Gender Equality Action Plan

[Mcarcherey]

You need to read what I wrote instead of not reading it and thinking that I wrote something else.

I compared North to Peterson because they both value hard work and not squibbing - not to say he doesn't. I was saying that is a good thing. The opposite of what you said.

The reddit comment you were to snobbish to read is from someone who is defending Peterson and pointing out the positives he has. I acknowledged them and said they are worthy of respect. Not whatever rubbish you posted. (Frankly the way that comment was treated by other posters - lefty posters - was appalling.)

None of the studies I posted were the sort of academic tripe you are referring to, even the ones I posted ages ago collected data and studied it. They had numbers and repeatable methods for collecting those numbers. So they are falsifiable. Do you know what that means? FFS.

The trouble with you is you're arguing with what you think I've said not what I've actually said. Fair enough tho. Its the only way you'll win.

Have fun.

"the only way you'll win" - now that's your problem. i've argued with you numerous times here and it's pointless, you bring up points that you whole-heartily think support your argument and they in fact don't (they often do the opposite). you've straw-manned my comments (and many others) to make them constantly about JP or capitalism vs communism. you constantly skew the argument to suit your own agenda and even then it's a weak argument.

i'm not here to "win" because this isn't a debate where there is a vote at the end.

you're always going to think you've "won" in your own head - hence it's pointless to argue with you.

 

[Snake_Baker]

FFS ferby, that's an ADL chart from a wiki page.

You're better than that.

I wouldn't wipe my arse with that thing.

 

[ferball]

Its at least as accurate as the comment it was in response to. Most of the violence in the US of a political (not criminal) nature comes from white supremacist groups. Significantly so.

 

[ferball]

"the only way you'll win" - now that's your problem. i've argued with you numerous times here and it's pointless, you bring up points that you whole-heartily think support your argument and they in fact don't (they often do the opposite). you've straw-manned my comments (and many others) to make them constantly about JP or capitalism vs communism. you constantly skew the argument to suit your own agenda and even then it's a weak argument.

i'm not here to "win" because this isn't a debate where there is a vote at the end.

you're always going to think you've "won" in your own head - hence it's pointless to argue with you.

What are you saying?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Its at least as accurate as the comment it was in response to. Most of the violence in the US of a political (not criminal) nature comes from white supremacist groups. Significantly so.

The radical left has a significantly higher representation of women, so there's nothing remarkable about that.

Gender, age, stable employment, socioeconomic status and childhood stability are much greater predictors.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Its at least as accurate as the comment it was in response to. Most of the violence in the US of a political (not criminal) nature comes from white supremacist groups. Significantly so.

And said violence pales in comparison to left-wing terrorism and insurgencies outside the West. Tit for tat in terms of global political violence does not exactly come out favorably for the far left.

The radical left has a significantly higher representation of women, so there's nothing remarkable about that.

Gender, age, stable employment, socioeconomic status and childhood stability are much greater predictors.

The West's radical left has never had the same level of grievances as other global leftist movements, while the radical right has been helped by the proliferation of prison gangs like the AB, the far left have never been able to harnass the use of prison gang recruitment, not that I am complaining. The incorporation of green and feminist groups into the West's leftist movements has also limited the left's tendency to use violence to achieve their political aims, plus they have other avenues to use in stable democracies. Men are also, generally speaking, more likely to carry out their methods more violently than women (i.e. suicide) to achieve their aims, which is not a slight on men, but controlled aggression is what men do best, so your point is spot on.

 

[Tas]

Sorry to jump in... (Yeah really sorry )



LOL.

JFK was killed by aliens. Everyone knows that.

Aliens? We didn't even land on the moon and the world is flat. :stern look

Man, whenever I feel down I get on twitter and follow some flat-earther, no matter how down you are or how crazy you think you are, there is some perverse pleasure out of knowing you are not that far gone.

First of all when it comes to foreign policy Obama is a black Dubya. He should be called the Obomber given what the US did during his admin.

Republicans weren't 'that' fond of Bush jnr, he was a dope smoking idealist, he was somewhat of an environmentalist who wanted to shut down the coal electricity plants and had other ideologies which weren't text book republican, however, the blackouts occurred in LA and that was pretty much it, after the social anarchy that ensured he realised his hands were tied and he was being manipulated by far more powerful people. Politics is messy, it is rarely as black and white as people like to think it is.

Secondly ICE now operates with what appears to be impunity and expanded powers beyond what Obama and Bush allowed. At least that's what I have heard from friends in the US recently. Its a fair point about the selective outrage tho. Some progressives in the US voted for Clinton at the last election to protect their privilege despite the fact that she is a war monger with no compunction about blowing the **** out of foreigners for shot term political gains. Ruling class hypocrites like that can GAGF.

I think Clinton, the inhaler, had a platform of being strict on border control back in 1995, his rhetoric was almost identical to that of Trump. The only difference is that Trump is a moron and is incapable of articulating it any better and he lacks any real empathy.

If Trump said he was going to be aggressive to help fix the problems in those countries that are the major source of the mass migration then he could have achieved the same result without being an arseh*le. Putting up a big wall doesn't stop the problem, it just leaves the problem in Mexico and you don't want those displaced people stuck in Mexico if you have any shred of humanity.

That's not just (added that word on edit) why people are fleeing those places. Part of it is simply the whole "Advertise a bullshit lifestyle and immigration is your new problem" thing. Mostly its cos of decades of corruption and broken politics, much of it on the back of US interference to guarantee banana supply and related stuff.

Also see the School of the Americas.

Also legalise coke then the US can't use the profits to fund their intelligence agencies' black ops. Or at the very least allow their allies to grow rich dealing coke and use the money to fund guns to send to Iran or something.

That reason that I used was what Amnesty International claimed was the reason for them leaving, I have no reason to believe those people at ground level would have made an error or have a reason to misrepresent it.

According to the "Its Happening" gif guy Dubya's dad - the first Bush pres knew all about the importation of Cocaine into the US via CIA protected back channels as part of the Iran Contra deal and if anything possibly made money off it himself (tho thats hard to take seriously. He was in Dallas the day the aliens got JFK tho.).

There is a lot of speculation about what the CIA and other "intelligence" arms have done, not sure where the truth starts or ends to be honest. I think it is fair to say that whatever problem exist in South America, the United States has played a significant role, directly or indirectly, in causing a lot of the problems that exist and should take a far more pro-active role in fixing the problems.

Los Zetas was formed by former members of central american military forces who had graduated from the School of the Americas. FWIW.

Much of this sounds similar to some of what happened under regimes like Pinichet's at places like Colonia Digidad.

I am not sure and it doesn't have much relevance, all I know is that it is extremely dangerous for anyone to make the trek through Mexico.

I agree. Central America is ****** over big time. A large reason for that is US corporate exploitation.

These places weren't exactly bastions of human civilisations prior to corporate exploitation, and to some extent that type of corporate investment usually sows the seeds of wealth generation for poorer countries even though there is a period of development. Ie, we exploited the Japanese, the Taiwanese, the Koreans and they have undergone significant growth as nations but these countries have largely been nations free of self-destructive extremism.

There isn't a bleeding heart Liberal that is not going to buy the newest iPhone even though China has to put bars on the windows of Apple factories so the employees aren't motivated to jump out of the window to end their misery. Our sensibilities only go so far. As inhumane as that is, the exploitation of the Chinese is giving them the wealth to change their nation for the better. As shit as it is for the current generation, it at least creates the foundations for future generations to piss on the sacrifices that they have made, like our current generations do.

The point is the left and right extremism is always going to exist, why do you want to import more problems? It is not like Sweden or France or Great Britain has shown there is meaningful assimilation. I am not suggesting any country should ban Muslims and I think as a very small minority they pose no real problem in a western society for the ones who prefer to live in a western society with western values. But there are some that obviously do not want that but migrate regardless for the economic opportunities. That can be a recipe for disaster.

Some would say that it is Islamophobic to say that, but it is only a phobia if the fear is extreme or irrational. I've never met a Muslim I didn't like and I hope that remains that way but if Melbourne was suddenly 50% Muslim, there would be a significant change and I don't think it would be a change that would be in the spirit of Western values.

I think that people have the right to believe in any religion they want, however, if I was going to migrate to a foreign country I would have to be totally compatible with whatever their values were. I couldn't go live in a country that put a bag over women or stoned them to death for adultery. It would be ridiculous for me to go move to one of these countries then go on a rampage because there is an incompatibility. If everyone there wanted to live in dark ages it would be me at fault for wanting to go there, not their fault for wanting to live like that.

Melbourne and Sydney are now 20% Asian, there is no rampage in Bourke street by a Chinese man because he can't get a deep fried scorpion on a stick. We have cultural differences but our values are compatible. There is a lot to gain from multiculturalism when values are the same. There are numerous Muslims who want to live in a country with Western values and I think it is great that we welcome them in. I think it is reckless and naive to just open the floodgates though and let anyone in.

It doesn't always work when you're black. Plus people should be allowed to assert their rights. Allowing the police to do what they want and overstep their authority means you have surrendered your rights as a free citizen. The US police system is over militarised and treats situations as problems to be solved by violence.

I understand that and I do realise that black people have a terrible time with police and idealistically they shouldn't. However, everyone needs to have the self-awareness that what you do, what you say and how you react could put your life in danger, even if you are completely innocent. For the sake of self-preservation, it doesn't matter what lengths you have to go to in order to not appear as a threat, you should do that to ensure you are not beaten to death, choked out or shot. What kind of indignity will you be subjected to that is worth putting your life at risk? Having to go quietly to a police station to make a statement or go into a lineup? Is that worth getting killed over?

I've never been forced to go to the police station or have to go through any kind of indignity and I don't think anyone innocent should have, but if I had to do it 10, 20 or 100 times during my lifetime it would more than likely make me resentful, however, I still wouldn't do anything that would put my life at risk.

Idealistically, I should be able to take a walk down the streets of Dandenong at 3am without being stabbed for loose change by some drug addict. I don't do that because I value my life. It might not happen to me, I might walk down the street a thousand times and nothing bad might happen to me but you are rolling to dice. People instinctively do not take unnecessary life-threatening risks.

it is similar to the almost neurotic reaction by feminists when police told women they had to be aware of their surroundings and it was unwise to be walking in the park at 3am alone after that lady was r*ped and murdered by a psychopath. Sure, idealistically there wouldn't be any psychopaths running around and people can walk around naked in the middle of the night without being r*ped or killed. But there are psychopaths running around, not a lot, but everyone need to take precautions to ensure their own safety. It is better to be a realist and alive than a dead idealist.

There is also a huge undercurrent of racism. You probably haven't seen the various leaks of documents, police newsletters etc etc that have come out over the last decade especially that show the levels of disfunction in US police departments. Its not like the shooting of Tamir Rice was a surprise. Have you bseen the video? Or the dashcam video of John T Williams being shot by coppers.

The stuff in the (secret till leaked in the aftermath of Williams' murder by Police officer Ian Birk.^) Seattle PDs internal newsletter (which I've seen, I had a friend who worked on the Seattle social justice coalition or whatever it was. QA real life SJW!! ) was disgusting and in some ways predicted the next 5 years of over the top police shootings.

There is definitely some horrific shit going on and I think the authorities there have been negligent in terms of being slow to address it. However, I don't think it is indicative of the entire police force.

Tell that to the people of Brazil.

Brazil is one of those shithole countries that suffers from massive corruption and extremism, it goes from fascist dictator to Marxist revolutionary and as the pendulum swings from one extreme to the other, nothing changes for the destitute who become the human garbage that clog the streets that are ignored by both extremes.

Most people in the west aren't dumb enough to believe either extremist position. It is why it doesn't matter if we have a left or right government, it wont get into power unless it conforms to centrism and while that means we will have repugnant ideals, like allowing our governments to send refuges to off-shore concentration camps, we generally have little tolerance for extremist positions.

It doesn't really matter if the ideology is right or left wing if its backed by an authoritarian, or authoritarian totalitarian government that is where the trouble comes from. If anything Authoritarianism is the real threat to people, not what side of the political spectrum it emerges from.

Exactly, there are two axis, from conservative to libertarian to liberal while the other axis is the individualist to collectivist axis. Everything bad is on the collectivist side of the axis, authoritarianism is a collectivist trait, be it far right fascism (the authoritarian right) or far left socalism (the authoritarian left).

There are democratic socialist governments all over europe and they do all right.

Democratic socialism is a capitalist economy that uses taxation to fund social programs, it has nothing to do with socialism. They function because incentive and property rights are intact.

The real issue isn't socialism or capitalism its the limitation of the abuse of power by democratic institutions. If that happens then usually societies will function reasonably well.

No, there has never been a functional socialist/communist economy because it is unable to even get the basic function of society functional, that is to feed people because ultimately, farmers are land owners and have the incentive to work hard and grow surplus food so they can sell off the surplus for profit and create the wealth required for season variability. This premise just doesn't function under a socialist or communist model.

Socialism hasn't figured out how to get farmers to slave away for no reward while urban comrades do the bare minimum required. The result has been tens of millions dying of starvation and we can see how quickly the rot sets in when you look at Venezuela citizens, previously one of the more prosperous South American nation which now resembles an episode of Walking Dead where people need to scavenge, looting and ransacking to eat, where pets are a source of protein and people will mob someone else's animal in a field bludgeoning it with rocks and ripping it apart like animals.

There is no investment in infrastructure, with socialism you basically have whatever you had when it was built with a previous economic model until socialism runs it into the ground, what little innovation exists is in the form of military or intelligence innovation that seeks to hold on to power as long as humanly possible while the leaders of the political party amass the wealth stolen from the people who they had murdered.

I think people in civilised western societies wants to do everything humanly possible and create more social programs, as much as we can reasonably afford to do and things like our health care system and subsidised education and other social programs are the type of things we voluntarily do as a civilised society.

You can't get a functional system out of one that is basically steal everything. Most right wing people realise that far right movements are built around ridiculous principles and distance themselves from lunatics on the far right who are a staggering small minority, it would be considered grotesque to use fascist imagery. You have to ask yourself why Liberals are so far detached from reality that they can't draw the same things from far left movements. Take the absurd support the mainstream has given Antifa for the longest time, who have painted slogans like "Liberals get the bullett too". You have people proudly identify themselves as Communists, wear the hammer and sickle image. I have friends that fled soviet death squads from Ukraine. People are so sensitive about far right movements but are oblivious of what they promote or celebrate or stand for. It is mind blowing. In every sense they are as bad as Nazis yet "intellectuals" celebrate or identify with them.

It is a dangerous time when the Starbuck Socialists are out and about. They have no idea what it is they are asking for but they are going to end up in the front of the queue of the landfill.

If men can't handle this sort of shit stirring from women then perhaps the entire lot of us need daily glasses of cement added to our diet. i read that article and its not unreasonable.

What are you saying, that men should have to tolerate abuse? We are scratching our heads and wonder why a section of men turn into a piece of shit human being and think they just fall out of the sky being campaigners.

We wouldn't tolerate men saying the same kind of shit about women. They would be called out and as much as I believe in the freedom of speech, I also believe in the consequences of free speech. We have a double standard in terms of what we accept or tolerate when it comes from men or women. That isn't a position of equality.

People who think women are weak or inferior believe they have the right to lash out because they are weak or inferior. I don't believe they are and think they should be held to the same standards. That is what equality is afterall, no?

If it was just one person it would be water off a duck's back, someone is just an arseh*le. When there is a barrage of similar sentiment that you are a piece of shit then it is going to impact some people very negatively and as a society, everyone pays the consequences.

How many babies get drowned every week in Australia?

I have no idea, you wont find the data published and you are a misogynist for even asking.

However, it is something usually only mothers do and there is an attempt to understand or sympathise with them, that they are a victim who was suffering some psychological issue, but sometimes these have been acts done in spite of a spouse leaving or sometimes they just didn't want to be a mother, wanted to go back to partying but didn't want to deal with the negative stigma of abandoning the baby for adoption. They aren't all victims.

Men kill slightly more children than women do but they are always portrayed as monsters, they cop far harsher sentencing than women who take the lives under the same circumstances and there are constant campaigns against men for domestic violence but as a society we can't even bring up that it is about a 55/45 split and quite often victims of child abuse are abandoned to female abusers because as a society we can't even approach the subject.

There are next to no shelters for male victims of violence, people have the inhumanity to suggest they should toughen up. I've never been the victim of abuse or violence but I think it would be shattering if society turned it's back on you just because you were male.

And we wonder why some men end up growing up psychologically damaged and commit heinous crimes against other women who do not deserve it. We can't have regressive ideas and hope to become more progressive.

Yeah, we absolutely must do what it takes to get female victims of abuse to zero, we must address that abuse comes from both men and women and the vast majority of abusers are part of a cyclical problem of abuse from fathers and/or mothers. You can't solve the problem by telling the vast majority of men who aren't part of this cyclical problem and aren't likely to abuse to not abuse women, it is asinine to expect it to have any impact whatsoever.

Unless they are the entire Australian Media talking about Julia Gillard, who should be drowned in a chaff bag, stabbed or cut throated, kicked to death or killed in other ways etc etc. Alan Jones, Steve Chiobo and Grahame Morris all kept their jobs.

I hope you are not equating a single high profile political leader with generic gender wide generalities.

You know something? Maybe its time for an intelligent public debate about that. What do you reckon?

Give it a go. What is equality to you?

Humanity won't even get thru this century. The planet is ****** and so are we.

I think we will endure no matter the hurdles.

 

[Groin guru]

We didn't even land on the moon

The most accurate thing said in this thread!

 

[Tas]

The most accurate thing said in this thread!

I love conspiracy theories, more for the amusement factor. It would have been harder to do a production of a moon landing and keep it a secret than to actually land on the moon.

I love sending this image to flat-earthers. My favourite is listening to them call up on programs and try and convince astrophysicists and astronauts that they are part of some grand conspiracy.

 

[Groin guru]

I love conspiracy theories, more for the amusement factor. It would have been harder to do a production of a moon landing and keep it a secret than to actually land on the moon.

I love sending this image to flat-earthers. My favourite is listening to them call up on programs and try and convince astrophysicists and astronauts that they are part of some grand conspiracy.

I must admit it's a joy of mine too. I spent far too long reading about the JFK shooting, 9/11, and the moon landing (including Jesse Ventura's American Conspiracies and 63 documents). I also enjoy Alex Jones' rants - yes he's over the top at times but I do find him amusing.

The flat Earth thing i next level...

 

[Snake_Baker]

And said violence pales in comparison to left-wing terrorism and insurgencies outside the West. Tit for tat in terms of global political violence does not exactly come out favorably for the far left..

I don't think ferby bothered to factor Stalin and Mao.

 

[Mcarcherey]

I must admit it's a joy of mine too. I spent far too long reading about the JFK shooting, 9/11, and the moon landing (including Jesse Ventura's American Conspiracies and 63 documents). I also enjoy Alex Jones' rants - yes he's over the top at times but I do find him amusing.

The flat Earth thing i next level...

 

[ferball]

The radical left has a significantly higher representation of women, so there's nothing remarkable about that.

Gender, age, stable employment, socioeconomic status and childhood stability are much greater predictors.

1/ Is there any data for that?

2/ What is the radical left?

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

1/ Is there any data for that?

2/ What is the radical left?

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/the...e-more-left-wing-than-men-study-reveals-95624

Hardline socialist elements, communists, anarchists, militant/radical feminists, ultra environmentalist groups and the combination of all various above groups like anarco-communists.

 

[ferball]

I don't think ferby bothered to factor Stalin and Mao.

Dude!!!

It doesn't really matter if the ideology is right or left wing if its backed by an authoritarian, or authoritarian totalitarian government that is where the trouble comes from. If anything Authoritarianism is the real threat to people, not what side of the political spectrum it emerges from.

The real issue isn't socialism or capitalism its the limitation of the abuse of power by democratic institutions. If that happens then usually societies will function reasonably well.

 

[ferball]

I didn't want that to end. Cheers.

 

[Snake_Baker]

1/ Is there any data for that?

https://theconversation.com/young-women-are-more-left-wing-than-men-study-reveals-95624

2/ What is the radical left?

The humanities/sociology radicals pertaining to the relevance of this thread.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Dude!!!

Okay, pick the timeline that suits you.

 

[ferball]

And said violence pales in comparison to left-wing terrorism and insurgencies outside the West. Tit for tat in terms of global political violence does not exactly come out favorably for the far left.

Does it? I think if you unpacked it all you'd find something very different. Ho Chi Mihn wrote to Truman repeatedly after ww2 asking for support against the colonialists who surrendered his country to the Japanese because he admired America and wanted a state like the US in Vietnam. If you count all the deaths caused by the Commies in Vietnam over two wars you have to understand those wouldn't have happened if we (and our allies) had stood by the principles we claim to regarding democracy freedom and all the rest of it.

You can't just go from a specific discussion of dangers in the US and a comparison between what we think are the worst perps and what actually are the worst perps to saying "Yeah but globally lefty's do all the killing" without acknowledging the circumstances that lead to those situations in the first place.

The truthful answer to what ideology caused the deaths in Vietnam over decades is nationalism and its a justified nationalism given the history of the Vietnamese. For example.

The West's radical left has never had the same level of grievances as other global leftist movements, while the radical right has been helped by the proliferation of prison gangs like the AB, the far left have never been able to harnass the use of prison gang recruitment, not that I am complaining. The incorporation of green and feminist groups into the West's leftist movements has also limited the left's tendency to use violence to achieve their political aims, plus they have other avenues to use in stable democracies. Men are also, generally speaking, more likely to carry out their methods more violently than women (i.e. suicide) to achieve their aims, which is not a slight on men, but controlled aggression is what men do best, so your point is spot on.

Its also true that two of the greatest heros to most modern lefties (and many non lefties to be fair) were Ghandi and Martin Luther King, who both espoused non violence as a better option for solving problems than the ongoing cycles of violence and retribution that had plagued human history. Of course as soon as their specific struggles were over normal background levels of violence resumed. But they achieved their aims (to a degree anyway) in a way that minimised the violence and senseless stupidity of just about everything else in history.

I'd also suggest that a graph showing far right murder rates far outstripping other rates of political murder says more about uncontrolled aggression than controlled aggression. Which is also something men do best.

 

[Tas]

Not neccesarily just bias, but as I stated earlier, yes-men are nothing new to a democracy and American presidents. Overall, there are enough checks in place via elections and restricted terms in office (which are better than a few presidential systems, which run for longer). Hell, election campaigns take up a decent proportion of their term in office. In terms of executive power, I tend to agree, but we need to remember that the presidential system is effectively replacing a monarch as the head of state and replacing it with a less powerful democratically elected executive branch of government, the system does work. I prefer our system and go republican via the prime minister being head of state, but that's a whole different argument.

I think it was quite telling that when we created our political system we avoided the pitfalls of the American political system and just took the best parts from it. It is a shame we didn't have freedom of speech entrenched in our constitution, it is something I hope we address when we eventually become a republic.

Somewhat right, but it has been altered (which the Supreme Court allowed 5-4) with Sudan being dropped from the list and Venezuela and North Korea being added to the list.

I have a problem with judging any person based on where they are from, I mean the door is open for people from Saudi Arabia and they are the ones responsible for the most heinous acts of terrorism against the USA.

Exactly what it is, Obama=saint, Orange Man=Hitler incarnate.

I don't like to make such assumptions, the funny part of the NPC meme is that it is a centrist meme and it is identical for people on the far left as it is for people on the far right. Maybe there is another reason, I do think it is important to ask the question though because there is obviously a monumental shift between policy attitude between Clinton/Obama and Trump. If Trump is defeated in two years time will there still be the same standards if a Democrat is elected? Something the Democrats excelled at is to say something everyone wanted to hear and do the exact opposite, like closing Guantanamo which Obama promised because it was an embarrassment. What was the fallout of the Snowden leaks? He seemed to retain the teflon image where no shit stuck to him. Can you imagine if the Snowden leaks came out during Trump's campaign? How long would he last if he had a private mail server that was hacked?

I don't like Trump and I don't care if he gets booted out of office, but there appears at least to be a staggeringly different set of standards at present.

It's scary how close to reality your statements are, but conservatism at its core, including the American variants, isn't an inherently selfish ideology. It is however, more individualistically driven than the leftist and far right variants.

I think people always see a problem as someone else's fault and like to see themselves as totally blameless for the status quo. I think everyone has had a gut full of the coked-out Hollywood celebrities standing on their soap boxes preaching to the masses how horrible they are. The hubris to be in their social position and turning their nose up at the working class who are the ones impacted by Liberal policy is staggering, they only thing they have left out is that they should eat cake.

Conservatism is a ridiculous ideology in isolation because it is far too resistant to innovation or change, however, rapid change can be disastrous and Liberals are far too eager to enact social engineering without any pause for the potential negative consequences so good ideals tend to have to be tempered, studied, analysed and refined before they can be unleashed in a destructive manner.

If Mao hadn't killed all the conservatives, perhaps one would have been around to ensure the Great Leap Forward was more Smaller Steps Forward and perhaps 55 million people wouldn't have needed to stave to death. It is all about optics though.

Yep, non-influence and the FBI actually thinks it less than that, the 5k is taken from a fairly left-wing source. And that's not even counting they are fighting each other and well-spread out, they are a non-issue. The Aryan brotherhood has about 15-20k members, but almost all are in and out of prison, so they are a real non-issue outside crime. This alt-right nonsense from the media, if they are genuine nazis or far right, then call them that, not some garbage like alt-right to lump in conservatives and right-wing liberals who disagree with the left.

The best weapon we have to combat fascism is a microphone. People can talk about all the good ideas they have but once they start talking about crazy shit then people can easily identify that oh, this is one of those crazy mother****ers.

For some reason the microphone isn't helping with far left authoritarians because for some reason if you create a fantasy story where everyone gets to live with fairies and ride unicorns then it doesn't matter if they kill 100 million people and steal everyones money, because in theory we get fairies and unicorns. God help us if the far right extremists learn to tap into the human delusion like the far left has.

Considering even those numbers and the issues of integration, Muslims in the West have done really well not to be drawn to the extremism part of Islam and have done well to integrate into Western societies, 90+% of them are a non-issue from the extremism POV. Home-grown terrorism is not a huge threat in the grand scheme of things, you would probably get more far-right attacks than Islamic attacks in the long-run. My concern is stuff is the Islamic views in the West on blasphemy laws, homosexual men and women, not being allowed to criticise their religion, etc, the overwhelming majority of Muslims surveyed in the West hold largely conservative views that are inherently at odds with Western values and general ethics.

I think anyone who values western values and western culture should be welcomed and I think we will get a positive multicultural experience from it.

That being said, while we have never made the song and dance about banning Muslims, we do not accept a lot of people from Muslim nations, the vast majority of our migrants are from India and China.

I think both us and the USA would be concerned about the state of France, Sweden and parts of the UK.

Agreed, well-undertrained in an environment with high crime, guns and a lot of socio-economic issues. There are also racist elements, but again, they are well in the minority of reasons or factors in police shootings. Proportionally speaking when accounting for all the police shootings and violent crimes, you cannot seriously argue that racism is the primary motivator behind most police shootings.

It doesn't matter if the racist motivating incident is 0.0001% of all police involvements, it is bad optics. Much like the probability of a Muslim terrorism act is extremely small, you don't need a lot of them to get people riled up.

You leave De Groot out of this, lol. I would call the New Guard, Royalist Fascists. Fascism is not a threat in the West and as you said, it needs a number of unlikely circumstances to go right for them to achieve any meaningful political power.

lol

Yes, they were Royalists Fascists, but fascists nonetheless. We don't really have the military presence to realistically have a fascist uprising and I don't think our military has been overwhelmingly right wing for a long time now. We also don't have a militant police force either.

Unhappily for ANTIFA, there is no immediate likelihood of a Marxist revolution occurring anywhere in the West, not even close. In saying that however, anarcho-communism has endured a rise in numbers via the umbrella of ANTIFA and its affiliated groups, but they are no threat at all.

If there was a Marxist uprising in the west, Australia would be the last place it would occur. 3/4 of our population is middle-class or higher, we are effectively the richest citizens in the world of any major economy.

https://international-adviser.com/australians-are-the-richest-citizens-of-a-major-economy/

Who wants to die for the revolution and who exactly is going to benefit?

Good, you saw the light. How they ban the Nazi flag and not the USSR's one is laughable. I don't think either should be banned as we should not shy away from our history, but still.

I am still idealistic in that way, however, while we are still required to be involved in the exchange of goods and services to get by at an individual and national level then I just don't see how it can compete with capitalism.

We are one of the richest nations in the world and apart from farming and resource mining, the vast majority of us are just involved in a consumption economy, we push around meaningless pieces of paper, we are involved in providing goods and services to facilitate our daily lives. We don't manufacture anything of note. Don't make computers, phones or tablets. Don't make cars, trucks, trains, trams, planes, ships. Anything of note we have to buy from someone else. We do relatively **** all but still, we produce wealth and despite our shitful population that is fragmented and so far away from each other and we have only been here as a country for a nanosecond. How has everyone else ****ed it up so badly?

Academia has a lot to answer for via absolute equality myths. The decline in need for feminism has sparked a number of radical feminists to push a number of myths about the gender pay gap, etc. (I have covered so many of them in this damn thread) onto women. I am always amused when feminists treat housewives like garbage and shun over women that don't agree with them, it is quite funny. Stuff like MGTOW, etc., are pure reactionary groups, not just to 3rd wave feminism, but due to the reasons you stated above.

We don't want to be an NPCs either. Academia can't be a boogeyman. What logical reason would this group of supposed intellectuals abandon all reason? If they are so transparent why aren't Liberals more attune to it? There has to be something that is missing.

Good luck with that Tas, but there will always be predators via men and women that are willing to get themselves dirty to get what they want (power) and elevate themselves above the rest. Internationalism and idealism have their place, but political realism reigns supreme.

If it comes down to luck, it will never happen.

 

[ferball]

Okay, pick the timeline that suits you.

Who gives a **** about international left wing violence?

The violence thing is specific to this comment:

I think so too, however, the Muslim community has some issues with extremism which leads to some terrorist attacks. There are less than 4 million Muslims in the USA, there are 323m Non-Muslims. When push comes to shove, he is going to do what he thinks is going to protect the 323m Non-Muslims.

I was just pointing out that extremism by Muslims isn't the only extremism threat to the 323 (officially American) non Muslims in the US.

Stalin and Mao is the biggest strawman on earth in response to that. Bloody hell.

Its completely irrelevent. And its all crap anyway.

Over 90% of the deaths by far left and far right international groups were caused by 4 regimes, 2 of each on either side of the debate (Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Mao's China, Stain's USSR) and one of those regimes was responsible for most of them and that regime is in the most populous nation on earth and covered the largest area.

And they were all cults of personality which are responsible for even more deaths than any ideology. (Something people blindly following Jordan Peterson would do well to remember.)

And even more and .... if you want to really consider a humungous death toll what about the European and Asian Empires? Monarchies, Empires and Aristocrats have killed more humans than any political ideology.

But nah whenever we someone mentions current ongoing political violence by far right bigots in the West lets trot out Mao to justify it or justify ignoring it.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Yeah righto mate

 

[ferball]

Its really bloody annoying Tef.

And its just virtue signalling anyway.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Does it? I think if you unpacked it all you'd find something very different. Ho Chi Mihn wrote to Truman repeatedly after ww2 asking for support against the colonialists who surrendered his country to the Japanese because he admired America and wanted a state like the US in Vietnam. If you count all the deaths caused by the Commies in Vietnam over two wars you have to understand those wouldn't have happened if we (and our allies) had stood by the principles we claim to regarding democracy freedom and all the rest of it.

You can't just go from a specific discussion of dangers in the US and a comparison between what we think are the worst perps and what actually are the worst perps to saying "Yeah but globally lefty's do all the killing" without acknowledging the circumstances that lead to those situations in the first place.

The truthful answer to what ideology caused the deaths in Vietnam over decades is nationalism and its a justified nationalism given the history of the Vietnamese. For example.



Its also true that two of the greatest heros to most modern lefties (and many non lefties to be fair) were Ghandi and Martin Luther King, who both espoused non violence as a better option for solving problems than the ongoing cycles of violence and retribution that had plagued human history. Of course as soon as their specific struggles were over normal background levels of violence resumed. But they achieved their aims (to a degree anyway) in a way that minimised the violence and senseless stupidity of just about everything else in history.

I'd also suggest that a graph showing far right murder rates far outstripping other rates of political murder says more about uncontrolled aggression than controlled aggression. Which is also something men do best.

Truman was planning to give Indochina and many of the Northern Pacific Japanese island possessions to the Nationalist Chinese in 1942, much to our disgust, Doc Evatt was furious in fact. We cracked it after China was unofficially referred to as the fourth big partner during the November 1943 Cario conference, so we announced the ANZAC Pact and told the yanks we wanted the South West Pacific area for ourselves and the Kiwis. Kai-Shek was asked by Roosevelt whether he wanted Indochina and Kai-shak said "under no circumstances".

Not quite surrendered, the French authorities in Indochina were of the Vichy variety and were pressured into transferring sovereignty of the area to the Japanese.

You are rather quick to blame Truman. Ho Chi Minh was active (employed briefly) in the Comintern in the mid-1920s, participated in the fifth Comintern Congress, gave socialist lectures, spent plenty of time in Moscow, was an adviser to the military wing of the Chinese communist Party, he was a senior comintern leader and his resistance organisation was largely communist. So you can not completely blame Truman for ignoring him in the end, especially considering the historical climate/circumstances and that the Americans lacked the ground forces to do anything but accept British and later French control in 1945-46. Furthermore, the joint Viet Minh and French massacre of Vietnamese nationalist and right wing independence groups during 1945-46 did not exactly make Ho Chi Minh endearing to Truman. Ho Chi Minh never wanted democracy or rivals, that's on his head, he would have done it with or without Truman's help.

Therefore, I would disagree quite strongly with "If you count all the deaths caused by the Commies in Vietnam over two wars you have to understand those wouldn't have happened if we (and our allies) had stood by the principles we claim to regarding democracy freedom and all the rest of it".

In general, the Americans were largely consistent with their de-colonisation in the post-war period and they were highly opposed to the French regaining control of Indochina during the Second World War, but there were things outside their control and a lack of a (US or a more permanent Nationalist Chinese force) ground military presence in the area in 1945-1954 really weakened the American position.

I was never talking in your context though and it is worth highlighting the global ramifications of far leftist politics if the American far left was to ever go that little bit further, albeit unlikely as I posted with Tas. Well aware of the circumstances.

Nationalism, sure, similar to Tito's nationalist based communism, a communist George Washington is what I have read of him.

Vietnam is not the historical example I usually cite due to the massacres and civilian killing on all sides (Massacres, agent orange, bombings, etc) from 1945-75. I would use examples like FARC, Indian Maoists, NK, Mao, Stalin, East Germany, USSR, the gulags, Pol Pot, etc. You could probably rattle off a lot of nasty counter-insurgency, Nazism and quasi-fascist regimes

Sure, and I can cite just as many historical right-wing inspirations for good in this world, including most of the basic rights and political systems we have today.

Well that's what I meant via male aggression, it can be good when controlled and shit when it is not.

 

[Snake_Baker]