Click to expand
Latest users (1): ilcecchino, anonymous(17).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#88448 - Rascal (06/18/2015) [-]
He stands alone
#88440 - Rascal (06/18/2015) [-]
#88544 to #88440 - Rascal (06/19/2015) [-]
Wario for president!
#88439 - tredbear (06/18/2015) [-]
>when people say Crimea is Ukraine
#88449 to #88439 - liberalgodess (06/18/2015) [-]
>when people say Palestine is Israel
#88450 to #88449 - tredbear (06/18/2015) [-]
>when people say Kosovo is not part of Serbia
User avatar #88453 to #88450 - newbtwo (06/18/2015) [-]
maybe serbia should have won a war or two :^)
User avatar #88441 to #88439 - lulzforalpsplane (06/18/2015) [-]
Ey ur back.
User avatar #88438 - lulzforalpsplane (06/18/2015) [-]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc This is literally why this board and /pol/ exists.
User avatar #88446 to #88438 - klowserpok (06/18/2015) [-]
You know, some poltards made a board trying to use this sort of thing as a psy weapon to indoctrinate people to their views.
I think they call it memetic warfare.
User avatar #88443 to #88438 - akkere (06/18/2015) [-]
Peculiar how sad thoughts apparently spread significantly less than others, considering how often I've seen sappy posts where the discussion board would just have people sympathizing with each other ("Just Broke up with my gf", "tfw no gf" "friendzoned again"). But I suppose those are less prone to be duplicated and shared (or reposted).
You done gone and thought infected me
User avatar #88445 to #88443 - lulzforalpsplane (06/18/2015) [-]
I just inserted my seed into you. Enjoy.
User avatar #88433 to #88430 - pebar ONLINE (06/17/2015) [-]
economically, fascism is pretty left of center, which Palin is definitely not
User avatar #88476 to #88433 - inquisition (06/18/2015) [-]
Hitler was centre-right economically.

Extremely authoritarian tho, obviously
#88447 to #88433 - Rascal (06/18/2015) [-]
Economically left of center, ideologically far right.
#88437 to #88433 - jewishcommunazi (06/17/2015) [-]
Not necessarily.
#88436 to #88433 - jewishcommunazi has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #88431 to #88430 - youregaylol (06/17/2015) [-]
>thinking any mainstream political figure in the us is a fascist
>being this plebeian
#88422 - bluboyrulez has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #88415 to #88398 - lulzforalpsplane (06/17/2015) [-]
Nigga don't spam country comics.
User avatar #88424 to #88415 - lulzforalpsplane (06/17/2015) [-]
#88392 - Rascal (06/17/2015) [-]
So what do Nationalists propose be done in the case of an rapidly aging population, like in Japan? Or a potential labor shortage and general population shrinkage, like in Russia?
#88413 to #88392 - lulzforalpsplane (06/17/2015) [-]
You're right anon, lets let in more Afghan refugees.
You're right anon, lets let in more Afghan refugees.
User avatar #88399 to #88392 - drastronomy (06/17/2015) [-]
maek mor bebbis
#88385 - pebar ONLINE (06/17/2015) [-]
It finally happened.
It's official; the FDA announced the food industry has 3 years to eliminate trans fat
User avatar #88406 to #88385 - youregaylol (06/17/2015) [-]
they're going to try to ban salt next
User avatar #88455 to #88406 - klowserpok (06/18/2015) [-]
I can understand banning a bad fat from food, but salt? well that's actually retarded.
People need salt in their diet...
#88394 to #88385 - akkere (06/17/2015) [-]
That's going to pull the root cause of obesity for a lot of Americans off the market.
... It's also going to pull a lot of the affordable food (which caused obesity) as well.

Without pushing an effort to have the education system train the new generation and onward on proper nutritional management and budgeting to combat the need for these affordable meals (in the case of poorer families or simply those who don't know any better), this is probably going to lead to a ham fisted result overall.

It would've been better to mount an education initiative than do this. A lot of people aren't going to be prepared to adjust their budgets without fully understanding how to work their local supermarkets on top of their day-to-day bills. We'll just have to see how these next few years play out.
User avatar #88432 to #88394 - youregaylol (06/17/2015) [-]
>"root cause"
>isn't in the mass majority of food, or junk food for that matter

the root cause for obesity is lack of self control, this will do nothing to combat that
User avatar #88442 to #88432 - akkere (06/18/2015) [-]
Root cause for obesity is lack of proper dieting and knowledge of doing so; teach someone how to make well-budgeted and good tasting meals, they'll step away from the TV Dinners that are cheap but packed with sodium and high preservatives (which I now remember was the main problem to begin with, not trans fat).

Banning cheap foods is a terrible idea for obvious reasons, however, and that's why I think it'd be preferable to establish a balance in physical activity and nutritional development in the education system (which we've already made room for more than enough of the former) to teach people how to eat and function better.
User avatar #88444 to #88442 - youregaylol (06/18/2015) [-]
What we need is a national youth service brigade that takes in young adolescents and teaches them valuable skills and proper eating and exercise habits. Too many children just sit at home all day with nothing to do and no purpose.

In a disciplined organization they can assist their communities, building and maintaining homeless shelters, picking up litter, repairing and renovating buildings, assisting the elderly, things like that.

They would also compete in physical activities, learn how to work as a group, how to survive in the wilderness, carpentry, hunting, agriculture, ect.

Then when they reach adulthood they'd enter a compulsory military service. You want a nation of healthy productive citizens? That's how you get it.
User avatar #88462 to #88444 - akkere (06/18/2015) [-]
I'd agree with most of it right up until the compulsory military service bit. At that point you're less trying to create productive citizens and more subservient ones.

I see a lot of advantages in groups like the Boy Scouts of America (after all I was apart of three troops for a time) in cultivating interests and motivations in the youth, as well as allowing them to network with other career groups which would come in handy come time to establish a career path.
However, I'd also think there should be multiple renditions of organizations to appeal to different career interests for two reasons; to establish an emphasis on in-demand careers while cultivating an interest instead of forcing it on youths, and to ensure that if corruption lingers for one group, the possibility to move onto another one exists.

Having too large and too controlling organization might detach children from other possibilities and give less freedom for the parents to raise their child, which is bad for the overall welfare of raising them.
User avatar #88464 to #88462 - youregaylol (06/18/2015) [-]
And to whom would they direct their obedience? To the people, to their families, to themselves. Loyalty to ones nation has always been a characteristic of great nations. When you have a populace that has never served it's nation you have a populace that will try to change the nation into one they will feel is more worthy to serve.

The USA is a perfect example, people who have never sacrificed for the country grow to despise it and alter it in destructive ways.

There must be uniformity in education and training, without it you'd have class divisions and a divided nation will destroy itself. Those who are more apt at certain fields will be groomed for those fields after they complete the regimentation all others must pass.
User avatar #88466 to #88464 - akkere (06/18/2015) [-]
What use is service to a nation if the individual doesn't understand the true purpose, or have true intent behind it? If you don't cultivate an interest for service, you will have people with hollow goals, people who cannot provide for the nation at maximum capacity. All you end up doing is fulfilling quotas.

If you force people to sacrifice for the country, they will not only despise it and alter it moreso than if they had just been left to lazy and laxadaisial ways, they'll seek to destroy those who represent the group that forced their hand in the first place. Or they'll seek to climb the ladder and take their "just do", resorting to corrupt ways. Loyalty is something that should be inspired, not forced out of someone, akin to how respect is something that is earned, not inherited. The structure of community you create by force is nothing but a hollow thing that would fall given enough time, just as if you would have let it crumble to anarchy.

Having a uniform education and training is good to a large degree, so long as it doesn't sacrifice the time for a child to cultivate an interest for a field they already believe to be preferable and prepare accordingly. The best time to learn and grasp specialized concepts is early on in life, when they can start developing a mental framework to think it through. Education is even further hampered when you force the individual into military service, especially if they might not even agree with a conflict the political leaders of the moment are seeking to wage.
User avatar #88467 to #88466 - akkere (06/18/2015) [-]
"just due*"
#88390 to #88385 - Rascal (06/17/2015) [-]
And, what?
Do you think this a good thing, or bad?
User avatar #88391 to #88390 - pebar ONLINE (06/17/2015) [-]
it's is not the business of government to protect people from themselves
requiring labeling is plenty regulation; let people choose what they want to eat
#88393 to #88391 - Rascal (06/17/2015) [-]
That would weed out a whole lot of dumb consumers.
#88379 - lulzforalpsplane (06/17/2015) [-]
As a Utilitarianist, I am finely open to admit I completely support the actions of Anders Breivik from the moral perspective.
#88425 to #88379 - Rascal (06/17/2015) [-]
The only time I've heard someone actually call themselves a Utilitarian, they were liberals.
I bet your voting for Trudeau.
#88427 to #88426 - Rascal (06/17/2015) [-]
Don't lie...
You know you love his hair...
User avatar #88428 to #88427 - lulzforalpsplane (06/17/2015) [-]
Fuck that piece of shit
#88429 to #88428 - Rascal (06/17/2015) [-]
Oh, so you want to fuck him? If your so pro gay, you must love Trudeau?
No wonder you're voting for him :^)
User avatar #88402 to #88379 - newbtwo (06/17/2015) [-]
nigga thats not what utilitarianism means
User avatar #88434 to #88410 - pebar ONLINE (06/17/2015) [-]
that definition is for plebs
in reality, utilitarianism maximizes the TOTAL utility of society. Potentially you could have a single person be that happiest person in the world and everyone else be miserable and it would still be utilitarian because it makes no difference who has the utility.
It is often in conflict with egalitarianism.
free market economics is often seen as utilitarian

politicians just use it as a buzzword

>>#88402, >>#88425
User avatar #88435 to #88434 - lulzforalpsplane (06/17/2015) [-]
ummm...k I guess? This doesn't at all take away from my point.
User avatar #88396 to #88379 - syrianassassinsoul (06/17/2015) [-]
looks like you also like to blow buildings up.

Join ISIS now.
User avatar #88411 to #88396 - lulzforalpsplane (06/17/2015) [-]
The context of ISIS is totally different, also I would never personally do it. I just support it.
#88389 to #88379 - pebar ONLINE (06/17/2015) [-]
how the fuck did you come to that conclusion?
User avatar #88408 to #88389 - lulzforalpsplane (06/17/2015) [-]
He raised awareness about the raping of his country.
He stood up to the system
He shot up a leftiwing Labor party that held many arabian refugees and also wanted to boycott Israel as part of him standing up

It is all for the greater good in the end, I know this is hard to understand but I find his actions to have more good in them then evil. A country is more important then individuals, therefore every action from now on that is done in the name of un-raping European countries is good and not evil, no matter the price. context could be important though, like for example its some loner, autistic kid
User avatar #88412 to #88408 - pebar ONLINE (06/17/2015) [-]
I would imagine it would ruin the chances of people supporting nationalism since critics would just point to Breivik
User avatar #88414 to #88412 - lulzforalpsplane (06/17/2015) [-]
Trust me I thought about that and I don't believe so.
User avatar #88423 to #88414 - newbtwo (06/17/2015) [-]
but thats what happens a lot
#88387 to #88379 - klowserpok (06/17/2015) [-]
>supporting a guy who murdered white kids  even if they were being brainwashed to be leftists
>supporting a guy who murdered white kids even if they were being brainwashed to be leftists
#88388 to #88387 - klowserpok (06/17/2015) [-]
>supporting a guy who did nothing to contribute to the happiness of the majority
#88386 to #88379 - akkere (06/17/2015) [-]
Shouldn't a Utilitarian (despite supporting Breivik's core ideology) oppose Breivik's actions, for they would be used to dismiss neutral parties from the ideal of opposing multiculturalism and its supporting ideas, and altogether make them less approachable?
Unless you're referring to his living in the somewhat posh prison system of Norway, calling attention to the flaw of having a system designed to "rehabilitate", yet his penalty guarantees life in prison while enjoying the privileges accustomed to rehabilitative process. In that case I could understand partial support, but not complete support for his actions under a Utilitarian mindset.
User avatar #88407 to #88386 - lulzforalpsplane (06/17/2015) [-]
>for they would be used to dismiss neutral parties from the ideal of opposing multiculturalism and its supporting ideas, and altogether make them less approachable
I disagree. If anything that whole story raised a lot of discussion into the subject. His actions allowed it to become a story.

User avatar #88419 to #88407 - akkere (06/17/2015) [-]
Raising a lot of discussion, sure. But did it raise a lot of positive discussion for Breivik's opinion? Some people were posting about him positive unironically in calling him an absolute hero with the usual /pol/ lines, of which already supported Breivik's core ideology prior to the event. Everyone else seemed more disgusted about the fundamental idea of wanton slaughter of children in the name of "fighting against multiculturalism" (and the fact that people were posting about him in a positive light made it worse) at the end of the discussion, than they were disgusted about multiculturalism and liberalism in general, and leftists could use his actions as ammo against anyone loosely related to Breivik.

His impact on the general opinion at best was neutral; with people being alienated by people who outright support Breivik's actions at the same time people would consider Breivik's stance from subsequent conversation. In my opinion the only absolute affect he had on was the second look he gave on Norwegian/Scandinavian prison systems for special cases like his own.
User avatar #88420 to #88419 - lulzforalpsplane (06/17/2015) [-]
Better to fight back and then be silently raped
User avatar #88421 to #88420 - akkere (06/17/2015) [-]
He's not even doing that right. He could've turned the gun to the rape gangs, and instead he chose to shoot kids pretend he's "just doing what's necessary". It becomes cowardice when you realize he couldn't truly be arsed to solve any real problems, but go on sadistic impulse.
User avatar #88338 - marinepenguin ONLINE (06/16/2015) [-]
Describe your ideal world in 50 years. Something that you think is achievable. Whether it's a change in world Politics, certain nations being reformed, certain events happening, etc.
User avatar #88401 to #88338 - drastronomy (06/17/2015) [-]
Traditional gender roles encouraged
No affirmative action or quota system
Media is more regulated to prevent tabloid bullshit
Education prioritised, teacher wages raised, illegalize political subjectivism in education
Punish fat people
Democracy, but with technocratic aspects
100% free speech - no hatespeech bullshit
halt immigration, allow survival of the fittest cultures
Worship intellectual pursuits
Allow a stronger moral basis for the government - illegalize all drugs, tobacco, and getting drunk
Desexualize the media, enforce stricter moral codes
Disallow corporation surveillance and data-mining with attached IDs
Enforce anti-miscenegation laws
User avatar #88416 to #88401 - lulzforalpsplane (06/17/2015) [-]
+1 to yours dat last one is gonna be hard to enforce though
User avatar #88417 to #88416 - drastronomy (06/17/2015) [-]
True, but through education (regarding bad aspects of mixing race, culture, etc) a lot is possible
User avatar #88418 to #88417 - lulzforalpsplane (06/17/2015) [-]
Yeah, keep dreaming. me2
User avatar #88368 to #88338 - akkere (06/17/2015) [-]
Automatic manufacturing reaches a point in advancement where mass production facilties previously offshored to China will be pulled back to the United States, removing China's strict tether of influence from that factor. The removal of this influence would lead to more affirmative action against some offenses made in recent years (I'd go more into detail, but that's not a major focus for this post in particular).

Education reaches a pinnacle point where not only is it accessible to all individuals, but it's presented in such an intuitive and effective manner that generations, new and old, are motivated to approach in-demand careers by thinking of STEM-related subjects in a more approachable manner, rather than the counter-intuitive "memorize everything to win" manner the more popular current education institution has implemented.
These two factors lead to the work force being less dedicated to manual labor to all but a few key fields that will be difficult to outweigh the cost of automated to the cost of manual, and instead transfer it to educating technical knowledge to everyone in at least the second nature form.
Information technology leads to better ease of access to numerous sources of news and information; eliminating political biases, search engine thought bubbles (achievable but unlikely due to Google's pseudo-monopoly of much information technology at the moment), and motivating individuals to be more active in the electoral processes without approaching them blindly thanks to firebrand speeches and political grandstanding.
The increase in surveillance technology and drones might function as a two-way street, with news companies turning to use them in government functions (legally or illegally; the latter case might get so popular it might wrestle away the control major corporations have on the news thus far).
Cosmopolitan HQ gets blasted off the face of the Earth.
User avatar #88370 to #88368 - marinepenguin ONLINE (06/17/2015) [-]
Never thought of surveying the government in that way. Although I can see some possible issues with it.
User avatar #88380 to #88370 - akkere (06/17/2015) [-]
It'll definitely lead to further destruction of privacy when surveillance falls into private hands as it does government (not that the exclusive possession of surveillance in government meant any good to begin with), but it's still something to foresee as something that would be used to combat the government surveillance and push for a state of equilibrium.
User avatar #88359 to #88338 - Shiny (06/17/2015) [-]
No gods, no borders, no masters. Economic progress and stability is driven by technology and scientism; scarcity will eventually be eliminated, and our drive to compete will be used productively in the sciences and arts instead of against each other. Some inequality is inevitable, but will be earned, not stolen through manipulation of material wealth; everyone will have their share, and productiveness will be demanded through social norms and expectations.

People will have the right to associate freely and defend this right as violently as necessary. The binding ties of economic interdependence will help ensure peace; unfeeling, unbiased computer logic will replace falliable human cognitive bias, leaving no one person more influential than another and all decisions decentralized. If you want to revert to capitalist production, feel free to leave.

Because direct democracy will replace representative "democracy", the intentional use of deceit and manipulation in discourse would be seen as an act of violence if objectively provable.

Then it all implodes when Pinochet 2.0 kills everyone :^(
User avatar #88369 to #88359 - marinepenguin ONLINE (06/17/2015) [-]
Now that just sounds like a form of anarchy.

And people forming influence over one another is a certainty, a part of basic human behavior. We naturally form a hierarchy based upon resources, strength, intelligence, or what have you. The only true equality is within the law, no two people are truly equal in terms of physical ability or intelligence.
User avatar #88565 to #88369 - Shiny (06/20/2015) [-]
It sounds like anarchy because it is.

I also already covered your criticism: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. People who are able to produce more by nature will also get access to more resources and production by nature, and people will always idolize and demonize one another, but this doesn't mean we should have any undue influence over one another. After all, people aren't born engineers or painters or actuaries, they're made to learn and adapt, which is in itself part of human nature, one that lasts a lifetime. Very, very few people are truly born useless, and even then, treating them with sympathy and dignity is an important mark on society.

I simply believe that humanity only thrives when as many people as possible are self-actualizing, not miserably wading about in the limitations of their material conditions or being pigeonholed into retarded social categories to sate the arbitrary fee-fees of whoever is in power.
User avatar #88366 to #88359 - lulzforalpsplane (06/17/2015) [-]
...commie fuck
#88360 to #88359 - Rascal (06/17/2015) [-]
so basically what you're saying is, you're retarded
User avatar #88364 to #88360 - Shiny (06/17/2015) [-]
Sociopathically retarded, maybe.
#88353 to #88338 - klowserpok (06/16/2015) [-]
A world of nationalist, sovereign states, who are neither coerced by globalists corporations nor by multicultural propaganda.   
European countries  and USA+Canada   send all non European immigrants back where they came from   
The strongest nations colonize earth-like planets.
A world of nationalist, sovereign states, who are neither coerced by globalists corporations nor by multicultural propaganda.
European countries and USA+Canada send all non European immigrants back where they came from
The strongest nations colonize earth-like planets.
User avatar #88371 to #88353 - marinepenguin ONLINE (06/17/2015) [-]
I have just never seen how completely separating races into their own nations can be a good thing.
User avatar #88372 to #88371 - youregaylol (06/17/2015) [-]
its how it's worked for the mass majority of history
User avatar #88373 to #88372 - marinepenguin ONLINE (06/17/2015) [-]
Yeah, that was also when people knew almost nothing about what was going on 100 miles away.

Try it in modern day when the other side of the world is a days travel away. And knowledge is instant.
User avatar #88374 to #88373 - youregaylol (06/17/2015) [-]
ok, so we know they're there and we can go there faster, why does that mean it's a bad thing if we continue living by ourselves without them?
User avatar #88376 to #88374 - marinepenguin ONLINE (06/17/2015) [-]
You think that separating the races will make everyone leave each other alone and everyone is going to live in peace?

People will still fight over resources, petty politics, borders and trade rights. Seperation by race will only increase feelings of xenophobia and increase chances for genocide. Plus, people will still intermingle and race mixing will still occur.

The solution that you put forth creates more problems than it solves, will create unnecessary conflict, and is not even worth the resources to carry out.

I don't agree with the multicultural bull we have going on, but we can live together without separating one another.
User avatar #88377 to #88376 - youregaylol (06/17/2015) [-]
I think you might be living in a different world than me, because in my world races are already separated for the most part. Even in "multicultural" countries each race sets up their own communities and neighborhoods.

Your implication that homogenous countries are less peaceful is just patently false, crime rates have soared in areas with heavy immigration from other races, sweden is a great example.

You're also wrong about xenophobia and genocide, feelings of racial animosity and hate only happen when you introduce two different peoples in one environment and expect them to live harmoniously, muslims don't want to obey english laws and swedes don't want t live under Japanese laws.

Also my "solution" isn't a solution, it's how it has been for all of time. People thought homogenous white countries (what you define as my solution) were the "problem", and immigration of different ethnicities into europe was the "answer".

They created the issue, I'm just resisting it. You want to end the climate of racial hate you'll allow every race their space as it was meant to be. There would be no KKK without blacks in the US, nor would there be slavery if the africans weren't disturbed.

You don't hate people who don't have any effect on your lives. What reason would there be for "genocide" if each race had their own land? Do you think that whites are just naturally evil and will kill the africans for the lulz?

You're not making any logical sense.
User avatar #88378 to #88377 - marinepenguin ONLINE (06/17/2015) [-]
You aren't understanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that the white nation will fight and genocide within itself. Or that whites will fight over rights within itself.

I'm saying that if you separate each race into their own "race-nations", they will ultimately conflict, hate each other for their races alone, and fight. It will not be an end to war, but the beginning of true race wars. It'll be a huge step backwards.

And you use the examples of ghettos, which prove my logic. Take St. Louis, there are distinct black, Latino, eastern European, and different Asian areas, with the blacks outnumbering most of these. Gang violence between these ghettos and turf wars happen all the time, they don't even show it on the news anymore because it's so common. Different race neighborhoods fight each other for turf, good drug spots, and because they just hate each other. You don't think that would translate into a larger scale?
User avatar #88381 to #88378 - youregaylol (06/17/2015) [-]
Of course it won't happen on a larger scale, the only reason it happened on a smaller scale is because of multiculturalism and poverty. If the latins had never met the black in that ghetto he would not hate him. He might hate another latin gang but the reasons for violence would be limited, and less likely. Every heterogeneous society has higher rates of violence than their previous homogenous one. Multiculturalism is a failure.

There have been "race nations" throughout history that never translated to larger scale race violence and there are race nations now that don't translate to larger scale race violence. Why hasn't some african nation sent troops to invade a neighboring arab country, or the arab country invaded the persian? People who are not familiar with each other don't hate each other, do you hate who you don't know?

They might war over resources or ideology but race alone? No, will never happen and has never happen.

What you're saying makes zero logical sense and has no real world evidence to support it.
User avatar #88382 to #88381 - marinepenguin ONLINE (06/17/2015) [-]
So everyone will be separate, no one will interact outside their race ever in a modern world, everyone will get along, and it's all going to be rainbows, daisies, and candy around the works.

Maybe we do live in different worlds, and follow totally different logic.
User avatar #88383 to #88382 - youregaylol (06/17/2015) [-]
We will all live separately (which we already do now, just not in our own nations), it doesn't mean we can't trade and conduct diplomacy. Saudi Arabia and the USA are allies yet have completely different demographics, according to you they should be killing each other?

Point to where I ever once said everyone would get along and we'd have peace. There will always be war, but you're saying there will be war over race, which has just never happened, there are always other matters involved that take precedent.

You do not hate people you have never met in different countries solely for their race. You may talk badly about them at the dinner table, but go off and risk your life killing them for no other reason besides they exist on the same planet as you? It will never happen. Never.

These arguments are weak. There are no arguments for heterogeneous nations, they have higher crime rates and more internal strife. There are arguments for homogenous nations though. Peaceful cohesion being one of them, as well as cultural uniqueness.
User avatar #88384 to #88383 - marinepenguin ONLINE (06/17/2015) [-]
So do you think this is something that will even be considered in the future? Is it even a possible hypothetical?

I can only see this becoming more complicated as space travel gets involved.
#88365 to #88353 - Rascal (06/17/2015) [-]
>A world of nationalist sovereign states
#88367 to #88365 - klowserpok (06/17/2015) [-]
A man can dream.
A man can dream.
User avatar #88351 to #88338 - marinepenguin ONLINE (06/16/2015) [-]
My ideal world in 2065:

US manages to deal with debt problem, more political parties are introduced and take hold, breaking the two party system. Less meddling into world Politics, yet still maintains a large interest in keeping peace. Immigration is also taken care of, southern border us completely sealed, and aid is sent to Mexico manpower, money, food, etx in an attempt to improve infrastructure, create jobs, destroy cartels grip on neighborhoods, etc.

Europe heavily reforms the EU, going back to their respective currencies, yet still trades with few restrictions, essentially acting more as a economic trading union and less like a uniting legislative body. Immigration is restricted to skilled workers, and immigrants are not pandered to as much.

China experiences a large collapse much like the USSR, a new democratic China rises and unites with Taiwan.

North Korea collapses as outside information continues to leak into the country, nukes become obsolete, and their economy eventually becomes to backwards and obsolete it collapses, South Korea is allowed to annex the new territory and begin to industrialize and rebuild it.

African nations begin to advance, many becoming developing nations as compared to the third world hellholes they are now. some like Nigeria are beginning to do this now

Substantial colonies are placed on Mars, Venus, the moon, and maybe some of Jupiter's moons. Warp drives are more advanced and travel to and from Mars is reduced to a couple weeks or even a few days. Asteroids are regularly mined for materials.
User avatar #88344 to #88338 - lulzforalpsplane (06/16/2015) [-]
Nationalist parties in Europe stand up for the people
EU disbanded immediately
Return to reformed-conservative values
We get to Mars and maybe Moon colonization on mini-level
Israel still exists

China does not get revolution
U.S.A will be Mexico of course so there is no hope there.
Canucuck --> Asia 2.0

#88363 to #88344 - Rascal (06/17/2015) [-]
>Nationalist parties in Europe stand up for the people
#88329 - kanadetenshi (06/16/2015) [-]
Seriously why is it that every community has to have "that feminist chick" that tries to police the community into her narrow views?

Video games have Anita Sarkeesian
Atheists have Rebecca Watson
Libertarians have Cathy Reisenwitz
Don't even get me fucking started on the poor Socialists

Soon we'll have nazi feminism. "We must get rid of the misogynistic kikes"
User avatar #88357 to #88329 - Shiny (06/16/2015) [-]
Modern "feminism" is basically NRx for women. They want the old unfair social hierarchy in ways that benefit them and equality when it doesn't
User avatar #88333 to #88329 - youregaylol (06/16/2015) [-]
Every group will have their fools, yet only these fools are given spotlight and encouraged.

That is where the real enemy is, the media. They have an agenda, so they pic and choose their chosen champions, make them famous and courageous looking, and then work to discredit all who dissent. The media is the true enemy.

We worry so much about the freedom of the press while a small elite own and manipulate society in their own image, dumbing down the populace and starting cultural wars.

Take the media and you'll win any fight.
User avatar #88337 to #88333 - lulzforalpsplane (06/16/2015) [-]
What is your solution to this?
User avatar #88339 to #88337 - youregaylol (06/16/2015) [-]
If I was in power I'd immediately arrest the leadership and institute a black out of all media until a suitable cultural ministry can set up an approved broadcasting schedule with suitable content.

In the real world? I'd imagine the only way would be to destroy the means at which they relay their propaganda, eliminate and terrorize their leadership, perhaps corporate warfare if someone had the resources to institute a financial coup, things of a guerrilla nature.
User avatar #88342 to #88339 - lulzforalpsplane (06/16/2015) [-]
"set up an approved broadcasting schedule with suitable content."

What would this be though and wouldn't it inevitably have an agenda?
User avatar #88343 to #88342 - youregaylol (06/16/2015) [-]
Something that reflects the cultural heritage of the people who are governed by the state which in turn serves them.

Everything has an agenda, there is no such thing as an unbiased man or an unbiased idea, we wear our ideologies on our hearts, every action and every word reflects that.

The most important agenda, and the only truly positive one if a positive agenda exists, is the agenda of the people and the culture of said people. Put your race and your traditions at the head of your society and the society will flourish.
User avatar #88345 to #88343 - lulzforalpsplane (06/16/2015) [-]
So state-only media?
User avatar #88347 to #88345 - youregaylol (06/16/2015) [-]
Just state approved media, I wouldn't want a few bureaucrats in a small building to have a monopoly on all the the art of the nation.

Those who are genuine artists, writers and actors and designers, will be able to practice their calling uninhibited.

Those who are provocateurs, whose only goal is to spread discontent and damaging ideologies will be denied their podiums.
User avatar #88350 to #88347 - lulzforalpsplane (06/16/2015) [-]
So what is media that reflects " cultural heritage of the people who are governed". Would it be neutral or biased based on the mainstream American opinion?
User avatar #88352 to #88350 - youregaylol (06/16/2015) [-]
It wouldn't be based on the opinions of the populace, especially right after a revolution. It would be based on the values that built our society in the first place, such as family, duty, honor, modesty, courage, pride, patriotism, racial awareness, ect.

It would also challenge our minds with complex conflicts, personal reflections, topical dialogue, realistic interaction, and fulfilling resolutions. Of course these aren't required as anybody could create a show or a news station as long as they don't try to bring down the nation, but these are the ideal things you'd like to see.
User avatar #88354 to #88352 - lulzforalpsplane (06/16/2015) [-]
Gud idea.
#88327 - newbtwo (06/16/2015) [-]

THIS is a slippery slope if there ever was any, not fucking gay rights, this

should it even be allowed? how far should it be allowed to go?

in the near future, can we use smartphones to insert ideas and emotions directly into our brains?
User avatar #88346 to #88327 - undeadwill (06/16/2015) [-]
Its almost like E-dosing. An electronic drug of sorts.
User avatar #88331 to #88327 - marinepenguin ONLINE (06/16/2015) [-]
I don't see this as a big deal really. All it does is pump you up or make you calm.

If it became more advanced to where it can change your mood with a push of a button, I could see it being heavily abused and actually causing problems. But we're a long time away from a marketable product capable of inserting thoughts and ideas into another persons head.
User avatar #88334 to #88331 - youregaylol (06/16/2015) [-]
In the right hands technology that can alter moods and emotions can serve as effective reeducation tools. Perhaps the firing squads and the forced labor aren't the only ways to cure the disease anymore.
User avatar #88335 to #88334 - marinepenguin ONLINE (06/16/2015) [-]
I agree, but there will have to be much development to such tech before it's even possible. It's quite a leap to go from calming someone, to outright brainwashing them.
User avatar #88336 to #88335 - youregaylol (06/16/2015) [-]
I'm not sure this can even calm someone besides the stated placebo effect. Still it's nice to dream, I would like to avoid as many deaths as possible if and when the time comes.
User avatar #88330 to #88327 - youregaylol (06/16/2015) [-]
to say im skeptical is an understatement
User avatar #88400 to #88330 - newbtwo (06/17/2015) [-]
you DO understand this is highly scientifically plausible
User avatar #88405 to #88400 - youregaylol (06/17/2015) [-]
no, I don't, and I don't think you do either
User avatar #88323 - youregaylol (06/16/2015) [-]
leftists will (be more likely than others to) support this

User avatar #88328 to #88323 - lulzforalpsplane (06/16/2015) [-]
is Reddit really that SJW? I kinda thought it was the middle of Tumblr and Chins4.

So shitty but not this shitty.
#88322 - Rascal (06/16/2015) [-]
So do you think this election will have any memes as enduring and played out as "you didn't build that" and "47%"?
User avatar #88317 to #88311 - Shiny (06/16/2015) [-]
They really, really seem hard set on making Hilary Clinton the next president.
User avatar #88302 - byposted (06/16/2015) [-]

Rather than retract, deconstruct the connotation, O anchor, which has no place but the accusatory imagination.

You did not speak with brevity, and now must recompense by reasoning, to smudge the scum from your name, surely over the objections of your superiors - what folly. But the truth is like a lion, did not St. Aquarius start?

It is both brave and courageous to fulfill the role of a martyr! Is this person's martyrdom similarly in question, because one is taught to assign a positive value to death for greater purpose, supposing that the attempted or accomplished slaying of armed men is necessarily negative? Well, of course! We attribute barbarism to behavior according to what we perceive as just. The thief may starve, but not steal. The American Empire can murder millions of Levantines, but response is transgression against freedumbs, or whatever. Let's pray to Netanyahu in the general direction of the fallen towers, where freedom now rises, as one stone!
User avatar #88307 to #88302 - lulzforalpsplane (06/16/2015) [-]
I have no idea what you said. None.
User avatar #88304 to #88302 - newbtwo (06/16/2015) [-]
i dont think i'd want to refer to suicide bombers and child-murdering terrorists as "brave and courageous"
User avatar #88316 to #88295 - Shiny (06/16/2015) [-]
Also, he's rather unabashedly lying about terms like "microaggressions" which have existed for decades, and poisoning the well to keep people from pointing out that it is, in fact, almost entirely an academic thing, the rare exception being clickbait journalists profiting from them. It's a convoluted straw man of any views left of the American GOP as the college liberal stereotype.

Besides, we all know Thomas Sowell is only an influential figure in popular politics because he's black. PC works both ways.
#88332 to #88316 - Rascal (06/16/2015) [-]
it's completely bullshit that you say that thomas sowell is only influential because he's black when 99% of his accomplishments are economic and social in nature, unlike blacks like al sharpton whose only claim to fame is community organizing

i also love how you defend the lefts pimping of microagressions, yet you hate the stereotype of the college liberal, hilarious

similar to how the academic left redefines racism when it suits them you also like to use invented terms to label things you disagree with unjustly

you're not going to be able to compare the lefts censorship of ideas by calling everything racist to other people criticizing the left for that very same act, it doesn't work like that

you are in the wrong, your ideology is in the wrong and is anti speech and individual, and you and your ilk need to be challenged so your stupidity doesn't breed
User avatar #88358 to #88332 - Shiny (06/16/2015) [-]
"you are in the wrong, your ideology is in the wrong and is anti speech and individual"

Do you actually think I'll change my mind because you told me ad verbatim I am wrong? This is ignoring the fact that you're projecting bitterness onto me that has nothing to do with the left-right dichotomy and that the "left" Sowell was describing is Democratic Party fodder.
User avatar #88356 to #88332 - Shiny (06/16/2015) [-]
Popular politics. I know very well he's an accomplished man, but he's clearly implying that he's an expert on social issues because he's black.

Harvey Milk was a personal friend of Jim Jones but no one cares because he was gay and therefore speshul.
#88361 to #88356 - Rascal (06/17/2015) [-]
"clearly implying"

i love it when leftists reveal their own closet racism
User avatar #88362 to #88361 - Shiny (06/17/2015) [-]
"It's not political correctness when we do it!"
User avatar #88315 to #88295 - Shiny (06/16/2015) [-]
"Political correctness" is the conservative race card.
#88306 to #88295 - lulzforalpsplane (06/16/2015) [-]
The land of the unfree and the home of the cucks.
#88303 to #88295 - Rascal (06/16/2015) [-]
Breaking news, a huge political party has idiots among its ranks.

I'm left wing because the opposite of left is wrong (insert inbred rednecks, pedophile priests and flat out-retarded politicians and quotes).

See, anyone can circlejerek with their own opinions and things that solidify them.
User avatar #88305 to #88303 - pebar ONLINE (06/16/2015) [-]
the left and right side of the political spectrum aren't parties,
they're grossly oversimplified philosophical generalizations

>the opposite of left is wrong
mine sounded better
#88298 to #88295 - klowserpok (06/16/2015) [-]
But don't you know, that in a modern democratic state the temporary appeasement of the most vocal minority group is more important than "unalienable" rights of the individual?
But don't you know, that in a modern democratic state the temporary appeasement of the most vocal minority group is more important than "unalienable" rights of the individual?
 Friends (0)