now works at Lockheed making nukes, etc., people will still view it as super elite.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

If enough people who meet your standards want to pay you 6 figures to attend your school, is it really that hard to add more classes?

i can see the argument that there's limited space at universities, but when you just put the lectures on the internet you can have an unlimited amount of students. oddly enough my uni only did this for a select few courses. never quite understood why they didn't just do it for all the courses.

i get that this becomes more of an issue when you're talking about interactive work groups, but you can just organize those via skype or whatever.
---

lol... Tea Party was described as a bunch of racists "throwing a temper tantrum" because their decent, moderate representatives just weren't racist enough

meanwhile, when the Democrats do it...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/27/nyregion/alexandria-ocasio-cortez.html
---

Same deal just in reverse. Our decent, moderate Democrat representatives just werent not-racist enough
---

Honestly don't understand what point you think you're making.
---

I get it. There are people calling this progressive rebellion against establishment Dems a Democrat Tea Party
---

Only the coverage is universally positive, instead of universally negative.
---

Its even positive on right-wing media

Establishment Dems got owned! Losers!
---

Muffin doesn't realize that the tea party was dismantled and cannibalized by Republicans (and Democrats together) into racist neoconism

Doesn't help that most original tea parties were racist neocons either
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Only the coverage is universally positive, instead of universally negative.

Because there's no threat
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Only the coverage is universally positive, instead of universally negative.

Have you considered suggesting to tea partiers to not be racist (or witches)?
---

i still don't understand what point muffin is making.

"when a movement is incredibly racist the coverage is universally negative, but then when a new movement is not racist, the coverage is positive! WHAT THE FUCK"
---

a. The tea party wasn't "incredibly racist."

b. Socialism murdered 100 million people in the last century. That's a lot worse than anything racism has done lately.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

b. Socialism murdered 100 million people in the last century.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4" data-time="
---

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1012034369983336450

lol
---

SmartMuffin posted...

b. Socialism murdered 100 million people in the last century. That's a lot worse than anything racism has done lately.

What about racist socialism?
---

foolm0r0n posted...

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1012034369983336450

lol

They lucked into Gorsich. He'll probably nominate another cuck like John Roberts and it won't matter.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

SmartMuffin posted...

b. Socialism murdered 100 million people in the last century. That's a lot worse than anything racism has done lately.

What about racist socialism?

Mao wasn't particularly racist. Unless you count "people who wear glasses" as a race or something.
---

mao also wasn't a socialist.

whoops there goes your pathetic excuse for an argument.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Mao wasn't particularly racist. Unless you count "people who wear glasses" as a race or something.

What's the number then? Only like 50mil?

So if we ensure that all the totalitarian politicians we elect are deeply racist, at worst we will have 50mil deaths and not 100mil. History has proven this. This is literally the logic you follow even though you don't realize it.

Or the much simpler option, you don't care about saving people at all, you just like what racism adds to a society. That would be wayyyyyy less stupid than your currently attempted argument and makes way more sense.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

b. Socialism murdered 100 million people in the last century. That's a lot worse than anything racism has done lately.

I thought you hated oppression Olympics
---