Shirtless Crackhead

I think those things are irrelevant beside the point of fostering the ability to communicate more deeply, to better facilitate interpersonal understanding With regards to the utility of ethnically homogeneous societies vs the utility of what it is you're talking about. It's "here's a ton of really good and useful benefits" vs "here's an entirely unknown". But furthermore it's a "this is hard, but plausible if the will to do so is there" vs "we haven't the slightest fucking idea of how we'd go about doing it". You talk about this idea of educating people in such a way that it diffuses this entanglement of tribal thinking. That is to say their nationality, their ethnicity, their culture, their religion, their language, their regional origin and/or identification; and every sort of 'label' that people apply to themselves. That's basically talking out your butthole as we haven't the slightest ground on which to stand and make the claim this is possible, let alone we could do so effectively or without negative recoil. I would point out that post-modernism was basically an attempt to do exactly what you're talking about, in moving passed labels. But this is basically impossible. In virtually every known instance when you try and force-hand 'equality' (something between equality and equity) you end up creating greater divisions among these lines of 'identification'. This was the basis for my "scratch my ass" vs "build anti-matter drive" analogy. You're looking (in my corner) an idea that has known tangible benefits, and pretty significant ones; as well as being plenty enough within the realm of possibilities. In your corner, you have something that is for all intents and purposes impossible, and benefits that cannot be quantified. You simply believe this has to be better, because current system has flaws you can identify. This is why I tell you to write a short story about 'this' society you so propose. What would it be like, talk about how people talk to one another, discuss ideas, live their lives. I think if you did, you'd start to realize the serious issues with this idea. You'll probably wave this off and simply say this 'new people' will operate wonderfully in ways we simply cannot understand. Well that sounds plum-fuck retarded, it's akin to "the lord works in mysterious ways". Interpersonal understanding is the closest thing to the point of human life I can define And that is partially based on the wide disparity between how any two individuals' minds work And I don't think those variations happen along any particular demographic lines IE I don't think there is a feminine mind and a black mind and a 12yo mind There are just minds and they're all totally fucking different The problem is this isn't a, either we're all different, or we're all the same by group or otherwise, type problem. The thing is there is no Platonic 'feminine' mind and 'black' mind or '12yo' mind. Those are conceptual ballparks for attributes common to those groups. Odds are the 'feminine' mind isn't interested in football, where to find free 4k POV pornography, or watching videos of how shit is made or how tools work; certainly not to the same extent as the correlated 'masculine' mind. As these group definitions become less concrete and/or more temporary, irrelevant, or blurred between the lines as it where; the accuracy of this 'tool' of group identification from the use of X-person trying to understand Y-person belonging to any such series of 'groups'. This also belies that most/all people are interested in their interpersonal relations to work entirely on individual abstracts, they are not. I would love to see you really try and argue there's no value to thinking of perhaps this sort. - X-person's birthday is approaching - Oh, I should get them a gift - X-person is A/B/C - A/B/C type folks tend to like these things - I can't think of any specific interpersonal interactions that would lead me to conclude that some portion of those things would make an acceptable gift - I will get them THIS I have tried to put it to you on more occasions than I can count. The problem with "the way we do" in the here and now, that you have, so far as in-group/out-group thinking; is not something inherent to said system. It's the execution, in that most people try and spend as much of their time on Earth as close to brain dead as possible. And all of this belies the notion things would just devolve back to where they are, under your 'system'. Because let's be real fucking clear, you seem to be a fan of the notion there's no functional variance in cognition along demographic lines. That's just flat out bullshit, there are definite but not terribly vast, cognitive differences along lines of race, gender, age, cultural values, and so forth; and for cultural values, those are almost irrevocably tied to the others. Instead of trying to turn human nature on it's head and propose some alien way of doing civilization, wouldn't it make more sense to simply operate society in such a fashion that it takes into account human nature; with room to change as said nature changes, given time? Apparent commonalities along demographic lines are maya, if you're familiar with that concept Disruptive illusions basically Superficial similarities trick people into overlooking the similarities and differences that actually matter I guess I follow you, but that's not I'm not repeating my previous text block. Resulting in people marrying people they don't fucking know And having friends they would hate if they ever actually communicated with them And being generally miserable and alone because they don't even have a real identity because they've never been able to form one, because that takes interaction on a meaningful level People marry people they don't fucking know because we've been drafted into a culture that puts marriage on a social pedestal, and especially for women secures they're long-term well being. When they're basically guaranteed, either their husband will take care of them, or they'll be getting child support and/or alimony, for what is to the person in the moment, forever. People having friends they hate if they ever actually communicated with them is attributable to a bunch of things. But more importantly, people organically form bonds along lines of the very sort you seem to find the most detestable. If you get a group of men who are roughly of the same age, economic background, linguistic background, ethnic group, and put them together professionally; odds are they will all be fairly good friends. Half the problem is we've created a culture where everyone is two-faced if not more duplicitous, because we've vilified a whole slew of thinking in the name of what is socially acceptable, political correct, and polite. Having a meaningful identity, you gotta be fucking kidding me, when there's a number of mainstream psychologists, sociologists, and even (((economists))) who are talking about the massive long-term problems of a society&culture that identifies white males as enemies to all, and those males who have historically been the backbone of Western civilization are basically checking out and playing video games. You're never going to stop people from seeing themselves along demographic lines, unless you literally wipe those lines out; but even then, we'd find new ones to divide upon. There's no known functionality to this, it's entirely theoretical, and what we do know is attempts are massively destructive. Meanwhile, entirely rational set of ideas must be rejected because they are 'mean'.

Is this one gonna die like QB's replay site?

I want a Type 62

http://i.imgur.com/eIf0JQe.jpg

No Stop being an autist, I told you I created/deleted the extra channels to show EB what I meant when I was telling him extra channels can be created. Niji is going to moderate it if/when he shows up. You can swap ownership permissions as easily as anything else.

Discord until we work the kinks out of new old chat.

Niji's discord por favor

You shouldn't have to actually sign up, I thought I set it to allow anybody to enter. Lemme fix that if not.

Yup I suggest if we're gonna do Discord, add a thing for the forum profiles to put in Discord code or however that works. I'm still lazily dicking around with it. Niji's discord por favor ^ I made a server just to dick around with things. Link shouldn't expire. If someone gives me the image files I can try seeing how to upload them to a created server. There is a limit of 50 custom emojis.

My vote is fuck $40/month. You could also use Chatzy, it has p much the same features, aside from logs as ChatBlazer, it's free, but it's outside hosted. Discord is a p obvious option, however, comma space, because of it's voice chat features; which would basically eliminate the need for a TS server.

SPLC considers Charles Murray to be a "white nationalist". Charles Murray, probably not surprisingly, disagrees.

I found this excellent visual summary of crime statistics in the US circa 2015. http://i.imgur.com/Cta8xtD.png

I decided to break down this little, thing, idk what you'd call it for LS. Because his reaction to my take-away is, CHRISTCUCKS GET OUT REE. And yes, it's definitely charged in Christianity, but this is from 65. So, you kinda gotta take that in stride. But you can read the above. LS, I'll give you 5 of the 19.

LS is basically too lazy, and just wants the Government to take care of him + make (((the revolution))) happen for him. Feelz > realz for piss-socks. Joe Rogan also did a podcast w/ Lawrence Krauss, was p gud.

Quiz #2 -Answers are in a Yes/Maybe/No format and given a check box if "this is a critical issue". 1) Should abortion be legal if the mother's life is not in danger and the mother is over 18 years of age? Yes - Critical 2) Should gay marriage be legal? Yes - Non-critical 3) Should additional restrictions be placed on lethal firearm purchases? No - Non-critical 4) Should more money be invested in the military? Maybe - Critical 5) Should the government be concerned with global warming? Yes - Critical 6) Should there be a government healthcare option? Yes - Critical 7) Should marijuana be legalized in the same way as alcohol? Yes - Critical 8) Should the US have a hand in helping to create Democratic governments? No - Critical 9) Should the government financially assist corporations under any circumstances? No - Critical 10) Should a flat tax be implemented? No - Critical 11) Should the government currently have military involvement in the Middle East? Maybe - Critical 12) Should the government implement barriers to foreign labor? Yes - Critical 13) Should the government expand offshore drilling? Maybe - Critical 14) Should the government engage in talks with hostile nations? Yes - Critical 15) Should the US help to increase the viability of the UN? No - Non-critical 16) Should ANWR be opened up for drilling? Maybe - Non-critical 17) Should the government implement public works programs? Yes - Critical 18) Should the government impose stricter standards on emissions created by automobiles and factories? Maybe - Critical 19) Should the government have restrictions on International free trade? Yes - Critical 20) Should more money be invested in alternative energy research? Yes - Critical http://i.imgur.com/v6AGwl9.png #1. This is basically a gimme to 'do you think Roe v. Wade was decided correctly', and while I do. I don't think it went far enough. I think women should have unfettered access to both reproductive education and healthcare. I also think they should be fully entitled to abortions if they so choose, for whatever reasons. Elective abortions, that is to say ones that do not involve medical necessity, rape, incest, or health concerns for the unborn (like Down's syndrome or some other major birth defect); need to be done in the first, maybe second trimester. But I also think men shouldn't be inherently obligated as fathers for child support. Can't have 'my body, my decision' with 'his money'. #2. IDC about the 'institution of marriage' I don't think religious institutions should be tax exempt, and therefore have no trouble with them choosing their own means of discrimination. Let any sort or number of adult citizens choose to enter a marriage contract of their own freewill. The government ought to treat them more or less as individuals all the same. The only concerns come into play with things like healthcare/hospital visitation and death related chicanery. Both of which should be handled on their own merits and not entangle a monstrous legal paradigm that dicks up a lot of stuff. #3. Bleh, we have probably too many bad gun control laws, not enough of the few good ones we could use. #4. Money should be more wisely invested in our military. We do not need separate branches of the military for terms of national defense. All branches work together in the field/combat/wartime, and should be organically together. You can keep the names, but the money saving alone from having a single administrative architecture and set of uniforms/equipment/etc.. would be in the billions. We do need a better military for facing future threats, infantry grunts and weekend warriors do not fight asymmetric counter-insurgency very well. #5. While I don't think global warming is some looming eminent threat, I certainly don't think we should be ignoring it. The US, however plays a pretty small role in the larger scheme of things with regards to C02 output. iirc the US could cut all automobile emissions for a year, and it's like China turned off for two weeks. We ought to be good shepherds of our environment, for pretty much every reason in the book. EPA still sucks donkey dick, however comma space. #6. Yup. Regular checkups, generally healthy, follow medical professional advice should = free healthcare. Tax fat ppl, smokers, alcoholics, drug addicts; or just let them die (really for the actual drug addicts). Get rid of insurance and lawyers and focus on actually providing healthcare as an investment in American productivity in terms of both physical health and more whole-spectrum well-being. Happy and physically healthy people are productive as fuck, and the people any decent government should desire to foster. #7. I said maybe, because I think alcohol is a lot worse than marijuana. Marijuana isn't without some problems as a drug, but it's basically the least harmful drug out there. I'm honestly more interested in what can be done with hemp than with marijuana. But how about we have both? #8. No, nation building and regime changing is neocon zionist bullshit. The US should exist to be an example to other countries, and be the bestest place there is. It should encourage other nations/populations to make moves towards that greatness. But we shouldn't expend our blood or treasure to make that shit happens. Change comes from within. #9. No, corporate socialism is cancer. Either business stands free of Government interference, with exceptions to national protectionism. Or it can be nationalized, as I kinda think healthcare ought to be, but not really. I think healthcare should basically be a private competition for Government money, and good budget management will be the market force of choice. I don't believe in economic subsidies or bailouts, sink or swim. #10. Maybe in some idealized never going to happen world. But basically there's nothing wrong with a progressive tax scheme. To me it's moreso about alleviating tax pressure off the bottom earners, than taking more from the top earners. It's greedy to want to keep your own money if you're rich, but it's not greedy to want someone else's money for things you want = liberal logic. The only true merit to a flat tax is that it's simple. I definitely think the tax code should be as simple as possible. #11. ISIS is clearly a problem that could call for a good ol' fashion war type response, if the US wasn't so sick and tired of fighting bullshit wars in the region. Generally I'd say fuck other regions, let them fight it out. But frankly we created ISIS, and we ought to clean it up; shouldn't even be that hard if we had the guts to do what is necessary. Que Batman Begins scene of Liam Neeson telling Christine Bale "the will is everything, the will to act". #12. Absolutely. International trade ought to exist to bring in novel goods and services, and if needed alleviate problems of a 'we don't have enough people to do X-job' sort. Not to simply puff up corporate profit margins and "increase economic growth" for the next couple of decades. We shouldn't send jobs that could exist in a functioning insular economy, overseas to line the pockets of the wealthiest. #13. I think we use too much in the way of fossil fuels, primarily for the production of household and infrastructural energy. I don't think cars a big issue. I don't know if off shore drilling is really the fix. I'd think ideally we just use that gasoline belching algae that Craig Venter has been working on. But if needs be, and done correctly, I have no big issue with off shore drilling. Main thing is it's done in a manner that doesn't result in BP/Horizon type disasters. #14. I mean you don't make peace with your fucking friends. Not talking to hostile nations is basically fucking retarded. Taking them at their word is also retarded. A non-interventionist foreign policy prevents a lot of these entangling issues. Alliances are fucking stupid, in a strategic sense, because the policies of governments the world over change with the wind. #15. Fuck the UN, gigantic waste of money 90% of the time. I'd still be part of it, but the other member nations need to pony up to the bar and pay their expected portion for US global protectionism, which I wouldn't provide. #16. Probably not, but if there's good reason, idk. I don't like destroying nice nature reserves, but I also hate Native Americans. There's probably a lot more sensible ways for the US to produce it's own oil/etc.. than drilling up in Alaska. #17. Absolutely, rebuild roads, bridges, power lines, hydroelectric dams, airports, everything you can. Especially high-speed rail, the US should have a network of high speed rail that let's anyone cheaply travel to any major metropolitan area within a day or twos travel. Instead of using a gazillion semi-trucks to inefficiently move shit around the interior of the country, use high speed rail for that. One of the main reasons the US is an economic superpower is because we have such tremendous maritime access and willingness to use it. We should probably put some money into developing new ship technology, greener cargo vessels, and all that shit as well. #18. These are some things that come into some actual contention and lack of my own knowledge on the subjects. I don't think the Government should tell Ford to make cars that produce less C02, Ford should do that on their own, because that's what people want and good engines don't burn up fuel for no reason other than to be a jackass. On factories it's basically a multiple standard, apply the radiation emissions standards for nuclear power stations to coal fired power plants and there wouldn't be one left running in the country. #19. Fuck yes, global free trade is a rat race to the bottom for 90% of the human population, and a gravy train for the top 0.1% in the economically developed countries. And It's about as dumb as giving yourself cancer because you own istock in a company that makes chemo drugs. #20. Absolutely, we should be funding alternative nuclear, like MSR/LFTR and researching fusion options. We should be looking at where we can make use of hydroelectric, geothermal, wind, solar, tidal and be doing that as well.

Problem?

I took a little political quiz, and I thought I could pontificate on the questions/answers. Feel free to post others in this thread, if I feel like it/have the time, I'll do the same. I'd prefer the ones that don't take an hour to do. Quiz I took -> I got Switzerland #1. Should military service be mandatory? Not in the sense of this question. But military service, or an 'equivalent' thereof should be mandatory in order to earn voting rights. Totally stole this idea from Starship Troopers, zero fucks given. I would include as well things like service as Police, Firefighter, EMT, Nurse; achieving a doctorate in a slew of academic fields, and some other things I'm probably too stupid to remember. #2. Should pornography, depicting consenting adults, be legal for the adult population? Yes, no real legal argument here. But I don't think society should embrace unadulterated hedonism, a little shaming is healthy for a society. Kink/fat/whatever have you shaming is probably indicative of a healthy society. Only a bunch of nihilistic retards would think adult men constantly masturbating around the clock to drawn images of little schoolboys in girl's clothing is "perfectly harmless". #3. Should abortion generally be legal on request? Yes, with some caveats. It's an absolute yes for cases in the extreme, rape, underage mother, incest, medical issues, abnormality with the unborn child, etc.. etc.. But elective abortions, while legally provided, should come with something like a three strikes rule. If you have three elective abortions, that is to say you don't want the child because it's boy not girl, or girl not boy, or you're not financially ready or what have you. The abortion clinic should tie your tubes, or whatever is the most appropriate medical procedure to eliminate future need under these circumstances. Any functional society should be able to provide a reversal surgery within the means of any woman who's ready to provide for her children. Any such "War on Abortion" should never be focused on the access to abortion, or any other form of honest healthcare for women's reproductive systems. It should be entirely focused on eliminating the need for them. Abortion is a demand, not a supply problem. #4. Should prostitution (the exchange of sex for money) be legal? Yes, but with the same general auspices as #2. I would definitely support general legislation that sex workers be required to undergo regular testing, Amsterdam/Vegas rules p much. #5. What are your thoughts on same-sex marriage marriage? I don't really care, I don't believe the state has any business defining marriage. I believe freedom of speech/freedom of contract are par for the course of any decent society. And all official marriages should be nothing more than an interpersonal contract. People should define marriage for and among themselves, and not rely on the state to do it for them. Plus married couples are an economic boon, let the gay boys get hitched and gentrify neighborhoods. #6. Do you support the death penalty? No, not really. I think it's sensible in cases of absolute material evidence, but those are few and far between. And if the American legal/justice system is any model, it's less costly to simply imprison them. I also think that any dilemma about such a policy's efficacy is offset by the warranty that our society doesn't execute innocent people. I think in certain cases it should be an option, but that's in my estimation not the meaning of the question. I also think any prisoner serving a life sentence, should freely be able to opt out of his/her sentence by death. All executions, btw, should be public hangings done the English way -> (p decent movie btw) #7. Do you support single-payer universal health insurance? Yes, I think this is perhaps optimistically the best system. I think a truly private system with real consumer controls on prices works too. But I think healthcare is something of a national investment and ought not to be a profit motivated market. I don't think it should be "free" however, comma space, unless persons are of relatively good upkeep (fat tax), not actively participating in habits destructive to their health (smoking, alcohol, drugs), getting regular checkups, and following any significant directions from their medical professionals. #8. Should college education be provided free of charge by the State? This is a bit of a slippery one. My answer to the question was No, because I don't believe in truly free college education for all. I think something akin to the GI Bill, as well as a program wherein the college education is free provided the degree sought out upon application of the student loan is achieved, and of course your general variety of grants and scholarships. I also think there should be some means of assuring truly exceptional students have the means to access education in line with their abilities. But the notion that any significant population is going to have all adults college educated is just ludicrous. #9. What kind of income taxation do you support? I answered "flat tax" because I believe in a functional monetary/economic system that would be fair and efficient. But I would emphasize I don't think income disparity is good, certainly not the sort we have in the US today. But also the concept that all persons with more or less earn equally, is just as retarded. I'd be fine with a myriad of flat tax/progressive tax schemes and hybrids. It's really a money in, money out question. From an idealized standpoint we should try to be minimal from what we take from all persons, use said money judiciously, and take it in a non-damaging and fair way. #10. What are your thoughts on private business regulations? This one is kinda dumb as a question, because it's a ridiculously complex question with a measly set of multiple choice answers. My pick was "I mostly support business freedom, though I believe some regulations are necessary" as to me that sounds reasonable, although I don't know how the quiz writers consider such a position. I think regulations ought to be clear, concise, and terse. Anything that requires a profundity of complex language should probably just be scrapped. Environmental protections are important but can probably be achieved in a more meaningful way via incentives to 'do good' than bureaucracy that exists to scrutinize; a dash of both would be bestest. This could literally be it's own topic, Raor's Business Legislation, but even I don't have the real patience to pan that all out. #11. Should the State allow the expression of views that challenge its authority? Yes, absolutely. I don't think this one even needs explanation. #12. Should the State allow free elections? Yes, I suppose I'm putting confines on this. But I certainly intend for honest and open elections. Same rational as #11. #13. What are your thoughts on gun control? Really bad two-options on answers here but "Private individuals should generally be free to own guns" will have to suffice. I think generally speaking people ought to be allowed to have firearms. But I wouldn't mind something akin to a Federal ID that would include basically a status for individual 'clearance' to purchase firearms. I think owning stuff like machine guns, cannons, the big machine gun shoot stuff should at least require either a military/police background or certified training through an accredited agency to the general equivalent thereof. Basically someone has to know how to gun before they can buy howitzers, can't just be some schlub off the street. Criminal background checks should be required for professional dealers, and encouraged to be used by private sellers to private buyers via a local/reputable FFL/pro dealer. But scrutiny over sound suppressors, short barrels, magazine capacities, registrations, etc.. etc.. is just autism safety blankets. #14. Should recreational marijuana consumption be legal? Yup, I'd say marijuana should be 'more' legal than alcohol by consideration of their effects on individuals and populations. People ordering food with the munchies and wanting neato burrito bongs helps the economy. Drunk driving fatalities and alcohol related illness hurts it. Hemp is also p fkn cool. (((FEMINIST SOURCES GOYIM)))

http://i.imgur.com/JUlqiMt.png