Does the Alt-Right event exist? Or just Clinton fiction?

[Spectral]

Were hispanic people denied wages and basic human dignity for over 200 years?

I don't know of any person that was denied these things for 200 years, but it sure must not have impacted their longevity. I'd love to meet that person!

Whether Hispanic (or Asian) people were denied these things, the obvious answer is that yes, many of them were. I don't think it's terribly hard to find historical examples of enslaved Hispanic peoples.

[JohnBrown1917]

This is pretty funny coming from the guy that insists that communism has just never been done right. Perhaps it's just another who-whom situation.

That is true about the marxism/communism that Karl Marx envisioned.

[Spectral]

That is true about the marxism/communism that Karl Marx envisioned.

Sure, and the good kind of nationalism has never been tried either. Any bad outcomes that look like they're related to nationalism are just people doing it wrong.

[nextormento]

Everything you've listed is based on some set of ideas which have a relevance in this world.

The exact same relevance nationalism has.
Non of which are any more natural, or at all. There is nothing illogical about social construction: it is real, and has consequences over the world.

[JohnBrown1917]

Sure, and the good kind of nationalism has never been tried either. Any bad outcomes that look like they're related to nationalism are just people doing it wrong.

Eh.. what?

Nationalism is something completely different, no clear definition, can we say the same about what Karl Marx envisioned? Those where just the views of 1 man.
Nationalism was not a single vision from 1/2 man/men.


But sure, go ahead and show me a country that was purely based on the visions of marx.

[Endus]

No Endus its a well know fact they score worse - pick a test, black people score worse.

I'm not playing the racial realism game. You're ignoring context to try and argue that black people are "inferior", and it's blatantly racist.

baring Turkey and Iran, every single one of those states is a result of Sykes picot - They intentionally drew the lines to make for non nation states.

They're still nation-states. And there's a fair bit of conflict between them.

No, not no reason, because it is a divider, its 'diversity'.

That's not what "diversity" means. In the way you're using it, the fact that I'm not you is "diversity", and that's obviously a ridiculous usage.

[Spectral]

Eh.. what?

Nationalism is something completely different, no clear definition, can we say the same about what Karl Marx envisioned? Those where just the views of 1 man.
Nationalism was not a single vision from 1/2 man/men.


But sure, go ahead and show me a country that was purely based on the visions of marx.

The argument takes the same ridiculous form - if the doctrine isn't followed to the dotting of i's and crossing of t's, it can be disregarded as not representative.

This is obviously absurd. Marxism is synonymous with vile, murderous ideology because every damned time it's remotely implemented, the end result is brutal murders of masses.

[primalmatter]

Sure, and the good kind of nationalism has never been tried either. Any bad outcomes that look like they're related to nationalism are just people doing it wrong.

...

The good type of nationalism built the united states and the British empire...

The civilized world owes its existence to nationalism...

[JohnBrown1917]

This is obviously absurd. Marxism is synonymous with vile, murderous ideology because every damned time it's remotely implemented, the end result is brutal murders of masses.

And capitalism is synonymous with Mass poverty, slave trade and abusing lesser devolped countries, we can do this for everything.


but here is a hint, Marx's communism is stateless. So again, find me a country that fits his vision. either that, or admit Marx was not guilty for the Sovjet Gulags, Because Stalin sure as hell did not follow the vision of Marx.


Is the red scare really still so strong in the US?

- - - Updated - - -

...

The good type of nationalism built the united states and the British empire...

The civilized world owes its existence to nationalism...

I don't think using civilizations that used a lot of slaves is a good example.

[primalmatter]

And capitalism is synonymous with Mass poverty, slave trade and abusing lesser devolped countries, we can do this for everything.


but here is a hint, Marx's communism is stateless. So again, find me a country that fits his vision. either that, or admit Marx was not guilty for the Sovjet Gulags, Because Stalin sure as hell did not follow the vision of Marx.


Is the red scare really still so strong in the US?

- - - Updated - - -


I don't think using civilizations that used a lot of slaves is a good example.

Why?

The civilization that enslaved another is clearly the superior civilization.

Can you even name a country without slaves? Hell Africans are the greatest slavers in existence. It was the British empire that ended slavery in most of the world.

You have made the heroes of history into its villains and the devils into its saints...

[Endus]

The argument takes the same ridiculous form - if the doctrine isn't followed to the dotting of i's and crossing of t's, it can be disregarded as not representative.

This is obviously absurd. Marxism is synonymous with vile, murderous ideology because every damned time it's remotely implemented, the end result is brutal murders of masses.

Marxism isn't "synonymous" with anything of the sort. That's your own bias speaking. Marx's utopia was stateless. The Stalinism and such that emerged which represents those "vile ideologies" was a response to and a criticism of Marxism. It wasn't Marxist, itself. It's like claiming that the USA is a monarchy because it was originally colonized by England, which was a monarchy.

[Belize]

This is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

You don't get to determine whether someone is a "real" Muslim or not, based on your evaluation of their orthodoxy based on your interpretations of a complex document and associated texts.

This is literally no different than Catholics who say Protestants aren't "real Christians", or vice versa. It's just flat-out wrong. Every sect thinks their interpretation is "right". None of them have the final say on that.

Slightly off topic but:

What you're saying is that Islamic Terrorist are Muslims? Correct?

[primalmatter]

I'm not surprised you're pro-slavery

That isn't my point at all I would suggest actually reading then entire post and not zoning in on buzzwords. That being said lets actually see if you are against slavery.

What is better?

Working for minimum wage and not being able to afford food and shelter being forced to decide on one or the other without government assistance or working as a indentured servant?

[Endus]

Slightly off topic but:

What you're saying is that Islamic Terrorist are Muslims? Correct?

In the same sense that IRA terrorists were Christians. And John Wayne Gacy was a white man. Those don't speak to anyone else who shares those particular qualities, though, which is the point.

- - - Updated - - -

That isn't my point at all I would suggest actually reading then entire post and not zoning in on buzzwords. That being said lets actually see if you are against slavery.

What is better?

Working for minimum wage and not being able to afford food and shelter being forced to decide on one or the other without government assistance or working as a indentured servant?

I wouldn't say the two are comparable, and that it's a false dilemma in the first place. You're trying to make this about which human rights abuse is "better", when the real answer is "none of them, cut that shit out."

[zenkai]

I'm not surprised you're pro-slavery

Where did he say he was pro slavery? You're just being silly.

[Nitro Fun]

In the same sense that IRA terrorists were Christians. And John Wayne Gacy was a white man. Those don't speak to anyone else who shares those particular qualities, though, which is the point.

I don't know why you insist on mixing race into it. Being white isn't an ideology. Religion is an ideology. People who share an ideology with others have common qualities with them.

Your view of the world is not actually applicable in any sort of practical manner. You want to judge everything by the specific individuals actions but humans are not individualists or loners. Individuals do not exist in a vacuum where their behavior is not influenced by others like you seem to think.

[Deleted]

I don't know why you insist on mixing race into it. Being white isn't an ideology. Religion is an ideology. People who share an ideology with others have common qualities with them.

Your view of the world is not actually applicable in any sort of practical manner. You want to judge everything by the specific individuals actions but humans are not individualists or loners. Individuals do not exist in a vacuum where their behavior is not influenced by others like you seem to think.

And yet he also specifically mentioned religion in his first example, which is bizzarre since you couldnt have missed it.
Weird.

Anyway I... I'm speechless by the second half of your post.
Yes, each individual should be judged by his own actions. This is like... one of the pillars of any modern nation built on laws.

[May90]

Just because something is a social construct doesn't make it any less real or impactful.

Social constructs are real, but building ideology around them is pretty illogical.

This is pretty funny coming from the guy that insists that communism has just never been done right. Perhaps it's just another who-whom situation.

Nationalism is wrong at its core, at its base. Whether communism is wrong at its core is a matter of discussion, but with nationalism it is pretty apparent. In my opinion, communism can't be done right either, because it is self-contradicting ("take everything away from everyone" = "give everything to everyone" is not something that makes much sense), but it is much less apparent than with nationalism.

[JohnBrown1917]

Where did he say he was pro slavery? You're just being silly.

Implying slavers are saints seems rather obvious.

[memes]

Social constructs are real, but building ideology around them is pretty illogical.


Nationalism is wrong at its core, at its base. Whether communism is wrong at its core is a matter of discussion, but with nationalism it is pretty apparent. In my opinion, communism can't be done right either, because it is self-contradicting ("take everything away from everyone" = "give everything to everyone" is not something that makes much sense), but it is much less apparent than with nationalism.

Why would pride in your country be inherently wrong? That is the primary dictionary definition of "nationalism."