OAN Loses 1st Amendment Lawsuit to MSNBC

[Diaphin]

Snip plus mgtow talk

The reason why immigrants and generally minorities are doing worse, especially if they are non-white, is usually rooting back to white nativism and racism, which discriminates against them. Something you defend and oppose activism against, considering all of that started with your opposition of blacks being entitled to compensation for their enslavement and state sanctioned discrimination as well as your implicit approval of blacks being disproportionally brutalized by police, which is the only logical conclusion of somebody opposing a movement which only purpose it is to demonstrate against exactly that.

And you know that people have still the option and freedom for a one working and one stay at home parent household, right? The only difference is that women have the option to persue a career, being economically independent and therefore not dependend on potentially abusive husbands and delay children if they chose to do so. But generally the modern model seems to be more successful in creating more economically stable and prosperous societies compared to those which rely on traditional gender roles.

So what is their utility?

Nazi theories were supported by contemporary science too - they didn't invent them.
One of reasons USSR was against "genetics" at the time (and remember, DNA discovery came after WW2) was exactly because genetic theories were primarily tools of those who used them to support racism.
Science serving contemporary interests - while potentially still providing progress - is nothing new.

So russian socialism was not only far-right, remember when Stalin had all the jewish doctors deported?, but also anti-science. No matter it collapsed and left a bunch of religiously zealot shitholes, lol.

Absolute majority of people can fit into binary set (you can even see that in the graph in article you linked); utility, if any, of recognizing "gender outsiders" is primarily in their own self-affirmation, and every culture has plenty of alternative (and possibly better) ways of dealing with outliers then normalizing them.

The existance of outliers as well as differences in how pronounced sex characteristics still means gender and sex are both bimodal. Otherwise most online rightwingers and tankies wouldn't look like themselves but like their much more pronounced masculine looking peers. And is there a rational argument against normalization? Outside of it hurting your feelings and making you insecure about your less, probably not much, pronounced masculinity?

Muh toxic masculinity

There are women in garbage disposal though and garbage disposal usually doesn't necessates a hightened sense of violence, an inability to express vulnerability and a ridicously disproportional overrepresentation in crime, murder and rape to the point where these are near solely male actions.

[quote]Conservatism is built on preferences of both men and women. By fixing some parts of society it still allows progress in other areas.[/quite]

It isn't though. Otherwise feminists wouldn't traditionally opposed to conservatives.

You're again getting back to religious context that is irrelevant outside of US. Conservatives of the world do not have to decide their lives on "what bible says".

I'm pretty sure in your country more people believe in some magic wizard than in climate change tbh.

Which other models do you prefer?

Probably closer to the way in which we raise girls nowadays, as we already transfered many aspects of education which were reserved for men traditionally already to them. Like, in western countries, I'm not sure if in eastern europe girls aren't sold for cattle anymore. or again, all I know is that in nations like poland they are forced to breed against their will.-

How much do you think "generational wealth" people actually transfer from high socio-economic status elsewhere to US even if it were true (and that isn't necessarily true for all of them)? US is one of most costly destinations, and Nigeria seems to have average salary of ~$800 per month.

That outside status also does not shield them from discrimination.

What they definitely bring with them is different mindset.

Lol. Its the black culture dog whistle. You are a honest to god nazi xDDDD

Maybe if you never looked at them.

Straight white cishetero men.

USA has payment processors enforcing US views on morality - that is, what you call cishet men views - as we see with latest OF story.

Its called conservatism.

Socialism in Eastern Europe/USSR was definitely not market-based economy.
Production and development was based on projected needs (5 year plans) that were made by huge institutions tasked with creating them.
"Vanguard party officials" control was ephemeral - you only had it while you were in position, and anyone could be replaced if you failed to satisfy what plan demanded. And even their "privileges" would amount to difference between low middle class and average middle class nowadays.

What you describe as market-based economies are supply and demand based economies. Planned economies can still be market based. Like, you know that the USSR had currency?

Their economic struggles heightened political activism, but they never "collapsed" from economics alone.

US still has no universal healthcare, while Russia still has it from USSR times despite being capitalist now.

Many european mixed economies have them and don't force women to breed against their will though.

[Ivanstone]

He isn't getting much in results.

You're talking to me though, not to anyone with majority opinion.

It comes from same cultural root.

Sometimes it's straight - like "racial discrimination is good actually when it helps marginalized", or re-invent segregation to protect minorities from toxic whites on campus. Because they keep thinking in same racist systemic framework and trying to do good with it.

Sometimes reversed - "everything conservatives hate is actually a good thing, everything conservatives love is actually a bad thing".

...oh, and of course "Everyone's highest freedom is getting well-paid job to provide value for capitalists".

He's getting a distraction and since he polls "well" I'd say the distraction is working.

Loudly proclaiming "I'm different from those guys" is not a great defense.

Using a "both sides are the same argument" usually means you're just ashamed of your own sides actions. You won't work to find American leftists being stupid but that doesn't mean they're they same as the right wing. It just means you're assuming the opposition is as rotten as you are.

[Shalcker]

Using a "both sides are the same argument" usually means you're just ashamed of your own sides actions. You won't work to find American leftists being stupid but that doesn't mean they're they same as the right wing. It just means you're assuming the opposition is as rotten as you are.

Both sides aren't the same; but they are similar in many ways.

Ways that are detrimental to left causes elsewhere.

[Diaphin]

Both sides aren't the same; but they are similar in many ways.

Ways that are detrimental to left causes elsewhere.

Why should I support your idea of "leftism" which is basically predominantly you and people who look like you and have the same genitals as you benefiting? Like, I don't even trust you to not support the state enforcing marriages and the equal distribution of sex because it would benefit you.

[Shalcker]

The reason why immigrants and generally minorities are doing worse, especially if they are non-white, is usually rooting back to white nativism and racism, which discriminates against them. Something you defend and oppose activism against, considering all of that started with your opposition of blacks being entitled to compensation for their enslavement and state sanctioned discrimination as well as your implicit approval of blacks being disproportionally brutalized by police, which is the only logical conclusion of somebody opposing a movement which only purpose it is to demonstrate against exactly that.

No, that isn't the only logical conclusion. Every problem has multiple potential solutions. I already said why i oppose it - because it perpetuates dependent culture and reinforces already existing discrimination.

And you cannot link everything to racism - as you already know some discriminated immigrant categories do better then immigrant "whites" (who are also far from being uniform set of ethnicities and cultures).

Can you imagine any other reason then "muh racism"? Or are you so deep in Western racist culture you see absolutely no other considerations?

And you know that people have still the option and freedom for a one working and one stay at home parent household, right? The only difference is that women have the option to persue a career, being economically independent and therefore not dependend on potentially abusive husbands and delay children if they chose to do so. But generally the modern model seems to be more successful in creating more economically stable and prosperous societies compared to those which rely on traditional gender roles.

So what is their utility?

As long as immigrants keep flowing - as you yourself consider it "more efficient" then rising kids "in economically stable and prosperous" countries.

Large part of Western "prosperity" is debt-funded. Which is also, like women exploitation, approach of getting things now by having less later.

If Western societies are so prosperous why do you think they keep rising retirement age? Couldn't they afford to keep it?

So russian socialism was not only far-right, remember when Stalin had all the jewish doctors deported?, but also anti-science. No matter it collapsed and left a bunch of religiously zealot shitholes, lol.

Yeah, totally anti-science - bunch of shamans beat US into space and built nuclear and thermonuclear bombs to get to mutually assured destruction. /s

No, they were materialist and thought of sciences as the only way civilization could improve. But science isn't monolith - there are many approaches, many branches, and at the time genetics was just one of many theories, and they had no time machine to know which one will win in the end - and had political battles to fight with it against racists, just like you do now with "bimodal genders".

And you're again trying to paint something as far right which was actually far left. Authoritarian left approaches exist.

The existance of outliers as well as differences in how pronounced sex characteristics still means gender and sex are both bimodal. Otherwise most online rightwingers and tankies wouldn't look like themselves but like their much more pronounced masculine looking peers. And is there a rational argument against normalization? Outside of it hurting your feelings and making you insecure about your less, probably not much, pronounced masculinity?

Since you think feelings don't matter, what is your actual argument for spending an effort on normalization of those outliers?
"Bimodal" approach is fine as scientific theory, but it doesn't prescribe how society should deal with every point on the axis.

There are women in garbage disposal though and garbage disposal usually doesn't necessates a hightened sense of violence, an inability to express vulnerability and a ridicously disproportional overrepresentation in crime, murder and rape to the point where these are near solely male actions.

Increased risk-taking and associated behaviors (including criminal ones) are at least partially driven by hormonal differences (women with increased testosterone also take greater risks) and cannot be fully fixed by cultural measures alone.

And society needs both risk-taking and risk-avoidance to arrive at better outcomes.

It isn't though. Otherwise feminists wouldn't traditionally opposed to conservatives.

No, this argument doesn't work. It was simply area conservatives wanted to stay the same. Still largely do.

Like, what would you think of going away from marriage and family system altogether? If conservatives are always wrong, surely it is better to do different then trying to shoehorn every new focus group into old system and fight for inclusion. /s

I'm pretty sure in your country more people believe in some magic wizard than in climate change tbh.

Another Western pet issue. Climate change is going to be great for Russia (once infrastructure against floods and droughts will be set up, and things relying on permafrost being "permanent" rebuilt).

But we'll still take your money for green energy and play carbon reducing games!

Probably closer to the way in which we raise girls nowadays, as we already transfered many aspects of education which were reserved for men traditionally already to them. Like, in western countries, I'm not sure if in eastern europe girls aren't sold for cattle anymore. or again, all I know is that in nations like poland they are forced to breed against their will.-

...what? ...i don't even... What kind of fanfiction are you reading about Eastern Europe?

no counterargument, still trying to shoehorn views into American dichotomy

Weak.

What you describe as market-based economies are supply and demand based economies. Planned economies can still be market based. Like, you know that the USSR had currency?

No, that isn't how it works.

market economy (noun)

an economic system in which production and prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses.

planned economy (noun)

an economy in which production, investment, prices, and incomes are determined centrally by the government.

example: "a shift from a planned economy towards a market system"

Many european mixed economies have them and don't force women to breed against their will though.

Eastern European socialism wasn't mixed economy.

mixed economy (noun)

an economic system combining private and state enterprise.

It was all state enterprises.

Modern Russia is mixed economy. Modern China is mixed economy. Neither USSR nor it's satellites were.

[Diaphin]

No, that isn't the only logical conclusion. Every problem has multiple potential solutions. I already said why i oppose it - because it perpetuates dependent culture and reinforces already existing discrimination.

No, race and IQ or black culture is not the final solution mein Kamerad.

And you cannot link everything to racism - as you already know some discriminated immigrant categories do better then immigrant "whites" (who are also far from being uniform set of ethnicities and cultures).

Actually yes, because we talk about an immigration system which will only legally allow highly educated people to enter, if you talk about whites. Also, you know that your argument is exactly the same as racists in the Us use? Suspicious. Very Suspicious.

Can you imagine any other reason then "muh racism"? Or are you so deep in Western racist culture you see absolutely no other considerations?

Yeah. Due to a lack of systemic oppression, in the case of eastern europe generational proverty is actually just bad economic structures imploding the state and forcing it to sell itself out.

As long as immigrants keep flowing - as you yourself consider it "more efficient" then rising kids "in economically stable and prosperous" countries.

Large part of Western "prosperity" is debt-funded. Which is also, like women exploitation, approach of getting things now by having less later.

If Western societies are so prosperous why do you think they keep rising retirement age? Couldn't they afford to keep it?

1. It also makes the populace more beautiful
2. And in eastern europe, it is funded by EU handouts so that people don't starve on the streets. Also, have you considered that maybe women rather want to work and become economically independent than living to serve men who hold total economic power over them and are statistically prone to abusive behavior and murder? Like, did you even ever talk to a woman? Which is an important question because most of the socially conservative but economically socialist types I've met so far tend to be Incels. Which makes sense, it is a position which basically just appeals to angry regressive men who failed at the capitalist system and now actively seek handouts.
3. Growing average Age, restrictive immigration laws which won't allow for the average age to pushed down but also advances in science and medicine as well as less physically exhausting labour environments on average making it so, that people stay healthy for a longer period of time. Also not being able to fund ones economy purely through EU money while slacking off, smacking the gays and forcing women to breed with rapey incels.

Yeah, totally anti-science - bunch of shamans beat US into space and built nuclear and thermonuclear bombs to get to mutually assured destruction. /s

And then they forever lacked behind.

No, they were materialist and thought of sciences as the only way civilization could improve. But science isn't monolith - there are many approaches, many branches, and at the time genetics was just one of many theories, and they had no time machine to know which one will win in the end - and had political battles to fight with it against racists, just like you do now with "bimodal genders".

They suppressed it even after being proven. And most of the time, they had to do more things like spying on their own population because they could listen to american radio?

And you're again trying to paint something as far right which was actually far left. Authoritarian left approaches exist.

Autoritarian leftists are usually just rightwingers who like the aesthetics of Stalin. Look at China, doing the muslim genocide thing but mixing it with jewish genocide aesthetics.

Since you think feelings don't matter, what is your actual argument for spending an effort on normalization of those outliers?
"Bimodal" approach is fine as scientific theory, but it doesn't prescribe how society should deal with every point on the axis.

Because there is no social harm in doing so, while fighting against the normalization of outliers ends up in othering and dehumanization which on the other hand inflicts social harm on people? Its like, remember all the times you tried to talk to girls but they rejected you? Its like that, only in my example you were at fault and women have a right to be causcious and care about their own safety more than about male emotions.

Increased risk-taking and associated behaviors (including criminal ones) are at least partially driven by hormonal differences (women with increased testosterone also take greater risks) and cannot be fully fixed by cultural measures alone.

It can be greatly mitigated by not encouraging boys? Like, current male socialization is basically the equivalent of telling a person with paranoid-schizophrenia that they should listen to the voices.

And society needs both risk-taking and risk-avoidance to arrive at better outcomes.

And what has this to do with specifically socialization a class of humans to engage in violent behavior, especially against another class of humans out of injected feelings of entitlement and to bottle up their emotions until they kill themselves, sometimes before killing others?

No, this argument doesn't work. It was simply area conservatives wanted to stay the same. Still largely do.

Why is it so that every area where conservatives fight culturally the hardest have to do with whether or not another people get to have the same civil, social and human rights than others? Like, name me one conservative issue which doesn't boils down to conservatives fighting against people having their rights.

Like, what would you think of going away from marriage and family system altogether? If conservatives are always wrong, surely it is better to do different then trying to shoehorn every new focus group into old system and fight for inclusion. /s

Or maybe just keep things optional and let everyone do their shit? What is socially broken by same-sex marriage, outside of your emotions? How is same sex marriage objectively harmful to society.

Another Western pet issue. Climate change is going to be great for Russia (once infrastructure against floods and droughts will be set up, and things relying on permafrost being "permanent" rebuilt).

So you advocate for global genocide for the sake of your nation? Like a...nazi?

But we'll still take your money for green energy and play carbon reducing games!

You know that the moment the west moves away from russian gas, russians economy will become unable to sustain itself, collape and possibly be bailed out by China so that the circle has become complete, the student becoming the master and the former master becoming a failed state vasall of china?

...what? ...i don't even... What kind of fanfiction are you reading about Eastern Europe?

Its like how people perceive you at the friendliest. Like, at best your home is a regressive religiously fanatical borderline fascist shithole. At worst, britain leaves the EU so that your people can't enter its borders legally anymore.

Weak.

Care to explain to me why? Like, I already explained to you being a national bolshevik. Its a losers position.

No, that isn't how it works.

market economy (noun)

an economic system in which production and prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses.

planned economy (noun)

an economy in which production, investment, prices, and incomes are determined centrally by the government.

example: "a shift from a planned economy towards a market system"

Source please? BEcause thats on hell of a unique take on market based economies.

Eastern European socialism wasn't mixed economy.

mixed economy (noun)

an economic system combining private and state enterprise.

It was all state enterprises.

Modern Russia is mixed economy. Modern China is mixed economy. Neither USSR nor it's satellites were.

I mean, they kinda wear as they were state capitalist. Like, they were the model of mixed economies for people who have no ideas about how economies work. Which is why they were full of famines.

[Shalcker]

Actually yes, because we talk about an immigration system which will only legally allow highly educated people to enter, if you talk about whites.

Yeah. Due to a lack of systemic oppression, in the case of eastern europe generational proverty is actually just bad economic structures imploding the state and forcing it to sell itself out.

You are arguing against your own point. Some groups are discriminated against in USA through racist contexts (asians, black). Some aren't (like East Europeans). Are you trying to say that Nigerians aren't disadvantaged but East Europeans are? Despite both having same requirements and challenges for immigration?

Second generations of them use same US education system as everyone else, same economic opportunities, and face same discrimination. Some of those "discriminated against due to racism" categories still do better then those who aren't, and manage to build up generational wealth faster then "multigenerational US-born" in same category.

What is your explanation for some categories managing to overcome US racism handicap?
How strong do you think various components of handicap are?
90% racism 5% culture 5% previous status? 33% racism 33% culture 33% previous status? 5% racism 5% culture 90% previous status?

1. It also makes the populace more beautiful

Ah, so you're into eugenics from beauty side, okay.

2. And in eastern europe, it is funded by EU handouts so that people don't starve on the streets. Also, have you considered that maybe women rather want to work and become economically independent than living to serve men who hold total economic power over them and are statistically prone to abusive behavior and murder? Like, did you even ever talk to a woman? Which is an important question because most of the socially conservative but economically socialist types I've met so far tend to be Incels. Which makes sense, it is a position which basically just appeals to angry regressive men who failed at the capitalist system and now actively seek handouts.

Modern Russia has better gender equality then modern USA (with exception to politics).
Russian women have higher labour force participation rate, better wage equality, and hold more executive positions (but less political ones). Also mandatory maternity leave (paid by employer).

3. Growing average Age, restrictive immigration laws which won't allow for the average age to pushed down but also advances in science and medicine as well as less physically exhausting labour environments on average making it so, that people stay healthy for a longer period of time. Also not being able to fund ones economy purely through EU money while slacking off, smacking the gays and forcing women to breed with rapey incels.

Even EU donor states are doing it, not just the ones that are getting EU money, so your explanation fails on basic level.

And then they forever lacked behind.

No, that isn't how it worked, sorry. In plenty of areas USSR remained competitive, and remains competitive to this day.

Like C19 vaccines today.

They suppressed it even after being proven.

Nope.

And most of the time, they had to do more things like spying on their own population because they could listen to american radio?

Which has nothing to do with science; at the same time USA had McCarthy communist witch hunts.

Because there is no social harm in doing so, while fighting against the normalization of outliers ends up in othering and dehumanization which on the other hand inflicts social harm on people?

While promoting that you're othering conservatives though. The entire thing is "other and dehumanize conservatives" (half of your freaking country) vs "other 1% minority". The calculation of where most benefit to society goes to is quite clear.

It can be greatly mitigated by not encouraging boys? Like, current male socialization is basically the equivalent of telling a person with paranoid-schizophrenia that they should listen to the voices.

USSR had similar aspirations to change people's nature. Like "New Soviet Man".

It didn't work. I'm not seeing humans changing in intervening years enough to make such "great mitigation" possible. What you're seeing now is already greatly mitigated.

People latch on narratives that fit their own experiences, and men's experience is different from women's experience in too many ways. Telling paranoid-schizophrenic "not to listen to voices" would have about same (low) success rate - he might even agree that he shouldn't but put him under stress and off the meds and he'll still snap.

And what has this to do with specifically socialization a class of humans to engage in violent behavior, especially against another class of humans out of injected feelings of entitlement and to bottle up their emotions until they kill themselves, sometimes before killing others?

It mostly channels their human experience into things helpful for society. Greater variance means both more "best" and more "worst" outcomes.

Socialized belief in your own ability means they try to succeed more (because they believe they can if they put enough effort) and prove their ability to others more. And that succeeds more often then it fails.

You're trying to remove failures but doing that will also remove successes.

Why is it so that every area where conservatives fight culturally the hardest have to do with whether or not another people get to have the same civil, social and human rights than others? Like, name me one conservative issue which doesn't boils down to conservatives fighting against people having their rights.

They are dealing with narratives that re-imagine something as "same right" that was never intended to be used that way.

Or maybe just keep things optional and let everyone do their shit? What is socially broken by same-sex marriage, outside of your emotions? How is same sex marriage objectively harmful to society.

Like marriage benefits always being in large part for benefit of offspring (real or potential) rather then "any two random people connecting".

So you advocate for global genocide for the sake of your nation? Like a...nazi?

Where did you see "advocating for global genocide"? Stop talking to voices in your head.
I even agreed to carbon reducing emissions - though preferably if you pay for it. Because you're the ones who are going to be more impacted by it (in absolute numbers), you're the ones who done most of emissions before, and you're "stable and prosperous" enough to afford it.

You know that the moment the west moves away from russian gas, russians economy will become unable to sustain itself, collape and possibly be bailed out by China so that the circle has become complete, the student becoming the master and the former master becoming a failed state vasall of china?

You understand that Russia has 5th place in the world by foreign reserves? That it is self-sufficient on food and is major grain exporter?

And "moving away from Russian gas" is not happening anytime soon - especially with push to renewables, as gas power plants are most economic way to provide electricity when renewables hit the lull. And Europe will still need gas to heat up houses in increasingly more frequent low temperatures too (because climate change means more highs and lows).

Care to explain to me why? Like, I already explained to you being a national bolshevik. Its a losers position.

How does name-calling someone as "nazi" or "nat-bolshevik" shows strength of your own viewpoint? You seem to link it to some kind of rebuttal in your mind that you cannot articulate. Maybe you should spell out counter-argument rather then stopping at naming it ("oh, it's argument 23!" "...and?")

Source please? BEcause thats on hell of a unique take on market based economies.

Where are you getting your definitions from? And what are they?
That is what google shows you from "market economy definition" and "planned economy definition", using Oxford Languages database.

I mean, they kinda wear as they were state capitalist. Like, they were the model of mixed economies for people who have no ideas about how economies work. Which is why they were full of famines.

You don't seem to grasp how different USSR system was. You think of it as "capitalism, but less efficient".

The purpose of capitalism is profit extraction. That was never purpose of socialist states. Mixed economy is where some are allowed to get private profits and in some enterprises State is the one managing and/or benefiting from them directly (rather then through taxation); some of commonly accepted private capitalist activities like reselling for profit was criminal under USSR brand of socialism (up to two years in prison with possibility of asset seizure).

USSR also had no famines after 1948.