After this's all over, I hope the U.S. gov't bills Trump for the damage he's done to our reputation

[Blackened Soul]

People did vote, delegates decided otherwise... The system needs to change, if we get anything from this election it will be to both sides, shit is broken. And really it's the whole 2 sides thing is what keeps it getting worse, if more people looked at the whole we would not be swallowed up by one.

[Chankgeez]

People did vote, delegates decided otherwise... The system needs to change, if we get anything from this election it will be to both sides, shit is broken. And really it's the whole 2 sides thing is what keeps it getting worse.

That's the point of this entire thread.

[D.o.S.]

Wrong. People are retarded, and should be kept away from the voting process the same way you keep people with severe mental disabilities away from things that have sharp edges.

[Blackened Soul]

Wrong. People are retarded, and should be kept away from the voting process the same way you keep people with severe mental disabilities away from things that have sharp edges.

If the system doesn't change people will continue to get stupider.. and they will breed even faster.

[D.o.S.]

No. I think human stupidity is a constant, and that the nostalgia otherwise is just that (assisted by the fact that no one can look at Jane Average's livejournal equivalent from 1234 or whatever).

[D.o.S.]

Also I got slipped a bottle of mead so I'm being feisty. Sorry in advance.

[Blackened Soul]

No. I think human stupidity is a constant, and that the nostalgia otherwise is just that (assisted by the fact that no one can look at Jane Average's livejournal equivalent from 1234 or whatever).

it's a fact that since cities were invented our brains have been gradually shirking, cave people were smarter than your average walmart shopper... but then... so are chimps...

[D.o.S.]

Counterpoint: But our grey matter has expanded, so there's more opportunity for new synaptic links. Anything else is just standard issue millinerian bullshit.

Plus once our record is mastered we'll be able to undo all the devolution in a matter of hours so it's not even worth worrying about.

Ah! cat and bag.

[ChetMagongalo]

No. I think human stupidity is a constant, and that the nostalgia otherwise is just that (assisted by the fact that no one can look at Jane Average's livejournal equivalent from 1234 or whatever).

well surely our broken political system doesn't help right? I would prefer being amongst idiots in a better world than the generation of idiots before us. maybe the next generation of idiots will get free weed from the government

[echoraven]

Wrong. People are retarded, and should be kept away from the voting process...

To quote Hillary "at this point what difference does it make". Just read that Sanders had a 20 point advantage compared to Hillary "I'm not kidding Maddi" Clinton and yet Hillary's team strong-armed; I mean romanced the super delegates (WTF is a super delegate and why do they exist?) so the delegate split is looking like 50/50.

While as a Libertarian I'm not a fan of neither I think Bernie has the best chance of getting something done with a Republican Congress. Perhaps not his "tax into oblivion" but things he has in common with the liberty (libertarian) wing of the Republican party like sentencing reform, closing tax loopholes legalizing pot which are things EVERYBODY (mostly) can agree are good for the country.

[fcknoise]

The thing about PC though is that this kinda thing is not new. This debate is always on the table whenever there is more polarization in society between the political camps. Research has shown that words we typically use and see certainly affect the way we think, so in a sense, yes it is thought control. But what is the alternative? Thought control works both ways in that case. The left accuse the moderate right/center for normalization of the far right with a similar argument. And if any of this is true, I'd prefer society that at least strives to be tolerant to people regardless of outside attributes. Being "politically correct" has become such a smear word and in some groups they just see any act that is in some way for equality part of some PC-conspiracy. Maybe what is politically correct is different in our respective places though, but that's the way I kinda see it

Well, tax financed welfare actually benefits from a large population, especially in countries that is well off economically, so I don't think that should be a problem

The alternative is the allowance of free-speech and thought and approach situations through actual discussion and not rhetoric, sophistry and ad hominem attacks. We are all human and that transcends political parties and thus all people in all political parties and subject to committing these errors in reasoning. My issue is that the "left" is currently doing this a lot with regards to Islam in particular as well as other areas and they are blind to it because they think they are 'on the right side' and are self-righteous.

The creation of norms is a tricky thing. I'd like it to be the norm that any child anywhere in the world - if he or she comes at as gay to there parents/friends. etc. - is treated not with hate or violence but with love and acceptance. I'm straight but care deeply about human rights. Someone may disagree with me on that being a norm but I'd happy discuss with them why I think that should be the case and I wouldn't want to force that as a norm onto people. I'd want their to use their reason to see how love and acceptance/understanding, or their gay child is the most appropriate choice.

The left is trying to force things by using threats of being a racist or bigot if one does not accept their view of things

So my super long deleted post about Norway and Sweden was correct then

We definitely aren't what we were. I fear that Sweden next election might go the Norwegian road with biggest right wing party in coalition with our populist/racist party. Even though I think the Sweden democrats are worse than fremskrittspartiet.

It is so weird I love the thing that keeps me frustrated all the fucking time.

It seems (unfortunately) that the more right-leaning parties are the only ones addressing the refugee issue because the left is too afraid to voice any criticisms because of political correctness.

Maybe political correctness takes different form in our respective societies. What I see in society are people on both flanks using rhetoric that doesn't aim to convince the other persons views, but rather convince the people who are listening to the argument. While you argue that the left uses "heavy" words like racist or bigot to describe people they don't like (I'd say that most people who are called racist has said something that is actually racist), I'd say that the cause of the "calling-out" approach is a response to the normalization of racist and bigoted opinions as legitimate ones, not only though far-right rhetoric but also through the so-called "unbiased" media. I of course only have the experiences from mainly Sweden, but I do read some American news too. Just an example the other week a group of self proclaimed neo-nazis, dressed with masks roamed one of the biggest squares in Stockholm, saying publicly that they were defending "our women" and beating up everyone with a foreign descent they found. I think most people would agree here that is obviously is a hate crime motivated by racist ideas. Three out of four main news outlets called the group immigration critical. This is an isolated example of course, but there are many more on a less extreme scale. I'd say this is actually worse than leftist people calling out people they view as racist for people who are against immigration.

The notion that the right wing is the only side that is doing anything is also something I don't agree with. The social democrats of Sweden recently closed out borders, which is an act of strictness in immigration, and they are considered left or center-left. But my problem is that a strict policy is the only one that counts as "doing anything". Our leftmost party proposed a regulation on our immigration policy that would ensure that our municipalities receive their share of immigrants by sanction if they don't. This is of course a proposition that would give less freedom, but also increase the spread of immigrants (hindering massive segregation which is considered a big problem), leading to the smaller municipalities getting more people (which they need as they are shrinking) and making sure immigrants get out of asylum centers more quickly for them to get a job, integrate and benefit Sweden by paying into our welfare system. Has this been brought up as "doing something"? NO, because the only thing that counts is the idea of the "we'd want to take immigrants in but we simply can't we're sorry". One can question is the motivation from the parties/people who support very strict immigration policy, is it mainly out of a economical perspective or might it be something else?

It seems European countries' social welfare programs work because you have a small population - or small by USA's size - in which people pay into. If more refugees keep coming it, that is going to heavily deplete that social system.

Well, I guess this is very hard to provide hard facts on, since it's such different countries. The more people in the country, the more people pay into the welfare system. It's a question of employment in this case, and the US, while not having an excellent situation right now, it's not super bad. Bernie Sanders very Keynesian style of economics (massive infrastructure investments) is a way that has been proven to work to get economies rolling through the creation of jobs in the construction sector. More american jobs > more people paying into the welfare system > easier to implement social welfare programs successfully. That's at least how I see it.

EDIT: fuck I'm sorry for the wall of text

[Faldoe]

Maybe political correctness takes different form in our respective societies. What I see in society are people on both flanks using rhetoric that doesn't aim to convince the other persons views, but rather convince the people who are listening to the argument. While you argue that the left uses "heavy" words like racist or bigot to describe people they don't like (I'd say that most people who are called racist has said something that is actually racist), I'd say that the cause of the "calling-out" approach is a response to the normalization of racist and bigoted opinions as legitimate ones, not only though far-right rhetoric but also through the so-called "unbiased" media. I of course only have the experiences from mainly Sweden, but I do read some American news too. Just an example the other week a group of self proclaimed neo-nazis, dressed with masks roamed one of the biggest squares in Stockholm, saying publicly that they were defending "our women" and beating up everyone with a foreign descent they found. I think most people would agree here that is obviously is a hate crime motivated by racist ideas. Three out of four main news outlets called the group immigration critical. This is an isolated example of course, but there are many more on a less extreme scale. I'd say this is actually worse than leftist people calling out people they view as racist for people who are against immigration.

The notion that the right wing is the only side that is doing anything is also something I don't agree with. The social democrats of Sweden recently closed out borders, which is an act of strictness in immigration, and they are considered left or center-left. But my problem is that a strict policy is the only one that counts as "doing anything". Our leftmost party proposed a regulation on our immigration policy that would ensure that our municipalities receive their share of immigrants by sanction if they don't. This is of course a proposition that would give less freedom, but also increase the spread of immigrants (hindering massive segregation which is considered a big problem), leading to the smaller municipalities getting more people (which they need as they are shrinking) and making sure immigrants get out of asylum centers more quickly for them to get a job, integrate and benefit Sweden by paying into our welfare system. Has this been brought up as "doing something"? NO, because the only thing that counts is the idea of the "we'd want to take immigrants in but we simply can't we're sorry". One can question is the motivation from the parties/people who support very strict immigration policy, is it mainly out of a economical perspective or might it be something else?

It seems European countries' social welfare programs work because you have a small population - or small by USA's size - in which people pay into. If more refugees keep coming it, that is going to heavily deplete that social system.

Well, I guess this is very hard to provide hard facts on, since it's such different countries. The more people in the country, the more people pay into the welfare system. It's a question of employment in this case, and the US, while not having an excellent situation right now, it's not super bad. Bernie Sanders very Keynesian style of economics (massive infrastructure investments) is a way that has been proven to work to get economies rolling through the creation of jobs in the construction sector. More american jobs > more people paying into the welfare system > easier to implement social welfare programs successfully. That's at least how I see it.

EDIT: fuck I'm sorry for the wall of text

There is a difference between calling people out for actual instances of racism or bigotry and using the the accusation of bigotry as a rhetorical/slandering tool to silence someone. I agree there is types of bigotry that may be subtle and has thus been normalized but if someone accuses someone of being, say "Islamophobic" because the accused is critical of Islam, that does not make them a bigot. One this issue in particular, Islam and race have been falsely equated. Islam is a religion, an ideology, not a race. Though not all Muslims are Arab, there are people that have distain for "Muslims" - what they perceive to be - and in turn dislike/hate all "Arab" looking people. This is of course a problem, but it's important to not lump together the person(s) who just hate people of a certain ethnic and religious background versus people that are critical of the ideological and real world application of someone's religion beliefs.

While the Neo-Nazi's take the wrong approach in terms of enacting violence against people, their motivations/grievances are not totally imagined. Migrants/Refugees have been raping women in Europe, thats not false. And a problem here is that people may overlook that kernel of truth and just denounce what the neo-nazi's are saying because the rest of their beliefs are stupid. Truth is a tricky thing cause it can sometimes be found in places we don't want to look.

I didn't say the right-wing is the only side doing anything, I mentioned my gripes with how the left has been handling things. The right seems to be more vocal/honest about their concerns regarding refugees.

Regarding the social welfare. I think the USA should have a healthcare-for-all plan. I believe government has a purpose but to what end and how big, I'm not sure. Nor do I feel the market should be unrestrained. With smaller countries like Sweden (correct me if I'm wrong), the smaller population means a smaller government - by small I mean amounts of people running it - and I imagine it is far more efficient at managing and distributing it's funds to people.

[fcknoise]

There are a LOT of lies regarding muslims that are floating around. Judaism is a religion, but throughout history jews has been blamed in conspiratorial ways, harassed, and discriminated which culminated in the holocaust. In essence it has always been about pointing to something people perceive as different and blaming them for stuff. I think mostly being aggressively critical of islam is a very simple way to view the world. There has been no causal relationship between islam and crime versus say, a christian given that every thing else stays the same. Saying that it is then is in fact, racist, because it build on some idea that even though evidence shows that this particular attribute does not make a person more violent they wont take it. If any observation is made about muslim people committing more crime than par, you have to look at surrounding factors. Islam and race is equated because all the surrounding factors of old school "I hate their skin color"-racism are still in place. Of course it's alright to criticise specific religious practices and stuff, but there are a lot of people using the critique of islam to cover up their actual racism too. Personally I don't believe that religion should have anything to do with politics.

The rape-thing is something that is debatable too. honestly. While it seems that men who are taken away everything often resort to taking pride in extreme masculinity, and this can lead to sexual violence, it's hard to actually show evidence that rape is more common among these minorities than with native people. It's really a infected debate, and sexual violence is an issue that is viewed from a lot of angles. Pro-women movements claim that the same people calling immigrants rapists are the same that doesn't do a thing for women otherwise, and more often than not are people who are very sexist.

We have a smaller government, but even our government delegates responsibility to regions, who delegates responsibility to the municipalities. So most of it is run on a micro-level. The US has states who are probably capable of doing more or less the same thing, and redistribution of wealth doesn't require any more advanced redistributionary infrastructure than is already in place. But of course, these things aren't that easy to predict.

There seems to be very little that we actually agree on politically, but that's fine with me I don't mind people having different opinions. But I think we are gonna have to agree to disagree in the end.

[D.o.S.]

tbh it's pretty clear that all of the preeminent religions in the modern world have, at their core, poisonous morality systems driven by fear and fueled by the notion of constant struggle against an unceasing Other.

Not that they can't do/precipitate good things (sometimes lots of good things), but there is that fundamental aspect to them which is a little concerning.

[Chankgeez]

You heard it here first:

D.o.S. is starting his own religion with aspirations of preeminence.