Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

misterbatman

Rank #3087 on Content
misterbatman Avatar Level 169 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Offline
Send mail to misterbatman Block misterbatman Invite misterbatman to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:11/15/2012
Last Login:12/19/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#3087
Comment Ranking:#15580
Highest Content Rank:#2088
Highest Comment Rank:#5827
Content Thumbs: 4355 total,  5093 ,  738
Comment Thumbs: 789 total,  1272 ,  483
Content Level Progress: 6% (6/100)
Level 140 Content: Faptastic → Level 141 Content: Faptastic
Comment Level Progress: 50% (5/10)
Level 169 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 170 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Subscribers:0
Content Views:192886
Times Content Favorited:212 times
Total Comments Made:403
FJ Points:4694
Favorite Tags: The Game (11) | Pokemon (3)

latest user's comments

#39 - Just as it's unfair to condemn a person who's born in poverty,…  [+] (8 new replies) 08/11/2014 on kicking puppies +1
#46 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
Just as it's unfair to condemn a person who's born in poverty, it's unfair to begrudge a person a slim socioeconomic advantage that their ancestors spent centuries cultivating. This is Human Nature 101. We want our genes to thrive, so we make a place where they are advantaged. You will never, ever create a system in which everyone is perfectly equal.
"The white man is a term used to describe "those in power" Because generally whites are the ones in power."
This is both a generalization and racist.
In the song he describes the white man he doesn't see, had you actually payed attention you would've caught the part where he says "In fact, I have more in common with most working and middle-class white people than I do with most rich black and Latino people. As much as racism bleeds America, we need to understand that classism is the real issue."
This is pretty much just an attack along racial lines. I'm not asking for a version that is designed to make white people happy, I'm saying the artist is not fairly representing the poverty line (in my country, America, because that's what I'm familiar with). On a worldwide scale, yes, whites are generally wealthier than those of other ethnicities.
>but this is the factually correct version, whites own slaves, of other races and cultures, permenantly, and keep them as slaves permenantly.
That does not make them evil and that does not mean every white person wants to manipulate others.
>literally says this in the song, the problem he has with the white man is that they literally destroyed his culture, said they civilized them, raped their women and when kids were born, they dispised them, they gentrified them, enslaved them, and destroyed what was once a beautiful population.
User avatar #50 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
I actually mentioned that line as being the exception that proved the rule. Both your arguments and his lyrics make white people out to be the bad guys. We aren't. I promise.

White people did own slaves. So did Native Americans. So did Africans. So did Asians. So did Islanders. As it stands, slavery is at an all-time low, largely due to American (read: white) intervention worldwide to put an end to tyranny. I wholeheartedly despise slavery in any form, and I wish I could reach back in time and stop it before it began, but I can't, so we just have to deal with what's ahead of us. I have never owned another man, and neither have most of the white people alive today. We should not be held guilty for the crimes of our ancestors hundreds of years ago, especially since we are now the staunchest enemies of their ideals.
#51 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
Nononnoo, hold the phone, white people did something fundamentally different with slavery, they imported another race.

When you decide an entire race is your slave, it makes escape impossible, you are forever branded as a slave, until the entire system is abolished.

That's my problem with white slavery.

The thing is white men still hold slaves, they just hold them for a little bit of money and call it capitalism.
User avatar #54 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
You're again assuming that only white men can benefit from capitalism. We currently have a black president. That's the highest station afforded to a human being in America, and many would consider that the highest position of power in the world. If a poor black kid can make it to the presidency, I think you need to reevaluate your stance on all this. Sure, the system is still largely controlled by old, fat white men, but they're all going to die off in the next few decades, and there will be a lot of positions open; when that happens, it won't be the color of your skin that determines who has the power, it will be your determination and your ruthlessness that gets you the big chair. Like you said, classism is the problem, not racism.

Also, attacking racism with racism is bad form.
#55 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
You're again assuming that only white men can benefit from capitalism.
>They benefit the most from it, by quite a lot.

We currently have a black president. That's the highest station afforded to a human being in America, and many would consider that the highest position of power in the world.
>He doesn't fucking control the economy or anything, honestly thats not really a high position of power.

If a poor black kid can make it to the presidency, I think you need to reevaluate your stance on all this.
>hold on, when was obama poor?
Sure, the system is still largely controlled by old, fat white men, but they're all going to die off in the next few decades, and there will be a lot of positions open; when that happens, it won't be the color of your skin that determines who has the power, it will be your determination and your ruthlessness that gets you the big chair. Like you said, classism is the problem, not racism.
>classism is currently the problem, but the classes were decided by racism, the white man being the most beneficial race to be hands down, destroying the americans, destroying aztec culture, destroying anything in their path to achieve their militaristic greed.

Did you know the americans, when they went to war with eachother, wouldn't even kill eachother most of the time? Almost all of their warfare was based on proving what they could've done. Hence why their military might was so low, and why they were so easily ravaged by the white man.
User avatar #58 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
You're ignoring the part where I highlighted the fact that the class borders are less and less defined by race and that in a few decades the playing field will be nearly completely even. Once again, racism does not make a sound argument against racism.
#59 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
The playing field will not be even for the americans, and it never will be.
Their entire culture has been destroyed and its never going to come back.

Sure they'll come back economically, but thats not the only thing that matters.
User avatar #60 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
And that's sad, but it's a fact of life. We have to mourn for what they lost and move on.
#34 - You don't have to work anywhere. You can choose to quit, pack …  [+] (12 new replies) 08/11/2014 on kicking puppies +1
#38 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
User avatar #41 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
If you're starving to death, either learn to feed yourself, or swallow your pride and work for the shitty minimum wage you so despise until you can learn to feed yourself. It's that simple. Communism is a cute ideal, but it's simply unrealistic.
#42 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
21,000 children die every day.

Do you expect children to just miraculously learn to feed themselves when they have no one to protect them, no system in place to help them? no safety net of any sort?
User avatar #45 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
No, I expect parents not to bring children into a world when they can't provide for them. I have nothing in my heart but pity and love for children who never have the chance to fend for themselves. I believe everyone should have equal footing until they're old enough to take care of themselves, then, like a young bird, they should be pushed out of the nest and told "fly or die".
#36 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
You don't have to work anywhere. You can choose to quit, pack up, and search elsewhere for better alternatives, or just go live off the land.
>living off the land is unviable to those who haven't done it in generations, especially late in life, with no opportunity to learn.

People are too reliant on others to hand them a living, and they're afraid to suffer for a better life.
>It doesn't work out for everyone, however much i plan on permenantly living off the land in the near future, you can't expect everyone to have the ability to, the disabled, for example, have no alternatives.

The "money is power" mantra is a myth used to control people. Money is only worth anything if people put value in it.
>and people can't just as a collective go, "screw it"
If you decide that the boss man's money is worth less than your dignity, leave.
>leave and then die off the plantation.
Until then, shut your trap and do your goddamned job, and do it to the best of your abilities.
>yeah, and if you break your leg work twice as hard with the other one.
User avatar #43 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
Living off the land is never, ever unavailable. Anyone who can walk can pull berries off a bush or make a spear from green wood to kill a deer. It's hard, but not impossible. That's the part you're not grasping. As for the disabled, they have to rely on their family and friends to care for them. If they cannot or will not, they will die. That is how the world works. It's sad, and I hate it every time I hear about a neglected child with a mental deficiency or a wounded veteran who can't work, but I recognize that these are unfortunate facts of life. If I could aid them, I would, but I will never force another person to give up what they've worked for to support the things that I personally pity.

As a collective, yes, people can go "Screw it". That's called a revolution, and they have happened thousands of times in human history, usually for the betterment of the common folk.

If you leave die off the plantation and you left because you felt like you were being mistreated, then you died with dignity. There are few more admirable things than to die for your beliefs.

"Yeah, and if you break your leg work twice as hard with the other one."
Now you're getting it.
#106 - anonymous (08/11/2014) [-]
I think it's really funny that one of your main arguments is WE'LL NEVER HAVE EQUALITY, SO STOP TRYING.

IT'S HUMAN NATURE TO WANT TO PROVIDE FOR YOUR CHILDREN- yeah, so why do you think these people want the obscenely wealthy to spread out the obscene wealth a little more?

God, you're so fucking dense. Don't delude yourself into believing that most people can get immensely rich by being fair, or kind, or decent. The vast majority got their money by being assholes, by being cruel, by stepping on whoever they had to to get their own way- see Steve Jobs, most bankers, land developers who destroy natural land, the people cutting down ancient forests, the people selling ivory from endangered rhinos, any company that uses child labour like Nike.

Why shouldn't the people they exploit demand part of the money they've leeched? I know I'll never be rich because I don't want to make children work twelve hours a day for a buck per hour making football shirts that I'll sell for eighty bucks.
User avatar #130 - misterbatman (08/12/2014) [-]
You clearly didn't have the gumption to log in and post, so chances are you'll never see this; I'll respond anyway.

Nature does not want equality. Period. The strong eat the weak, and that's the way it is. Now, as evolved creatures, we have the capacity to grow and increase our status without hurting others. That, I think, is the middle ground we have to find. As I've said before, I believe in giving everyone equal footing, and then seeing who the most capable and intelligent people are. That's my ideal world.

Also, you obviously haven't read most of the rest of this discussion or you'd already know how I feel about people being "exploited." In a capitalist system, the majority of the people have the majority of the power (even if the wealthy minority try to convince them otherwise). If everyone refused to work in sweatshops, the sweatshops would close and the company selling football t-shirts would go out of business. If everyone chose not to buy from a certain company, they'd go bankrupt. If we decide we don't want to spend another dime with Nike, Nike will never sell another shoe. The problem is not that the business owners are cruel (yes, they are cruel, but that's not the problem). The problem is that the currently poor people are unwilling to do without in order to fight tyranny. You don't need Nikes. You don't need football shirts. If you have a problem with the system, either change the system or use the system in your favor. Redistribution of wealth is a shitty concept because it glorifies the weak-willed and the weak-minded who either don't jump at opportunities or are incapable of seeing them.

Also, anyone with half a brain can become reasonably wealthy. If you get a STEM degree or a tradesman's certification, you can easily find a job making between $50,000 and $100,000 per year anywhere in the states. That's more than enough to live affluently and retire on.
#47 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
Living off the land is never, ever unavailable. Anyone who can walk can pull berries off a bush or make a spear from green wood to kill a deer. It's hard, but not impossible. That's the part you're not grasping. As for the disabled, they have to rely on their family and friends to care for them. If they cannot or will not, they will die. That is how the world works. It's sad, and I hate it every time I hear about a neglected child with a mental deficiency or a wounded veteran who can't work, but I recognize that these are unfortunate facts of life. If I could aid them, I would, but I will never force another person to give up what they've worked for to support the things that I personally pity.
>in the desert it is not feasable, and you can't assume that all people are in the same situation physically, you say they should rely on their family, and if they have none, screw them, thats wrong, everybody should be everybodys family, everyone should seek to help those who are in a situation like that, and that is my problem with the billionaires.
As a collective, yes, people can go "Screw it". That's called a revolution, and they have happened thousands of times in human history, usually for the betterment of the common folk.
>I'm aware, but it doesn't happen with small groups, and it definitely doesn't happen when the poor are completely weaponless and incapable of fighting.
If you leave die off the plantation and you left because you felt like you were being mistreated, then you died with dignity. There are few more admirable things than to die for your beliefs.
>oh you're dead but atleast you died with the right spirit in mind, man. Yeah most people don't want to die is the thing, so they'll keep working, and keep getting fucked.
"Yeah, and if you break your leg work twice as hard with the other one."
Now you're getting it.
>thats stupid as fuck, and there's nothing else to say about it.
User avatar #131 - misterbatman (08/12/2014) [-]
Saying "everyone should be everyone's family" is contrary to human instincts. We prefer our own genetics and want them to spread. That's how human evolution works and that's how it has always worked. It's also naive.

You're right, it's hard to survive in the desert. So saddle up your camel and go forth; or, alternatively, find something worth trading for food. Bartering for food is the oldest economic trick in the book.

Yes, revolutions don't always work. That's shitty, but it's life. You have to try anyway. If you're not willing to pay the ultimate price for your beliefs, you don't believe in them enough. If you don't like your station, change it; if you die, you're a martyr for your own personal cause. If you don't like your station but you're not willing to change it, at least do yourself a favor and don't have children who will be born to a life of suffering. Eventually, the oppressive system will crumble because there will be no one left to exploit. We've seen that happen numerous times in history.

Attacking an idea by saying "that's stupid as fuck" doesn't refute the idea, it insults the person behind it (which is an ad hominem). I suggest you Google the words "logical fallacies" and familiarize yourself with how logic and argumentation work before you take a high-and-mighty position behind your keyboard again. You may find yourself in another argument in the future and there's nothing like logic to help win an argument.

The biggest problem with your ideology is that you write off humanity's innate desire to elevate our status beyond that of our peers. If you've ever felt jealousy towards a person for their belongings or if you've ever worn nice clothes just to make yourself feel liked, you have felt what I'm talking about. No matter how many revolutions we fight, if there are humans, there will be those who are more powerful than others. That is nature. It doesn't mean they have to trample everyone else, but true equality is a lie.
#69 - captnnorway (08/11/2014) [-]
Honestly I'm usually left wing here in Norway, which probably is borderline communisim from american eyes. I believe the state is there to support the people, make sure those who can't support them self can get help, that sort of stuff. But I've never ever believed that just because you're rich, you owe the world something. If you make it to the top, good for you. If you get there by abusing people, the government should be there to stop that. But being rich in itself is not a sin.

Also, if you honestly believe the world owe you something, and that everyone who has it better than you should help you, then I got nothing more to say here. I don't argue with idiots.
User avatar #132 - misterbatman (08/12/2014) [-]
I disagree with socialism and communism purely on ethical principle, but the people of Norweigh have made it work. I wouldn't choose to live there, but I have nothing but respect for the people who crafted your system.

Also, thatonecommunist, Norweigh is a perfect example of one of my other points: a small, homogeneous population is required for socialism to work, because the people are willing to help others. That's because they see a population filled with other people with similar heritage and genetics. Such a system will not work in America and it certainly won't work on a global scale.
#31 - Another thing: the poor have, and have always had, the power. …  [+] (14 new replies) 08/11/2014 on kicking puppies 0
#32 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
You don't have the option to quit when they're literally your only option to work for, that doesn't make any sense.
User avatar #34 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
You don't have to work anywhere. You can choose to quit, pack up, and search elsewhere for better alternatives, or just go live off the land. I've starved before because I wouldn't work for next-to-nothing, and I'd do it again. People are too reliant on others to hand them a living, and they're afraid to suffer for a better life. The problem, again, is that the poor have forgotten that they have all of the power. The "money is power" mantra is a myth used to control people. Money is only worth anything if people put value in it. If you decide that the boss man's money is worth less than your dignity, leave. Until then, shut your trap and do your goddamned job, and do it to the best of your abilities.
#38 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
User avatar #41 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
If you're starving to death, either learn to feed yourself, or swallow your pride and work for the shitty minimum wage you so despise until you can learn to feed yourself. It's that simple. Communism is a cute ideal, but it's simply unrealistic.
#42 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
21,000 children die every day.

Do you expect children to just miraculously learn to feed themselves when they have no one to protect them, no system in place to help them? no safety net of any sort?
User avatar #45 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
No, I expect parents not to bring children into a world when they can't provide for them. I have nothing in my heart but pity and love for children who never have the chance to fend for themselves. I believe everyone should have equal footing until they're old enough to take care of themselves, then, like a young bird, they should be pushed out of the nest and told "fly or die".
#36 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
You don't have to work anywhere. You can choose to quit, pack up, and search elsewhere for better alternatives, or just go live off the land.
>living off the land is unviable to those who haven't done it in generations, especially late in life, with no opportunity to learn.

People are too reliant on others to hand them a living, and they're afraid to suffer for a better life.
>It doesn't work out for everyone, however much i plan on permenantly living off the land in the near future, you can't expect everyone to have the ability to, the disabled, for example, have no alternatives.

The "money is power" mantra is a myth used to control people. Money is only worth anything if people put value in it.
>and people can't just as a collective go, "screw it"
If you decide that the boss man's money is worth less than your dignity, leave.
>leave and then die off the plantation.
Until then, shut your trap and do your goddamned job, and do it to the best of your abilities.
>yeah, and if you break your leg work twice as hard with the other one.
User avatar #43 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
Living off the land is never, ever unavailable. Anyone who can walk can pull berries off a bush or make a spear from green wood to kill a deer. It's hard, but not impossible. That's the part you're not grasping. As for the disabled, they have to rely on their family and friends to care for them. If they cannot or will not, they will die. That is how the world works. It's sad, and I hate it every time I hear about a neglected child with a mental deficiency or a wounded veteran who can't work, but I recognize that these are unfortunate facts of life. If I could aid them, I would, but I will never force another person to give up what they've worked for to support the things that I personally pity.

As a collective, yes, people can go "Screw it". That's called a revolution, and they have happened thousands of times in human history, usually for the betterment of the common folk.

If you leave die off the plantation and you left because you felt like you were being mistreated, then you died with dignity. There are few more admirable things than to die for your beliefs.

"Yeah, and if you break your leg work twice as hard with the other one."
Now you're getting it.
#106 - anonymous (08/11/2014) [-]
I think it's really funny that one of your main arguments is WE'LL NEVER HAVE EQUALITY, SO STOP TRYING.

IT'S HUMAN NATURE TO WANT TO PROVIDE FOR YOUR CHILDREN- yeah, so why do you think these people want the obscenely wealthy to spread out the obscene wealth a little more?

God, you're so fucking dense. Don't delude yourself into believing that most people can get immensely rich by being fair, or kind, or decent. The vast majority got their money by being assholes, by being cruel, by stepping on whoever they had to to get their own way- see Steve Jobs, most bankers, land developers who destroy natural land, the people cutting down ancient forests, the people selling ivory from endangered rhinos, any company that uses child labour like Nike.

Why shouldn't the people they exploit demand part of the money they've leeched? I know I'll never be rich because I don't want to make children work twelve hours a day for a buck per hour making football shirts that I'll sell for eighty bucks.
User avatar #130 - misterbatman (08/12/2014) [-]
You clearly didn't have the gumption to log in and post, so chances are you'll never see this; I'll respond anyway.

Nature does not want equality. Period. The strong eat the weak, and that's the way it is. Now, as evolved creatures, we have the capacity to grow and increase our status without hurting others. That, I think, is the middle ground we have to find. As I've said before, I believe in giving everyone equal footing, and then seeing who the most capable and intelligent people are. That's my ideal world.

Also, you obviously haven't read most of the rest of this discussion or you'd already know how I feel about people being "exploited." In a capitalist system, the majority of the people have the majority of the power (even if the wealthy minority try to convince them otherwise). If everyone refused to work in sweatshops, the sweatshops would close and the company selling football t-shirts would go out of business. If everyone chose not to buy from a certain company, they'd go bankrupt. If we decide we don't want to spend another dime with Nike, Nike will never sell another shoe. The problem is not that the business owners are cruel (yes, they are cruel, but that's not the problem). The problem is that the currently poor people are unwilling to do without in order to fight tyranny. You don't need Nikes. You don't need football shirts. If you have a problem with the system, either change the system or use the system in your favor. Redistribution of wealth is a shitty concept because it glorifies the weak-willed and the weak-minded who either don't jump at opportunities or are incapable of seeing them.

Also, anyone with half a brain can become reasonably wealthy. If you get a STEM degree or a tradesman's certification, you can easily find a job making between $50,000 and $100,000 per year anywhere in the states. That's more than enough to live affluently and retire on.
#47 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
Living off the land is never, ever unavailable. Anyone who can walk can pull berries off a bush or make a spear from green wood to kill a deer. It's hard, but not impossible. That's the part you're not grasping. As for the disabled, they have to rely on their family and friends to care for them. If they cannot or will not, they will die. That is how the world works. It's sad, and I hate it every time I hear about a neglected child with a mental deficiency or a wounded veteran who can't work, but I recognize that these are unfortunate facts of life. If I could aid them, I would, but I will never force another person to give up what they've worked for to support the things that I personally pity.
>in the desert it is not feasable, and you can't assume that all people are in the same situation physically, you say they should rely on their family, and if they have none, screw them, thats wrong, everybody should be everybodys family, everyone should seek to help those who are in a situation like that, and that is my problem with the billionaires.
As a collective, yes, people can go "Screw it". That's called a revolution, and they have happened thousands of times in human history, usually for the betterment of the common folk.
>I'm aware, but it doesn't happen with small groups, and it definitely doesn't happen when the poor are completely weaponless and incapable of fighting.
If you leave die off the plantation and you left because you felt like you were being mistreated, then you died with dignity. There are few more admirable things than to die for your beliefs.
>oh you're dead but atleast you died with the right spirit in mind, man. Yeah most people don't want to die is the thing, so they'll keep working, and keep getting fucked.
"Yeah, and if you break your leg work twice as hard with the other one."
Now you're getting it.
>thats stupid as fuck, and there's nothing else to say about it.
User avatar #131 - misterbatman (08/12/2014) [-]
Saying "everyone should be everyone's family" is contrary to human instincts. We prefer our own genetics and want them to spread. That's how human evolution works and that's how it has always worked. It's also naive.

You're right, it's hard to survive in the desert. So saddle up your camel and go forth; or, alternatively, find something worth trading for food. Bartering for food is the oldest economic trick in the book.

Yes, revolutions don't always work. That's shitty, but it's life. You have to try anyway. If you're not willing to pay the ultimate price for your beliefs, you don't believe in them enough. If you don't like your station, change it; if you die, you're a martyr for your own personal cause. If you don't like your station but you're not willing to change it, at least do yourself a favor and don't have children who will be born to a life of suffering. Eventually, the oppressive system will crumble because there will be no one left to exploit. We've seen that happen numerous times in history.

Attacking an idea by saying "that's stupid as fuck" doesn't refute the idea, it insults the person behind it (which is an ad hominem). I suggest you Google the words "logical fallacies" and familiarize yourself with how logic and argumentation work before you take a high-and-mighty position behind your keyboard again. You may find yourself in another argument in the future and there's nothing like logic to help win an argument.

The biggest problem with your ideology is that you write off humanity's innate desire to elevate our status beyond that of our peers. If you've ever felt jealousy towards a person for their belongings or if you've ever worn nice clothes just to make yourself feel liked, you have felt what I'm talking about. No matter how many revolutions we fight, if there are humans, there will be those who are more powerful than others. That is nature. It doesn't mean they have to trample everyone else, but true equality is a lie.
#69 - captnnorway (08/11/2014) [-]
Honestly I'm usually left wing here in Norway, which probably is borderline communisim from american eyes. I believe the state is there to support the people, make sure those who can't support them self can get help, that sort of stuff. But I've never ever believed that just because you're rich, you owe the world something. If you make it to the top, good for you. If you get there by abusing people, the government should be there to stop that. But being rich in itself is not a sin.

Also, if you honestly believe the world owe you something, and that everyone who has it better than you should help you, then I got nothing more to say here. I don't argue with idiots.
User avatar #132 - misterbatman (08/12/2014) [-]
I disagree with socialism and communism purely on ethical principle, but the people of Norweigh have made it work. I wouldn't choose to live there, but I have nothing but respect for the people who crafted your system.

Also, thatonecommunist, Norweigh is a perfect example of one of my other points: a small, homogeneous population is required for socialism to work, because the people are willing to help others. That's because they see a population filled with other people with similar heritage and genetics. Such a system will not work in America and it certainly won't work on a global scale.
#29 - You're misusing the word literally. Also, kulamia is just sayi… 08/11/2014 on kicking puppies +1
#27 - This song was written by an intelligent, passionate, and misgu…  [+] (18 new replies) 08/11/2014 on kicking puppies +5
#30 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
first, its message is lost on white people because it implies heavily that only blacks and latinos are poor.
>on average white people aren't as poor, because fo the countries they live in, and the cultures they destroy to gain wealth.

It does touch just once on how classism is the true evil, but then it returns to anti-white propaganda, blasting the "white man" and drawing parallels to the southern plantations of yore.
>The white man is a term used to describe "those in power" Because generally whites are the ones in power.

By alienating a huge part of your demographic, you're neutering your own cause. There are more poor white people in this country
>the song is meant to be the truth, not an edited version to make white people happy, in this country doesn't matter to him.

than there are poor blacks or latinos, and that's a stone-cold fact. Second, this song assumes, as many liberal philosophers do, that there is a potential answer that works out in everyone's best interests.
>there is, the rich white man just won't allow it, you say that there's things you know now through experience, what experience could've taught you about politics that have never been tried before?
User avatar #40 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
"There is, the rich white man just won't allow it, you say that there's things you know now through experience, what experience could've taught you about politics that have never been tried before?"
I was born to an exceptionally poor family and I've struggled my entire life to make a living, and in my experience equality is a myth. In an ideal system, everyone would have equal opportunities until adulthood (food, shelter, and schooling), and then they'd be cut loose and told to sink or swim. If a person is not skilled, talented, or dedicated enough to make a living, they should be allowed to fail. I refuse to carry someone else's dead weight, and I abhor laziness. Communism, and even socialism to a lesser extent, attempt to equalize unequal people, and that is not what nature desires. You can preach all you want about equality and peace, but if you design a system that contradicts the natural order, your system will fail--from within. Every communist government ever designed has failed. There is a reason for that. Look at the only places where socialism ever works: small countries with homogeneous populations, where ethnically similar people are willing to work to support one another because they see genetic similarities that please them. This is not racism, it's ethnocentrism. My ideal system is a minarchist state that allows each person to live by his or her own merits after reaching adulthood, and if you are too weak or too lazy to succeed, you should be allowed to fail. Starvation is a great motivator. I've been there.
#44 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
"There is, the rich white man just won't allow it, you say that there's things you know now through experience, what experience could've taught you about politics that have never been tried before?"
I was born to an exceptionally poor family and I've struggled my entire life to make a living, and in my experience equality is a myth. In an ideal system, everyone would have equal opportunities until adulthood (food, shelter, and schooling), and then they'd be cut loose and told to sink or swim.
>Yeah, i believe human life is inherently valuable, and even the disabled, should have the right to live, y'know, the ones that literally can't do anything?
Also, with the amount of resources we have, we could support all life on the planet quite easily, why not a baseline wage just for survival, even if you don't want to abolish currency.
If a person is not skilled, talented, or dedicated enough to make a living, they should be allowed to fail.
>these aren't the only factors that go into failure, luck is an important aspect, and thats the problem with this system as a whole.
I refuse to carry someone else's dead weight, and I abhor laziness.
>So, because you're selfish, we should have a selfish society?
Communism, and even socialism to a lesser extent, attempt to equalize unequal people, and that is not what nature desires.
>Why does nature play a part in whether or not billie no-arms gets to live when we have the resources to allow him to live a plentiful life.
You can preach all you want about equality and peace, but if you design a system that contradicts the natural order, your system will fail
>The current capitalistic system is going to fail eventually due to its misuse of resources and general mistreatment of the planet, it seems like your system is the one that is destined to fail.
--from within. Every communist government ever designed has failed.
>because these were fascist systems that looked over dictators, not actual communism.
User avatar #48 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
I'm getting tired, so I'm going to be brief, but I've certainly enjoyed this dialogue. It's nice to talk to someone intelligent every once in a while.

There is a dichotomy in our understanding of what it means to live. You believe that by merely existing you have worth and you have the right to a life of plenty. I believe that you are only worth what you can personally contribute. You and I will never see eye to eye on this because you are too idealistic and I have been around for too long. There's a saying I heard a few months ago that goes something like this: "If you're under 30 and a conservative, you have no heart; if you're over 30 and a liberal, you have no brain." I'm inclined to think that's about right. I think your heart is in the right place (for the most part, you strike me as a bit of a racist, but I'll forgive that). Keep fighting the good fight.
#49 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
Always with the fuckin' age card.

"i'm older so i must know more about society" is all you accomplished there, and the fact that you don't think a life is worth saving even if it can't do anything to benefit you is on the same level as serial killers.

You're personally subscribing to murder.
User avatar #52 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
You're projecting a bit much there. I wasn't going to respond again, but you upset me by resorting to a blatant strawman fallacy as well as a reduction of my argument to something that it was not. I did not say I knew more because I was older. Your right to your opinion is just as valid as mine. Mine just happens to be different, and that's largely due to my age and the fact that I've had more time to watch nature in action. Your beliefs are just as valid as mine, they just have different influences. Your strawman fallacy is repugnant. I never said a person's value came from how much they could do for me, I said your value came from how much you could do for yourself. I don't want or need anything from anyone else, and that's how it should be. Saying I'm personally subscribing to murder is just hilarious. How about this: the fact that you spend money on an internet connection instead of sending that money to feed starving kids in Africa means you're directly responsible for children dying of starvation. Do you see how silly that sounds?
#53 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
I don't spend money on shit, negro, and i do believe the last thing, hence why i am literally sending everything i can to africa, including myself, and i will be selling the very thing i write this on in exactly 418 days.
User avatar #56 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
Saying that over the internet means absolutely nothing. The fact that you haven't yet done it and that we're able to have this conversation demonstrates that it's clearly not a life-shatteringly important problem for you. If you mean what you say, call your ISP tomorrow, cancel your net connection, and then go sell your computer and send the money to a charity of your choice. Otherwise, you're going to keep potential food from the mouths of starving children every day for the next 418 days.

You won't, though, because you are a human. You are selfish by your very nature. That is my point. It is not evil to look out for yourself before others, so long as you don't hurt others in the process. I'm off to bed. Good night, and good luck. I mean it.
#57 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
Saying that over the internet means absolutely nothing. The fact that you haven't yet done it and that we're able to have this conversation demonstrates that it's clearly not a life-shatteringly important problem for you.
>I am incapable of doing this in my current position.
If you mean what you say, call your ISP tomorrow, cancel your net connection, and then go sell your computer and send the money to a charity of your choice.
>as you do not understand my current position, you cannot assume that I am in power to do this, hence the specified date.
Otherwise, you're going to keep potential food from the mouths of starving children every day for the next 418 days.
>I'm not happy with me doing this.
You won't, though, because you are a human. You are selfish by your very nature. That is my point.
>I will prove you wrong in 418 days.
It is not evil to look out for yourself before others, so long as you don't hurt others in the process. I'm off to bed. Good night, and good luck. I mean it.
User avatar #39 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
Just as it's unfair to condemn a person who's born in poverty, it's unfair to begrudge a person a slim socioeconomic advantage that their ancestors spent centuries cultivating. This is Human Nature 101. We want our genes to thrive, so we make a place where they are advantaged. You will never, ever create a system in which everyone is perfectly equal.
"The white man is a term used to describe "those in power" Because generally whites are the ones in power."
This is both a generalization and racist.
"The song is meant to be the truth, not an edited version to make white people happy, in this country doesn't matter to him."
This is pretty much just an attack along racial lines. I'm not asking for a version that is designed to make white people happy, I'm saying the artist is not fairly representing the poverty line (in my country, America, because that's what I'm familiar with). On a worldwide scale, yes, whites are generally wealthier than those of other ethnicities. That does not make them evil and that does not mean every white person wants to manipulate others. This is despite the fact that their genes come from harsher climates with fewer natural resources than pretty much any other ethnicity.
#46 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
Just as it's unfair to condemn a person who's born in poverty, it's unfair to begrudge a person a slim socioeconomic advantage that their ancestors spent centuries cultivating. This is Human Nature 101. We want our genes to thrive, so we make a place where they are advantaged. You will never, ever create a system in which everyone is perfectly equal.
"The white man is a term used to describe "those in power" Because generally whites are the ones in power."
This is both a generalization and racist.
In the song he describes the white man he doesn't see, had you actually payed attention you would've caught the part where he says "In fact, I have more in common with most working and middle-class white people than I do with most rich black and Latino people. As much as racism bleeds America, we need to understand that classism is the real issue."
This is pretty much just an attack along racial lines. I'm not asking for a version that is designed to make white people happy, I'm saying the artist is not fairly representing the poverty line (in my country, America, because that's what I'm familiar with). On a worldwide scale, yes, whites are generally wealthier than those of other ethnicities.
>but this is the factually correct version, whites own slaves, of other races and cultures, permenantly, and keep them as slaves permenantly.
That does not make them evil and that does not mean every white person wants to manipulate others.
>literally says this in the song, the problem he has with the white man is that they literally destroyed his culture, said they civilized them, raped their women and when kids were born, they dispised them, they gentrified them, enslaved them, and destroyed what was once a beautiful population.
User avatar #50 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
I actually mentioned that line as being the exception that proved the rule. Both your arguments and his lyrics make white people out to be the bad guys. We aren't. I promise.

White people did own slaves. So did Native Americans. So did Africans. So did Asians. So did Islanders. As it stands, slavery is at an all-time low, largely due to American (read: white) intervention worldwide to put an end to tyranny. I wholeheartedly despise slavery in any form, and I wish I could reach back in time and stop it before it began, but I can't, so we just have to deal with what's ahead of us. I have never owned another man, and neither have most of the white people alive today. We should not be held guilty for the crimes of our ancestors hundreds of years ago, especially since we are now the staunchest enemies of their ideals.
#51 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
Nononnoo, hold the phone, white people did something fundamentally different with slavery, they imported another race.

When you decide an entire race is your slave, it makes escape impossible, you are forever branded as a slave, until the entire system is abolished.

That's my problem with white slavery.

The thing is white men still hold slaves, they just hold them for a little bit of money and call it capitalism.
User avatar #54 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
You're again assuming that only white men can benefit from capitalism. We currently have a black president. That's the highest station afforded to a human being in America, and many would consider that the highest position of power in the world. If a poor black kid can make it to the presidency, I think you need to reevaluate your stance on all this. Sure, the system is still largely controlled by old, fat white men, but they're all going to die off in the next few decades, and there will be a lot of positions open; when that happens, it won't be the color of your skin that determines who has the power, it will be your determination and your ruthlessness that gets you the big chair. Like you said, classism is the problem, not racism.

Also, attacking racism with racism is bad form.
#55 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
You're again assuming that only white men can benefit from capitalism.
>They benefit the most from it, by quite a lot.

We currently have a black president. That's the highest station afforded to a human being in America, and many would consider that the highest position of power in the world.
>He doesn't fucking control the economy or anything, honestly thats not really a high position of power.

If a poor black kid can make it to the presidency, I think you need to reevaluate your stance on all this.
>hold on, when was obama poor?
Sure, the system is still largely controlled by old, fat white men, but they're all going to die off in the next few decades, and there will be a lot of positions open; when that happens, it won't be the color of your skin that determines who has the power, it will be your determination and your ruthlessness that gets you the big chair. Like you said, classism is the problem, not racism.
>classism is currently the problem, but the classes were decided by racism, the white man being the most beneficial race to be hands down, destroying the americans, destroying aztec culture, destroying anything in their path to achieve their militaristic greed.

Did you know the americans, when they went to war with eachother, wouldn't even kill eachother most of the time? Almost all of their warfare was based on proving what they could've done. Hence why their military might was so low, and why they were so easily ravaged by the white man.
User avatar #58 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
You're ignoring the part where I highlighted the fact that the class borders are less and less defined by race and that in a few decades the playing field will be nearly completely even. Once again, racism does not make a sound argument against racism.
#59 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
The playing field will not be even for the americans, and it never will be.
Their entire culture has been destroyed and its never going to come back.

Sure they'll come back economically, but thats not the only thing that matters.
User avatar #60 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
And that's sad, but it's a fact of life. We have to mourn for what they lost and move on.
#21 - I don't know where you're getting your data, but your assumpti… 08/11/2014 on kicking puppies 0
#19 - Tough.  [+] (20 new replies) 08/11/2014 on kicking puppies +2
#23 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Vl0peys90 I believe quite strongly in the words of this song, if anybody wants to go through it and point out flaws, be my guest, but i see hardly any.
User avatar #27 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
This song was written by an intelligent, passionate, and misguided young person. There's a lot of heart in this song that I can appreciate, but its failings are twofold: first, its message is lost on white people because it implies heavily that only blacks and latinos are poor. It does touch just once on how classism is the true evil, but then it returns to anti-white propaganda, blasting the "white man" and drawing parallels to the southern plantations of yore. By alienating a huge part of your demographic, you're neutering your own cause. There are more poor white people in this country than there are poor blacks or latinos, and that's a stone-cold fact. Second, this song assumes, as many liberal philosophers do, that there is a potential answer that works out in everyone's best interests. That is not how the real world works, no matter what system you devise. The author sounds like he supports socialist democracy, which by its very nature is a stifling system.

I think that you, like this artist, are probably well-read, intelligent, poor, and angry. I am all of those things, but I'm old enough to have learned a few things that you probably haven't. One of those is that nature abhors equality more than anything else. Brutality and cruelty are base and wrong, but competition and a drive to be superior and increase your status are inherent in human nature. I'm not suggesting we return to caveman-days and start raping and pillaging, I'm just impressing upon you that no amount of liberal swill will make the world fair. Even if you don't necessarily agree with her ideology, I urge you to give a once-over to some of Ayn Rand's work. People tend to write her off as a wackjob (which she was, no doubt there), but she had some very sound philosophy. If you enjoy fiction, I recommend her novel The Fountainhead. It explores objectivist philosophy in a narrative that's both heroically entertaining and cerebral. It's probably my favorite book.
#30 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
first, its message is lost on white people because it implies heavily that only blacks and latinos are poor.
>on average white people aren't as poor, because fo the countries they live in, and the cultures they destroy to gain wealth.

It does touch just once on how classism is the true evil, but then it returns to anti-white propaganda, blasting the "white man" and drawing parallels to the southern plantations of yore.
>The white man is a term used to describe "those in power" Because generally whites are the ones in power.

By alienating a huge part of your demographic, you're neutering your own cause. There are more poor white people in this country
>the song is meant to be the truth, not an edited version to make white people happy, in this country doesn't matter to him.

than there are poor blacks or latinos, and that's a stone-cold fact. Second, this song assumes, as many liberal philosophers do, that there is a potential answer that works out in everyone's best interests.
>there is, the rich white man just won't allow it, you say that there's things you know now through experience, what experience could've taught you about politics that have never been tried before?
User avatar #40 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
"There is, the rich white man just won't allow it, you say that there's things you know now through experience, what experience could've taught you about politics that have never been tried before?"
I was born to an exceptionally poor family and I've struggled my entire life to make a living, and in my experience equality is a myth. In an ideal system, everyone would have equal opportunities until adulthood (food, shelter, and schooling), and then they'd be cut loose and told to sink or swim. If a person is not skilled, talented, or dedicated enough to make a living, they should be allowed to fail. I refuse to carry someone else's dead weight, and I abhor laziness. Communism, and even socialism to a lesser extent, attempt to equalize unequal people, and that is not what nature desires. You can preach all you want about equality and peace, but if you design a system that contradicts the natural order, your system will fail--from within. Every communist government ever designed has failed. There is a reason for that. Look at the only places where socialism ever works: small countries with homogeneous populations, where ethnically similar people are willing to work to support one another because they see genetic similarities that please them. This is not racism, it's ethnocentrism. My ideal system is a minarchist state that allows each person to live by his or her own merits after reaching adulthood, and if you are too weak or too lazy to succeed, you should be allowed to fail. Starvation is a great motivator. I've been there.
#44 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
"There is, the rich white man just won't allow it, you say that there's things you know now through experience, what experience could've taught you about politics that have never been tried before?"
I was born to an exceptionally poor family and I've struggled my entire life to make a living, and in my experience equality is a myth. In an ideal system, everyone would have equal opportunities until adulthood (food, shelter, and schooling), and then they'd be cut loose and told to sink or swim.
>Yeah, i believe human life is inherently valuable, and even the disabled, should have the right to live, y'know, the ones that literally can't do anything?
Also, with the amount of resources we have, we could support all life on the planet quite easily, why not a baseline wage just for survival, even if you don't want to abolish currency.
If a person is not skilled, talented, or dedicated enough to make a living, they should be allowed to fail.
>these aren't the only factors that go into failure, luck is an important aspect, and thats the problem with this system as a whole.
I refuse to carry someone else's dead weight, and I abhor laziness.
>So, because you're selfish, we should have a selfish society?
Communism, and even socialism to a lesser extent, attempt to equalize unequal people, and that is not what nature desires.
>Why does nature play a part in whether or not billie no-arms gets to live when we have the resources to allow him to live a plentiful life.
You can preach all you want about equality and peace, but if you design a system that contradicts the natural order, your system will fail
>The current capitalistic system is going to fail eventually due to its misuse of resources and general mistreatment of the planet, it seems like your system is the one that is destined to fail.
--from within. Every communist government ever designed has failed.
>because these were fascist systems that looked over dictators, not actual communism.
User avatar #48 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
I'm getting tired, so I'm going to be brief, but I've certainly enjoyed this dialogue. It's nice to talk to someone intelligent every once in a while.

There is a dichotomy in our understanding of what it means to live. You believe that by merely existing you have worth and you have the right to a life of plenty. I believe that you are only worth what you can personally contribute. You and I will never see eye to eye on this because you are too idealistic and I have been around for too long. There's a saying I heard a few months ago that goes something like this: "If you're under 30 and a conservative, you have no heart; if you're over 30 and a liberal, you have no brain." I'm inclined to think that's about right. I think your heart is in the right place (for the most part, you strike me as a bit of a racist, but I'll forgive that). Keep fighting the good fight.
#49 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
Always with the fuckin' age card.

"i'm older so i must know more about society" is all you accomplished there, and the fact that you don't think a life is worth saving even if it can't do anything to benefit you is on the same level as serial killers.

You're personally subscribing to murder.
User avatar #52 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
You're projecting a bit much there. I wasn't going to respond again, but you upset me by resorting to a blatant strawman fallacy as well as a reduction of my argument to something that it was not. I did not say I knew more because I was older. Your right to your opinion is just as valid as mine. Mine just happens to be different, and that's largely due to my age and the fact that I've had more time to watch nature in action. Your beliefs are just as valid as mine, they just have different influences. Your strawman fallacy is repugnant. I never said a person's value came from how much they could do for me, I said your value came from how much you could do for yourself. I don't want or need anything from anyone else, and that's how it should be. Saying I'm personally subscribing to murder is just hilarious. How about this: the fact that you spend money on an internet connection instead of sending that money to feed starving kids in Africa means you're directly responsible for children dying of starvation. Do you see how silly that sounds?
#53 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
I don't spend money on shit, negro, and i do believe the last thing, hence why i am literally sending everything i can to africa, including myself, and i will be selling the very thing i write this on in exactly 418 days.
User avatar #56 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
Saying that over the internet means absolutely nothing. The fact that you haven't yet done it and that we're able to have this conversation demonstrates that it's clearly not a life-shatteringly important problem for you. If you mean what you say, call your ISP tomorrow, cancel your net connection, and then go sell your computer and send the money to a charity of your choice. Otherwise, you're going to keep potential food from the mouths of starving children every day for the next 418 days.

You won't, though, because you are a human. You are selfish by your very nature. That is my point. It is not evil to look out for yourself before others, so long as you don't hurt others in the process. I'm off to bed. Good night, and good luck. I mean it.
#57 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
Saying that over the internet means absolutely nothing. The fact that you haven't yet done it and that we're able to have this conversation demonstrates that it's clearly not a life-shatteringly important problem for you.
>I am incapable of doing this in my current position.
If you mean what you say, call your ISP tomorrow, cancel your net connection, and then go sell your computer and send the money to a charity of your choice.
>as you do not understand my current position, you cannot assume that I am in power to do this, hence the specified date.
Otherwise, you're going to keep potential food from the mouths of starving children every day for the next 418 days.
>I'm not happy with me doing this.
You won't, though, because you are a human. You are selfish by your very nature. That is my point.
>I will prove you wrong in 418 days.
It is not evil to look out for yourself before others, so long as you don't hurt others in the process. I'm off to bed. Good night, and good luck. I mean it.
User avatar #39 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
Just as it's unfair to condemn a person who's born in poverty, it's unfair to begrudge a person a slim socioeconomic advantage that their ancestors spent centuries cultivating. This is Human Nature 101. We want our genes to thrive, so we make a place where they are advantaged. You will never, ever create a system in which everyone is perfectly equal.
"The white man is a term used to describe "those in power" Because generally whites are the ones in power."
This is both a generalization and racist.
"The song is meant to be the truth, not an edited version to make white people happy, in this country doesn't matter to him."
This is pretty much just an attack along racial lines. I'm not asking for a version that is designed to make white people happy, I'm saying the artist is not fairly representing the poverty line (in my country, America, because that's what I'm familiar with). On a worldwide scale, yes, whites are generally wealthier than those of other ethnicities. That does not make them evil and that does not mean every white person wants to manipulate others. This is despite the fact that their genes come from harsher climates with fewer natural resources than pretty much any other ethnicity.
#46 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
Just as it's unfair to condemn a person who's born in poverty, it's unfair to begrudge a person a slim socioeconomic advantage that their ancestors spent centuries cultivating. This is Human Nature 101. We want our genes to thrive, so we make a place where they are advantaged. You will never, ever create a system in which everyone is perfectly equal.
"The white man is a term used to describe "those in power" Because generally whites are the ones in power."
This is both a generalization and racist.
In the song he describes the white man he doesn't see, had you actually payed attention you would've caught the part where he says "In fact, I have more in common with most working and middle-class white people than I do with most rich black and Latino people. As much as racism bleeds America, we need to understand that classism is the real issue."
This is pretty much just an attack along racial lines. I'm not asking for a version that is designed to make white people happy, I'm saying the artist is not fairly representing the poverty line (in my country, America, because that's what I'm familiar with). On a worldwide scale, yes, whites are generally wealthier than those of other ethnicities.
>but this is the factually correct version, whites own slaves, of other races and cultures, permenantly, and keep them as slaves permenantly.
That does not make them evil and that does not mean every white person wants to manipulate others.
>literally says this in the song, the problem he has with the white man is that they literally destroyed his culture, said they civilized them, raped their women and when kids were born, they dispised them, they gentrified them, enslaved them, and destroyed what was once a beautiful population.
User avatar #50 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
I actually mentioned that line as being the exception that proved the rule. Both your arguments and his lyrics make white people out to be the bad guys. We aren't. I promise.

White people did own slaves. So did Native Americans. So did Africans. So did Asians. So did Islanders. As it stands, slavery is at an all-time low, largely due to American (read: white) intervention worldwide to put an end to tyranny. I wholeheartedly despise slavery in any form, and I wish I could reach back in time and stop it before it began, but I can't, so we just have to deal with what's ahead of us. I have never owned another man, and neither have most of the white people alive today. We should not be held guilty for the crimes of our ancestors hundreds of years ago, especially since we are now the staunchest enemies of their ideals.
#51 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
Nononnoo, hold the phone, white people did something fundamentally different with slavery, they imported another race.

When you decide an entire race is your slave, it makes escape impossible, you are forever branded as a slave, until the entire system is abolished.

That's my problem with white slavery.

The thing is white men still hold slaves, they just hold them for a little bit of money and call it capitalism.
User avatar #54 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
You're again assuming that only white men can benefit from capitalism. We currently have a black president. That's the highest station afforded to a human being in America, and many would consider that the highest position of power in the world. If a poor black kid can make it to the presidency, I think you need to reevaluate your stance on all this. Sure, the system is still largely controlled by old, fat white men, but they're all going to die off in the next few decades, and there will be a lot of positions open; when that happens, it won't be the color of your skin that determines who has the power, it will be your determination and your ruthlessness that gets you the big chair. Like you said, classism is the problem, not racism.

Also, attacking racism with racism is bad form.
#55 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
You're again assuming that only white men can benefit from capitalism.
>They benefit the most from it, by quite a lot.

We currently have a black president. That's the highest station afforded to a human being in America, and many would consider that the highest position of power in the world.
>He doesn't fucking control the economy or anything, honestly thats not really a high position of power.

If a poor black kid can make it to the presidency, I think you need to reevaluate your stance on all this.
>hold on, when was obama poor?
Sure, the system is still largely controlled by old, fat white men, but they're all going to die off in the next few decades, and there will be a lot of positions open; when that happens, it won't be the color of your skin that determines who has the power, it will be your determination and your ruthlessness that gets you the big chair. Like you said, classism is the problem, not racism.
>classism is currently the problem, but the classes were decided by racism, the white man being the most beneficial race to be hands down, destroying the americans, destroying aztec culture, destroying anything in their path to achieve their militaristic greed.

Did you know the americans, when they went to war with eachother, wouldn't even kill eachother most of the time? Almost all of their warfare was based on proving what they could've done. Hence why their military might was so low, and why they were so easily ravaged by the white man.
User avatar #58 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
You're ignoring the part where I highlighted the fact that the class borders are less and less defined by race and that in a few decades the playing field will be nearly completely even. Once again, racism does not make a sound argument against racism.
#59 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
The playing field will not be even for the americans, and it never will be.
Their entire culture has been destroyed and its never going to come back.

Sure they'll come back economically, but thats not the only thing that matters.
User avatar #60 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
And that's sad, but it's a fact of life. We have to mourn for what they lost and move on.
#12 - :^) 08/11/2014 on (^: -1
#98 - I'm from Florida and this is 100% ******** . Dogs … 08/09/2014 on Pick up your dogs poop or else 0
#97 - Dog **** and piss is so high in Nitrogen that it … 08/09/2014 on Pick up your dogs poop or else 0
#127 - I'd really appreciate it if you'd put that in a spoiler next t… 08/04/2014 on except during sexy time +4
#16 - That's what he said. 07/30/2014 on So smooth.... 0
#509 - I logged in for the first time in over a year just to tell you… 07/19/2014 on All aboard the feels train +3
#13 - I spy 2 casts of Flame Swathe. Muh ***** . … 04/06/2014 on if she knows what he means 0
#10 - Scrub.  [+] (1 new reply) 04/06/2014 on if she knows what he means 0
User avatar #12 - unlithe (04/06/2014) [-]
works fine for me.
#9 - She's in Harvest Valley just past the first bonfire.  [+] (1 new reply) 04/06/2014 on if she knows what he means 0
User avatar #11 - unlithe (04/06/2014) [-]
thanks. didn't recognize her since i never really need titanite
#8 - Exhaust all of her "talk" dialogue, you *****… 04/06/2014 on if she knows what he means 0
#26 - Picture 04/06/2014 on Fuck 0
#27 - >>The stories and information posted here are artistic w…  [+] (1 new reply) 01/06/2014 on ER tales -3
User avatar #30 - darthsalias (01/06/2014) [-]
my grand mother work in the er most of her life intill just recently. she is loaded with carzy ass stories like this
#158 - Picture 11/20/2013 on Room Check +2
#149 - Picture 11/19/2013 on I'm glad it's 2013 +1
#25 - Picture 11/19/2013 on check +1
#294 - Picture 11/19/2013 on There's truth in this 0
#69 - Picture 11/19/2013 on Swagger +1
#162 - Picture 11/19/2013 on Russian ingenuity +2

Comments(9):

 

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)