Whatsthepoint

-2

Whatsthepoint wrote

You don't fight racism with more racism. That's just being racist.

Immigration is a political issue, that most refused to discuss for a long time for fear of being branded racist. The right wing racists were the only ones willing to talk about it, this helped the rise of the right.

Immigration procedure and xenophobia is global and not limited to just "white" countries

0

Whatsthepoint wrote

I got to this bit:

So why do Republicans hate it [Dreamers act] so much?

Because Obama is black and Republicans are racist.

and basically stopped reading. For all the many, many, many faults I could list about America, the American government and the Republican Branded arm of it's defacto one party state.

I have to give credit where credit is due, and that is Colin Powell. The son of Jamaican immigrants who grew up so poor he literally ate dirt sandwiches, who became a 4 star general and Chairman of the joint chiefs (aka the top dog, of the largest military in the world). Like him or loathe him, like the US or loathe it, that kind of social mobility only exists in America.

Obama may have made president, but he lived a middle class life. Powell started out as just another poor kid from Harlem.

I clicked on the link initially because I always find it interesting to see the logic presented (or usually lack therof / hypocracy) when people call out racism / racial stereotyping, while racially stereotyping themselves.

Skimming the rest of the article, it's increadable bigoted. I could copy this article word for word, replacing the words 'white' with 'jewish' and probably submit it as is to the daily stormer.

Immigration is a political issue, not a racial one.

There is no country in the world whose government would be ok with you just rocking up and deciding to live there without filling out the required paperwork. There are many countries where even with the paperwork filled out it's almost impossible to emigrate to. There are also many countries, who are way more xenophobic and hostile to immigration than the US, where the population isn't white.

It was infact, the very labeling of anyone in the US and Europe who had any kind of concerns or questions relating to mass immigration as a racist. that have led to the current rise in the right we are seeing.

I'm (not going to resort to virtue signaling), and believe strongly in the ideals of multiculuralism and post-nationalism.

The denial of rational debate on the topic of immigration, for fear of being called a racist, has only driven those people who had questions or concerns into the hands of the only people who for a long time were willing to talk about the subject, namely: rascists, bigots, and far right groups.

The kind of narrative put forward in this article should not be supported or promoted. It's damaging to the left.

2

Whatsthepoint wrote

What about peace keepers though?

(Soldiers whose rules of engagement are reactionary, e.g. the Blue Helmets, who will not fire unless fired upon)

In the larger picture, they may be there as part of a globalist grab or manipulation of power, but on the ground, they are there to help or protect local people.

I find the moral area here to be quite complex.

War is an awful thing, "there can be no such thing as a war on terror, because was is terror" is a fitting quote.

But when it has begun, people (and by that I mean soldiers etc.) Are going to die.

Morally, if a pilot drops a bomb killing 20 people, but those 20 would have gone on to kill 10 friendlies, is it moral?

If not, what if the 20 'baddies' would have gone on to kill 20 friendlies.

Or what if it saved 50 friendlies,

Or was a car bomb factory and saved 100 friendlies

Would bombing 20 enemy soldiers to save 1 civilian be moral?

Where is the line?

3

Whatsthepoint wrote

This is a good post, but isn't part of the problem how enmeshed the system is?

To cut my own point down to the brass tacks. Doesn't everyone who pays tax in someway contribute?

Given that an anti war barrista does, and this person cannot be expected to take any meaningful responsibility. Where would you say the buck stops? And does it stop before or after the bomber pilot?

-2

Whatsthepoint wrote

This entire thread is an attack on me.

He has the internet, containing enough knowledge, so not really about advantage about not knowing about the history of the nuclear bomb. It's easy to find.

My point regarding the bomb and the Nazi's love of it, I believe I have already covered.

I've not stated any opinion of the bomb (though I did perhaps mention some positives regarding advances made possible by the Manhattan project)

The scientists who developed the base theory (such as Einstein) and other who were involved in and lead the project were Jewish.

To me, that doesn't really make any difference. Jew, gentile, who gives a fuck. They were great men. Some intelligent person might say that in creating the bomb, they became death, the destroyer of world's. But they were still great men.

To try and deny that, to become a revisionist regarding historical facts is stupid.

"Nuclear bombs are bad, so if you say the people instrumental in their creation were Jewish, you are an anti-semite." Is all very well and good, until aliens attack, and it's only because the planet had so many nukes we managed to fight them off, then denying that the people instrumental in their creation were Jewish becomes anti-Semitic.

So what? We change the facts of history to suit our current cultural narrative? Or worse still the current conversation we are having?

That way lies madness.

1

Whatsthepoint wrote

It's a fairly well known, WW2 era belittlement aimed at Hitler.

He was a grandiose, egomaniac.

So the term 'herr Hitler' or 'Mr Hitler' was used as a wind up / put down.

You're not some great visionary emperor like, statesman who deserves a special title, you're just a silly angry man, and you're going to lose.

Was featured also in songs e.g.... "who do you think you are kidding mr Hitler"

Think of it like, calling Trump, Mr trump instead of president Trump.

-1

Whatsthepoint wrote

ok, I'll bite, just for the shits and giggles.

Maybe you're ignorant, or you just want to focus specifically on Jews. Are all of these people Jews? I've only heard nazis blame Jews for the nuclear bomb.

First off, let's start with a little history lesson. I don't know if you are aware of this, but Hitler, didn't count Jewish people in his top 10 all time top peoples, rumour has it, they didn't even make the top 20.

As such notable jewish scientists, who were blazing the trail in our collective understanding of physics at the atomic level were often underfunded, and ostracised, long before the violent and human rights violating persecutions began.

The people at the fore front of this science, the brilliant minds that have done much to shape our modern world. were Jewish. As with many things in high end physics, it was all very theoretical - this was after all, long before the french and the swiss decided to build their giant undergound black-hole flavoured donut factory C.E.R.N.

Herr Hitler, (being a bit of an egomaniac and acording to some, quite maniacle in nature, and an all round bad egg,) considered this new type of physics as "dirty" because it was all based on the work of Jewish scientists.

Albert Einstien, and Enrico Fermi (whose wife was jewish) are the big names everyone knows. But the other leaders in this field, such as: Klaus Fuchs, Edward Teller, james Franck etc. you may not have.

The entire field of nuclear physics is still to this day entirely underpinned by Albert Einstien.

They all fled Germany for the states, and were instrumental in providing their expertise to the bomb Albert Einstein had first thought up, under the guidance of mr oppenheimer (Clue - not a standard American surname)

This fact, was not raised to lay blame on the Jewish people for providing the world with carbon free nuclear power, medicinal radiography, carbon dating, the nuclear bomb, or otherwise.

It was to point out the absurdity in a neo-nazi group hating jews, while exalting the bomb.

An absurdity doubled by the fact that oppenheimer (jewish) was not only the "father of the bomb", but his lab was the one that created the "radiation" symbol they put on their flag.

fun fact - the first ICBM developed by America, was the work of many jewish scientists who fled the nazi regime (payload), sat atop the work of the German rocket scientists who supported the nazi regime (and were captured by the Americans and spared jail in exchange for technology) - And they say capitalism doesn't make the world a better place.

As for your word count, I refer you to wikipedia:

List of comedic devices

Repetition

Repetition is the essential comedic device and is often used in combination with other devices to reinforce them.

-2

Whatsthepoint wrote

Pathetic - not even going to dignify someone who clearly doesn't understand the concept of satire with any kind of defensive statement.

I will say thank you for linking to the 'rules of propoganda by Goebbels', which were previously unknown to me, and sadly, seem to be all to relevant in the context of our modern "democratic - It's for your own good! - Why don't you love us?! Do you hate your country!?", western governments and mainstream media networks.

  1. Propaganda must label events and people with distinctive phrases or slogans.

.....ironic

-1

Whatsthepoint wrote

Interesting choice of name, should we tell them most of the nuclear scientists behind nuclear physics and certainly the bomb were Jewish?

Also, I know it's probably editorialised, but I really want the doomsday camp to actually be called a hate camp.

"Hey Billy Bob, what you up to this weekend wanna go bowling?"

"I can't, I've got hate camp"

"Oh Yea, I think I heard Billy ray talking bout that too, say what do you guys get up to at this hate camp, in the middle of the woods?"

"We hate, mostly Jew's, but sometimes commies too. You wanna come?"

"What to the hate camp?"

"Sure why not?"

"Meh, seems awfully far to go just to hate on Jew's and commies..."

"Well that's not all we do, sometimes we hate the Jew's that are commies, they're the worst, learnt about them at hatecamp"

"Hmm I get what you're saying, and hate camp does sound fun, but I just prefer to do my hating in front of the TV. That way if I get bored of hating the Jew's and the commies..."

"And the Jew's that are commies"

"Yea and the Jew's that are commies, but sometimes I like to mix it up a little, so I switch to fox news, and it helps me hate on some Mexicans n shit. Also my sister Tammy is staying over because she got evicted for not paying the rent again, fucking Jew's"

"You let your sister rent of a Jew?"

"Of course not dumb ass, but don't you know the Jew's control the money? And why she done got evicted, money! Aka Jew's. So she's staying at mine, which means I might just get lucky!"

-1

Whatsthepoint wrote

You thinking that a white kid with every advantage in the world

He's hardly a toff attending Eton, so I wouldn't go as far as saying he has every advantage in the world, but will accept some of the spirit that your kicking.

I just did

But do you have the authority to declare that justice has been served? how do you represent the views of the 350 million Americans, in his community? Many of a similar political view to him would disagree with your view that justice has been served, (too harsh). Many with a similar political view to you would also disagree that justice has been served (too lenient).

You yourself, seem to provide a contradiction to your view that, Justice has been served, when you say he should have recieved corporal punishment?

(If the people are to form the police and authority on a case by case basis as per anarchacist doctrine, does that mean that an anarchacist society would condone state sanctioned violence and severe beatings as form of punishment? - So that we can measure out this punishment more preciesely to bring justice for a range of different crimes, should we perhaps use some form of impliment? say a whipp? I hear the threat of 100 lashes is quite good at keeping people in line)

So why do you, and 'the mob' have the authority to decide on what is just?

If some right wingers get upset because someone ripped down the statue of someone they like, do they then also have the right to enact mob justice?

how would this be organised? would people have to submit a form denoting their political views and if they match up with the political views of the 'establishement' they would be able to enact violent justice as they saw fit, but if their political views did not match up with the political views of the establishment, then they would be denied justice?

-1

Whatsthepoint wrote (edited )

Who decides 'that's justice' and why is that justice?

Could you not argue that true justice would only have been done if he had been deported himself? And thus justice remains undelivered?

Could it not also have been argued that, several weeks detention and some re-education would have been justice, and thus the penalty (of being doxxed) was unduly harsh due to media attention?

edit: there is an answer to this, just think it might be more agreeable if we come to it together :-)

-1

Whatsthepoint wrote

I'm not apealing to authority.

Just pointing out that your view, that fascism can only exist on the right, is the minority one, is not supported by the general consensus or backed up by fact or historical events.

If your knowledge was so epic and hyou were sure, it would be the simplest thing to explain to this idiot why Fascism can only ever exist on the right...yet, all i read are empty assertions and forum games, this I believe says much about the genuine thought you have put into this quandry.

"I like the left, I hate fascists, thing I like is immune to thing I hate" - thus far, you have demonstrated a thought pattern no deeper than that

-1

Whatsthepoint wrote

If a man commits a wrong by chopping off your arm. is it right for me, while you are in hospital getting your new bionic arm fitted, to chop of his arm?

Unless you (or the people who did the doxxing), are themselves undocumented immigrants who risk deportation at the hands of ICE, then you are not defending youself. You are enacting revenge and retribution on behalf of someone else, thats something completely different.

You say and ask, while dodging my question, is it immoral to defend yourself. But it is not you that is being attacked.

so perhaps your question is, given the context. Is it immoral to take vengance against someone because they commited a wrong against a third party?

My first quiery to that, is to ask what and who gives you the authority to enact vengance? Who decides what is the right amount of vengance?

If a drunk driver speeds, blind drunk and kills your daughter. Am I morally justified in taking vengance out on him on your behalf? Is it up to me to determine that vengance? What if I decide the right thing to do, eye for an eye, is to kill his daughter? As the self appointed vengance taker, is it for me to decide? Or should I kill him? a life for a life?

which leads us nicely back to the original moral question.

Do two wrongs make a right?