cancel reply
Posting mode: Reply

Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
name e-mail subject pw(deletion)
Post and go
Bump thread?

  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Javascript must be enabled for all of our addons to work.
  • Come chat and see that we're all a bit crazy on IRC!
  • Do not post any artwork from and/or
    Jeremy Bernal. This is now a bannable offense.

File: mqdefault[1].jpg - (10.56 KB, 320x180) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
10817 No.3491239

So who are the Google furries, and what are they talking about?

In a section claiming Google tries to “stifle” conservative parenting styles, the suit reads: “Google furnishes a large number of internal mailing lists catering to employees with alternative lifestyles, including furries, polygamy, transgenderism, and plurality, for the purpose of discussing sexual topics. The only lifestyle that seems to not be openly discussed on Google’s internal forums is traditional heterosexual monogamy.”

A footnote next to the word “plurality” adds: “For instance, an employee who sexually identifies as ‘a yellow-scaled wingless dragonkin’ and ‘an expansive ornate building’ presented a talk entitled ‘Living as a Plural Being’ at an internal company event.”

>“We want to be inclusive of people not ideas” one employee identified as Alon Altman wrote in a message included in the lawsuit. Damore says that sentiment was backed up at an Inclusion and Diversity Summit he attended in June, when he was told by Google employees the company does not value “viewpoint diversity,” but actively strives for “demographic diversity.”

This kind of thinking is also what's killing colleges in US as places of intellectual debate and learning. They strive for "diversity" and to turn colleges into safe spaces, where those who want to learn something and succeed are shamed and humiliated by upper class brats trying to score diversity points.

Same can be applied to this situation with Google. God forbid you are a white heterosexual male, any and every opinion or idea you might have is automatically disregarded.



Hey assfuck, not every white male in the world is some rich sexist, racist or transphobic/whatever-phobic bastard with nothing to worry about. Yet you SJWs make it sound like it's always the case, and "straight white male" has become a strawman for you to beat on over and over and over. There are many males out there, white or not, who are equally successful in life or have shit luck. There are males out there who go through shit every day in their lives just to make ends meet, and they are in far greater numbers than these white privileged brats you (rightfully) hate. But for some reason, you focus on these underprivileged males who just want to work like everyone else, and treat them like assholes who have everything handed to them on a silver platter. Thank God I don't live in US because your brand of political correctness has reached absurdly toxic levels.

Yours truly: straight white male from European shithole who spent 10 fucking years barely making ends meet, who was always passed over at several job interviews because he isn't a minority/PoC, but doesn't hold any malice against said minorities and PoC because of the fact.



Yet at the same time you would say it is conspiracy theory that people claim diversity is a codeword for no conservative straight white males.

It's one or the other, you duplicitous fuck.

File: Ea9MDX7.jpg - (147.74 KB, 1024x1024) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

>>3491257 yeah but that whole victim complex mentality is what the left seems to thrive on. So it's a little weird to play the "cry baby logic" card when we since somethings not adding up.



>you duplicitous fuck.

You described 3B perfectly. He keeps flip-flopping between arguments just so he can have something to argue about with people.

Like how he went balls-out in full support of Bernie Sanders during elections, singing fucking praises about him to the skies. Then when Bernie got punted out of the elections, 3B suddenly turned on him, calling him weak, corrupt, etc. Now all of a sudden he is back to supporting him. He must think everyone on this board has some memory loss issues or something.



>Sure, they got the job because they were a minority and totally not because they were more qualified or had a better interview

Actually that was pretty much the case. Our town hall where I applied, for example, favored hiring Roma/gypsies based on the fact they're a minority. There were no special requirements needed from them to apply for a job, while everyone else had to be "unemployed for 2 years straight" (which means even working, say, a summer job for a month or two beforehand automatically disqualified you) and to have between 2-5 years of working experience. It was all a ploy by the mayor to net political points. And don't get me started on several other workplaces...

But sure, keep thinking every white person here lives in big shiny mansions and has 5 cars they bought from money they stole from minorities.

File: 1474491664.jamminbison_day34.png - (144.96 KB, 1000x919) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.


>furry is a lifestyle

Never liked that meme, never will.


And when are we going to talk about new Ducks? (and why its shite)

Cap: wow



Please, they know exactly what "privileged" means. The "evil SJWs" have been patiently explaining it to them for years, because liberals are too thickheaded to realize that these people aren't really interested in changing their minds about anything.

Because if privilege exists, that means institutional inequality exists, and that means that society is fundamentally broken, and that means that meritocracy is a joke, and that means that every shred of comfortable Capitalist propaganda they've ever believed was nothing more than a cruel lie.

And that's scary. Far more comfortable to believe conspiracy theories, half-baked racialist pseudoscience and forced /pol/ memes.



Speaking of thickheaded liberals.


Niggers are always guilty .

Around blacks never relax.




Do you hate niggers or what,?

Take your stance/pick one.



Speaking of thickheaded liberals.


3B goes to the gulag for being a dumbass liberal. >>3491333 >>3491334 goes straight to the wall for being a worthless empty husk masquerading as a human being.



Join the Red team, comrade. We (probably) won't gulag you as long as you continue to hate the fash vermin.



A very good explanation of privilege:



This also applies a lot during drug crimes.

Whites are most likely to get a slap in the wrist or a "warning" for drug offences.
Blacks get frisked and detained more than anyone else for exactly the same.

Blacks unlocking a Bike in a neighbourhood "suspiciously" had almost half the "witnesses" call 911.
In the white side, only one called out of 20 or more.

There are multiple examples of this experiment and study on youtube

The entire language and indirect things in global media, stores, and products can easily invisibly (as in our subconscious ) program us to be racist in some way that even when you're doing something clearly racist you wont notice it. Because its apparently "normal" in your brain.

From soap boxes having deformed black man faces, to stereotypes on TV like how criminals on TV are presented (if they are black = they are shown their mug shots, if its a white man, they show him with his family all dressed and in a clean environment)

File: Cynder help me out here.png - (76.79 KB, 239x208) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Can somebody explain to me why ThreeBee derails the thread with the most brain-dead far-FAR-left narrative while posting a picture of futa anthro Fashion Horse fucking her own sister?


As dangerous and batshit delusional as the right are, no. Blacks, especially gang members do beat up whites for being white and small communities of immigrants may very well assault any white who enters their area. It happens probably the same rate as whites beating up minorities.

SJWs can and will target men, harass them, or even cost them their jobs for being men. It's happened before. Remember the scientist they tried to discredit because of his shirt?

Just because one side is guilty as fuck doesn't magically mean the other side isn't also committing war crimes. The US and Russia were honestly not much better than Hitler, and if the US had killed the interned Japanese we'd have been equal. Both sides get their hands dirty in conflict.


It happens probably the same rate as whites beating up minorities.
As a percentage of the aggressor's population? Possibly. As a percentage of the victim's population? Assuredly not, simply due to population discrepancy.


That's stupid because if you're a cis-het-white-male they dump you into the privileged class. Imagine a white trash kid with alcoolic parents, well they won't pay for uni either.



>how half of humanity is genetically predisposed to not belong in my workplace?

More than half of humanity regardless of gender is already genetically pre-disposed against working in Google (aside for supporting jobs) because they necessarily have some standards about the intelligence of their workforce. According to twin studies, genetics explain about 80% of the differences in individual intelligence, when controlled for physical environmental issues like iodine deficiency, lead exposure, malnutrition etc. which for the most part no longer apply in the first world.

That being the case, and also because there exists an empirically observable difference between male and female IQ distibutions, hiring based on true performance metrics naturally result in a noticeable gender bias.

Furthermore, as people make their education and career choices in their youth, they observe what their likely outcomes will be and place their bets on where they're likely to succeed. After all, they won't know whether they're any good at it before they actually push their limits, but if they choose wrong they'll waste a decade of their life finding out it was the wrong choice. Unless you're clearly in the top percentiles already, it's more rational to pick a career where you're more likely to succeed according to the average characteristics of your group.

This skews the bias even further to the point where women don't choose to enter male dominant fields because they're statistically less likely to thrive there. This is an entirely expected outcome, and trying to fix it by gender quotas is misguided and irrational.

In fact, trying to force more women into places like Google has but one real rationale: increase the pool of applicants to push down wages. The true experts know their worth, but the beancounters don't want the best - they want the cheap. This is being exploited by the incompetent who are leveraging diversity politics to climb up the corporate ladder. That's ultimately going to be the downfall of the business, but in the mean while the social justice crowd gets what they want.



>There is no fig leaf. ceteris paribus, your poor example kid is still privileged, albeit not economically.

Care to explain how? Because all I hear is "if you're white you're privileged by default" but no one wants to explain what this "privilege" entails.

Typical bullshit spouted by Americans who have no idea how people live outside of US.



Do you no the wey?





> You are upset because you EXPECT white kids to get to go to uni

You just pulled that out of your ass.



3B has a habit of twisting other people's arguments or making strawmen out ot them. No big surprise.

File: photo_2017-12-11_16-46-35.jpg - (45.38 KB, 544x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.


Well yeah, white people are better.

That's why white people are a minority, yet structured the world with beauty and civilization.

Now not-white people? Look at where they're from. They made those countries shitty.

"White Privilege" should just be "White Man's Burden"

>The only lifestyle that seems to not be openly discussed on Google’s internal forums is traditional heterosexual monogamy.

What exactly is there to discuss?

File: nintchdbpict000293340077.jpg - (106.34 KB, 960x640) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.


> Crybaby member of the most privileged class.


Yeah, that kid is privileged and thus should not be given any help.




> more qualified for being black/brown/whatever.

Exactly that's the problem. Skin color counting as qualifications. "Your skills and education are flawless, but we're looking for someone more diverse".

File: behind it.gif - (11.17 KB, 501x585) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

They think they are, they feel guilty about it.




>Oh, so you don't think that minorities are getting special treatment? My bad.

You just pulled that out of your ass as well. Check who you reply to.

But thanks for exposing yourself as a moron again.

File: secret_of_life_circle_sketch.jpg - (465.65 KB, 1045x830) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Remember kids....



I'm confused, the white guy walking around in circles was born into privilege, so shouldn't he have just taken the first exit on his left?



I'm confused, why haven't SJWs like you been lynched and ser afire like you so richly deserve?



>I'm confused, the white guy walking around in circles was born into privilege

Only by some dumb, reverse racist SJW logic. Following real world logic he is an average Joe trying to find his place in life and facing same difficulties as everyone else.



To assume white man isn't born to privelige isn't racist at all.. But if I say should say all the jews are priveliged....Oohhh.. look out.


>>3491655 Don't quite see how it is priveliged for me to slave away and pay taxes and have the whole third world marching in getting everything for free.


Oh look, it's this thread again.

No, there is not a secret wypipo's club that grants benefits to members for simply being white. You are cultists and you're pushing for a new Original Sin (the sin of being white).

File: blog-4.jpg - (841.98 KB, 2764x1884) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

You have the privilege of making up for all the racist hate crimes your ancestors committed :3


>>3491660 But they didn't. We've always been occupied and the colony.
So my "privelige" is double injustice.

File: duschraumflossenburg1ikk0.png - (61.32 KB, 630x428) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

We came up with a solution for that and many more problems long ago. A final solution.



Funnily that while many big corporations who have very big views and visibility force diversity.

Theres still racists local jobs that refuse by colour or sexual orientation.

Also, how do you know the other "brown diverse person" hasn't the same high qualifications as you? or has a specific trait that makes them more desirable than you other than claim colour?



>have the whole third world marching in getting everything for free.

That excuse again? Its not like they are suddenly not paying taxes when they join the workforce.
Those lies have been demonstrated as bullshit parroted by Trumpists.

Meanwhile, we live in a corporate wellfare program, where corporate.. who creates LESS JOBS than middle class, get MASSIVE CUTS as payment for "buying (oh pardon I mean lobbying) politicians.

Companies like Boeing, GE and Raytheon who get millions of grants and taxes back despite getting record profits.


They do not join the work force because they have already been booted out. Except not because their countries are shitholes and it's not humane to return the shitholes to their shithole countries.
Thus we priviliged just keep paying for everyone who just shows up and asks.


And because everything is free for everyone xcept the white man, countries like Sweden are now drowning in islamist shit.



>Your entire life time of taxes couldn't pay for the clean water you drink, bath and wash your clothes in.

1) Bullshit
2) Water isn't tax funded. You have to pay your water utility for what you use.

If the water actually cost more than the taxes you pay in a lifetime, nobody could afford water.



>Potable water is you disingenuous pasty snakecunt.

And yet you still pay a water bill to the public utility.

The argument that water costs more than the average person pays in taxes is completely ridiculous, because it would imply the economy is using something between 20-40% of the GDP just on drinking water. In reality the cost of the water infrastructure even in dry states like Nevada or California is just around 2% of the state GDP.

You need to be really really really poor to not pay enough taxes to cover your own water use, because even the sales tax you pay any time you buy anything would cover it.


Mind, in places like California, residential customers pay 5x the cost of water, while a handful of large industrial farmers use up 80% of the water and pay 2% of the cost.

It's not tax funded; the state is not sinking any tax money into it - they're making a net profit from it and giving it away to their corporate cronies.



>>Drinking water isn't ran by the government..

Now you shifted the argument again. You didn't make a point about who runs the infrastructure, you said:

>You pay way less in taxes than you get out of the services those taxes pay for.

But you don't pay your water through your taxes, you pay them through your water utility bill! If you're paying less in taxes per year than your water bill, you must be truly poor.


Basically, what you're claiming is that there's such a massive government subsidy on people's water utility bills that it completely eclipses what the average person pays in taxes in total, making their taxation net negative on the point of water alone. For the amount of tax that the typical individual pays, you are then impying that there exists a massive yet apparently invisible government program to the tune of at least 1/5th of the entire economy, centered solely on the public water infrastructure, that is being paid by taxes coming off the rich.

For once, are you going to admit you were talking out of your ass, or would you rather continue this charade for another ten threads?



>Yes, that is what I'm saying. Your water bill is cheap because government maintains the infrastructure and subsidizes the labor needed to keep the water flowing to your local water company.

Well, thanks for confirming you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. For your claim to be true, the government would have to spend ridiculous amounts of money into subsidizing water, but somehow fucking it up completely to the point that nothing is happening.

The reason why the US water infrastructure is crumbling to pieces is exactly that the government isn't putting a dime into it. The public utilities aren't allowed to make enough profit, or the profit is pilfered out of them for other government purposes, to the point that they're unable to do anything but apply tape and bubblegum whenever something breaks. Hence why there's 100 year old pipes bursting everywhere, and up to 20% of the pumped drinkable water is being lost to leaks.



> government maintains the infrastructure and subsidizes the labor

Also bullshit. The public utilities maintain the infrastructure - that's why they exist - with the money they gain from sales, and the government doesn't put any money into the utility. Rather the opposite - the government skims off any profits the utilities make, leaving them without the funds to make necessary repairs.

>Flint’s problems include crumbling infrastructure and a dwindling tax base, which have led the city to rely increasingly on its water and sewer revenue to keep its coffers afloat. The moves have helped drive water rates in Flint to the highest in the country
>Flint’s high water bills don’t just cover the cost of running the aging, failing and over-sized plumbing system. Thanks to a loophole in state law, Flint has for years been raising water and sewer rates and transferring millions of dollars of that money to the city’s general fund.

Also, check out this gem from the same article:

>At one point Washington filed a federal suit, but it was quickly killed. There is no federal right to affordable water, the judge told him.
>“I said, 'You’re kidding,'” Washington recounted. “So I did some research and he was right: There is no right to affordable water.”

The state goverments and cities are actually billing the water utilities for "return of equity" for the amount of tax dollars they've previously spent on public infrastructure, on top of doing shenanigans like "outsourcing" the payments of wages to the city, and then again billing the utility for the "service".

The government(s) are not subsidizing your water, they are using public utilities as an extra revenue stream to raise more taxes indirectly.



>The government charging you money for a service they render, is taxation.

Not always. A tax is mandatory and not connected to the benefit you're getting; paying the utility for water is not. You're paying a price, not a tax.

>The legal definition and the economical definition of taxes differ in that economists do not regard many transfers to governments as taxes. For example, some transfers to the public sector are comparable to prices. Examples include tuition at public universities and fees for utilities provided by local governments.
>a tax is a non-penal, yet compulsory transfer of resources from the private to the public sector levied on a basis of predetermined criteria and without reference to specific benefit received

Whenever you buy something from the government that is specified in amount and price, such as 100 gallons of water, or 100 kWh of electricity from a public utility, that's not a tax. That's just a regular enterprise that happens to be owned and operated by the government.

You've lost the point you've made ages ago, and you're simply trying to save face by semantics.



> So on top of the actual taxes you pay to keep the EPA and the public water works functioning, the roads and the pipes and the repairs and the guys...

You're also making the completely idiotic assertion that those services that actually are tax funded, such as the EPA or the public roads, are solely for the function of providing you with water.

You're counting every thing in the economy that has something to do with providing water, and loading it up onto the single taxpayer to argue that they can never pay enough tax to cover it, which is like saying that every one of your google searches actually costs so much you could never afford it if the cost wasn't spread over the multitude - but that's missing the point entirely, as nobody would build Google, or the public water works, just for you!

>If you only tax the people who are using more resources than they are paying for, the system collapses.

It is exactly by some people paying LESS than their proportion of the goods/services used, that causes the system to collapse, as such subsidies cause over-use of the resource. It's called tragedy of the commons: when the resource is collectively owned and paid not according to actual use but by some arbitrary tax or levy, the one who uses it the least ends up paying disproportionally, so everybody will try to maximize their use to take their own back and then some. This is exactly why water or electricity isn't paid by tax.

File: your-tax-dollars-pay-to-clean-this-vehicle-please-do-29725998.png - (194.46 KB, 500x736) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.


This brings up an interesting paradox. This picture is an example of a sign on a subway train. (ignoring the fact that someone put a trump sticker on it for a second). What is a person supposed to feel upon reading this message? If a person feels they're paying too much in taxes, which I would have to assume most people do, since no candidate has ever won on a platform of raising taxes; wouldn't this sign make them more likely to litter? But if everyone littered, taxes would be raised, so it would make them not want to litter, but then if someone happened to litter, it would make those around them more likely to litter as they feel 'Well since we're paying someone to clean up this area anyways'. I don't think this is tragedy of the commons, so much as tragedy of greedy assholes who would literally gorge themselves at a free buffet just to prevent anyone else from getting any food BECAUSE it's free.



>But if everyone littered, taxes would be raised, so it would make them not want to litter

That's the intention, but thanks to progressive taxation and generous subsidies to certain demographics, those who use the public transportation the most also pay the least. That essentially allows them to litter without care while complaining that the taxes should be raised (for the rich) because the trains are filthy.

So you're technically correct. It's not a tragedy of the commons, as the users and the payers are not the same people. The people who litter on the train aren't trying to "get their share of the investment back" because they've simply made no investment in the first place.



>so much as tragedy of greedy assholes who would literally gorge themselves at a free buffet just to prevent anyone else from getting any food BECAUSE it's free.

It's more accurately called "capitalism of the proletariat". I.e. "eat the rich".

People vote themselves money, in the form of tax breaks, free public services, welfare, mandatory wage raises, public spending on make-work projects etc. because they're the majority and they can, because there's no immediate penalty for demanding and gaining wealth redistribution through the state.

People literally eat their own economy to ruin, and the worse it gets the more redistribution they demand to the point where the government corrupts and collapses under the impossibility of providing the people all the shit for free.



But if we could have a government that ensured under harsh penalties that no-one took more than an equal share of the services, and sent all the greedy fucks to gulags, we would be living in a utopia!



If your company cannot afford to pay a living wage to your workers, you shouldn't have a business in the first place.

A lot of oligarchs do not understand that they cant take all the wealth because the entire system will collapse. They only want more even when they do not even need it.

A living wage is necessary to keep balance of the equation. Allows people from keep buying services and maintain the cycle of money.

If everyone is poor, noone will buy your products. This is exactly why the oligarchs and multicorps are now complaining that "millennials" are killing useless shit companies like Diamonds or non necessities like paper towels and Hooters. Instead of working to fix the issue and maintain the cycle, they only complain about them(millenials) killing their business.

The only way to balance this with keeping greed in check is Taxing.
Thats how the USA maintained a balance and forcing a distribution via services, building infrastructure and military. Now the US is so deep in debt thanks to overexpending and "tax cuts" that they cant even have power to balance. Oligarchs now owns top politics groups and will dictate their way until the US economy crumbles and the oligarchs will flee happily in their private jets after selling their assets to poor moochers (right before the collapse thanks to inside trading).


Jim Sterling genuinely put it best - when it comes to a lot of companies, they don't just want a lot of money, they want ***all*** the money.

File: aerobiz-supersonic-usa.png - (247.00 KB, 475x347) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.


I remember when I was a kid, there was a game for the SNES called AeroBiz which was a simplistic airline ceo simulation game.

The major goal of the game was simple, create an airline, gain a certain percentage of market share and certain assets by the time you retire and you win.

At some point after spending hours playing the game, my 7 year old self realized something amazing: If I start out slowly, building up a 'too big to fail' base of assets, then during the last few years take out huge loans I never intend to pay back, dump everything into advertising, cut prices to all my flights, and justify the expense by cutting wages to all my workers, I can successfully stifle any attempt at competition from companies that actually have an incentive to stay afloat. Eventually I got so good at this tactic that I could set up my budget so my market share and assets would skyrocket up until the very day of my retirement, and the very next quarter after taking my fat retirement bonus, the company would go bankrupt.

What I learned from this is simple. All of the so called 'wealth' that companies own is an illusion. It's precisely manipulated and inflated by those in power until it's no longer sustainable.

One of the reasons Millenials are considered lazy and job-hoppers is because there's rarely such thing nowadays as a company that lives and grows with you. Startups are born, and old-guard companies killed off faster than any time in the 20th century. All the meanwhile, the CEOs and other executives are using the company assets as their own personal savings accounts, which they intend to loot before they retire, or anyone votes them out.

Oligarchs are parasites. Companies provide a service. Workers are the means through which that service is provided. The elites of the company rarely even care whether or not a service is being provided, so long as there's something to loot.

Fuck oligarchs.



Holy shit, talk about distorting whats written.
He said nothing of that you twat.


Of course not.
His tactic classically has been to delete/repost threads when convenient and attack the credibility of opponents at any available vector.
Here, he cannot delete, so he attacks the credibility of the opponent. Nothing new.



>Yet you have zero problem with billionares and the richest corporations in the world getting a free ride from the government?
>You are perfectly ok with your tax dollars going to help people, as long as those people were born wealthy

Whatabouttism, and strawmen. You're just making irrelevant complaints and pulling bullshit out of your ass again because you lost the topic, so now you're trying to insert opinions onto your opponent to save face.



>If your company cannot afford to pay a living wage to your workers, you shouldn't have a business in the first place.

1) Where did that come from?
2) Define "living wage"

The problem in point 2 is that people tend to up the criteria continuously and never back off from the spoils they've already gained, so we get back to the issue of people voting themselves more and more money. Today's luxuries turn to tomorrow's necessities, and what was "living" yesterday is now seen as impossible torture.

When was the last time you've heard anyone say "I don't need this much for salary"? Or "I want to pay my fair share"? When was the last time you heard anyone below upper middle class campaign for leveling out the tax progression curve?


Besides, leftists are hypocrits anyways. Social justice by redistribution of wealth? Fuck you, you're already in the top 1% of humanity anyways.

So what you actually mean is, "Let's share our wealth equally and fairly, except with those who we arbitrarily don't include. To them we say 'fuck you, got mine'"



>Why would they?

That's exactly the point.

If you give the people the right to vote themselves more money, why wouldn't they? That's the tragedy of leftism.



>We are saying it shouldn't be so concentrated at the top that it's a determent to society.

And when you've gained that little bit of social justice, why would you stop? The people can obviously vote to redistribute more and more, and they want more and more, so how do you tell the people "okay, this is enough"?



>Your arrogance and greed, your total lack of empathy for anyone but yourself, is clear for the world to see. You are the cancer on society and if shit doesn't get better for the rest of us, we will be coming for the 1%. We won't be using pitchforks either.

You're exhibiting:

>The mind projection fallacy is a logical fallacy first described by physicist and Bayesian philosopher E.T. Jaynes. It occurs when someone thinks that the way they see the world reflects the way the world really is, going as far as assuming the real existence of imagined objects.[1] That is, someone's subjective judgments are "projected" to be inherent properties of an object, rather than being related to personal perception. One consequence is that others may be assumed to share the same perception, or that they are irrational or misinformed if they do not.

Aka. "autistic fallacy".



>It's fucked up and you think we should feel bad for demanding to get paid enough to afford to live?

It's one thing to demand, and another thing to take by force. Demands are part of the social negotiation going on all the time. You pay me this much and I work that much - that's normal. If you don't pay enough, I won't work - because I can't work like that. I'll go find something else to do, live in the woods and hunt squirrels if I have to. Then you can try to have your business and your economy without workers or customers, as nobody has the money to pay you anyhow. If work doesn't pay, don't work there! Do something else! Go somewhere else!

Instead, what leftism does is drop the bargaining entirely, refuse to find any gainful work to do, and instead simply grab wealth out of those who have it, by the power of the majority mob, by some arbitrary standard of a "living wage" that is really just an excuse to commit wealth redistribution as no such thing can be defined. One man's living wage is another man's poverty.

It's got nothing to do with justice, social or otherwise, but about simple greed masquerading as altruism. It's doing "good" (pleasing the voting public by distributing money) so you yourself can eat off the cart on the way. That's why leftism is properly called "capitalism of the proletariat".



>Translation: If I have to pay for starving children to have food what's next? Clothes? Education? Healthcare?

Holy hyperbole and hypocrisy, Batman! If you make that argument, don't you think even the poorest of the poor here should be giving their money to people in Africa who are even poorer than they? Why not? Where do you set the standards for forcing people to help other people?

>You know when you post, the words you use are the words of a complete sociopath, right?

You're doing mind projection again. One doesn't need to be heartless to be logical.

On the contrary, the people who claim to be, and think of themselves as being good and on the good cause, are the real monsters, because what they're doing is the same greed as everybody else, and the lies they tell are first to themselves and then to all others. They're simply veiled in the righteousness of their self-defined altruism: "I am fighting for a good cause, therefore I can do bad and irrational things that just so happen to benefit me."



>Then in >>3491967 you say forcing the 1% to stop stealing all the wealth and power for themselves is wrong.

Nope. You just pulled that out of your ass and misunderstood the whole argument.

More specifically: you're not forcing the rich to stop stealing, but simply instituting a redistribution system that is based on stealing the money back. That is simply creating a social convention where it is permissible to steal so long as you've got political power. If you want to be morally consistent, you can't just play Robin Hood. The ends don't justify the means.

>So, again, we loop back to your fundamental truth: Greed and cruelty is great as long as you are the one inflicting it but it is never ok if even the slightest inconvenience is done to you in order to help anyone less fortunate.

Again you're projecting. Greed and cruelty are not "great" - the point is that they exist, and the greatest liar is the one who says they aren't greedy and cruel.

The point is that by stopping the pretension and admitting directly what you want, we can come to fair agreements. By pretending that one person is good and another is bad, the "good" person is trying to gain more moral currency over the "bad", to gain some edge in the negotiation and stack the game in their own favor, thus gaining unfair advantage by their bullshit.

>You reveal yourself time and time again to be human trash and you can't even see how horrible and repulsive it makes you to the rest of us.

That's a great example of exactly what I'm talking about: you're trying to discredit the argument by calling me bad names. In the same way, the leftist is creating the class divisions to make devils and angels out of people, to justify why they can simply steal wealth out of those who have it.



>You are literally making the arguments that we attribute to the caricatures of the worst aspects of humanity.

But does that make the argument wrong?

You put these arguments in the mouths of evil caricatures and claim that only evil people would say so, but that happens to be a fallacy of argumentation. (association fallacy)


Also, do you know who really made the argument?


>the goody-goodies are the thieves of virtue, meaning that to try to be wholly righteous is to go beyond humanity and to be something that isn't human.

That's because "the good" justifies any atrocity to reach it. For example, wars fought for stealing land and property are less cruel than wars fought for ideals, because they stop short of destroying what they seek and back off when they meet sufficient resistance, making peace and diplomacy possible. In contrast, the war fought for some higher ideal will not stop until the opposition is competely wiped out, by any means. Any battle for the good is going to be a total war, because the victory condition is so ill defined it cannot be met.

So if you're justifying your politics as "fairness", you're likely to be a monster yourself as you have to hide your greed behind such terms. You can keep on shifting the goalposts for "fair" indefinitely, always demanding more and more even beyond equality. If instead you admit you simply want more money, that's fine, that we can work out.



>As apposed to what we have now that you adamantly support? Ok

More projection of opinions doesn't make you right. (strawman fallacy). I never said I support the 1% - that's entirely your imagination.

>You just admitted to agreeing with the worst scum humanity has ever seen.

That's such a lame bait that I shouldn't even be replying. Do you agree that vegetables are good? Good, then you're agreeing with Hitler. Your complaint is entirely irrelevant.



> Ok, what would your solution be to fix the income inequality then?

What do you mean by "fix"?

>If paying workers enough to live on is a bridge too far, what is your solution.

You're begging the question. What is your definition of "enough to live on" and why should we agree to that?



>They had to change the rules so the fair-minded, humane, worker-protecting social democrat couldn't get re-elected anymore

No such thing was necessary. As the government spending grew (now 43% of GDP), too much of the economy became dependent on the government spending and so politicians who would reduce spending became un-voteable, while politicians who would spend more became popular - this was the people voting themselves money. Meanwhile, no politician who would raise taxes out of the poor or the working classes could get elected.

The end result was steeper tax progression and more spending, and when the government couldn't tax any more they started borrowing money endlessly, which ran up the inflation. Simultaneously, the rich reacted to their high taxation by investments in lobbying, and as all governments do corrupt eventually, they managed to lower their own tax rates - and the government started running faster and faster into debt for the lack of money to pay their social spending.

This debt though was invisible to the public, and it seemed like all the tax they were already paying was enough to pay for everything, so they kept on demanding more and voting for politicians who would borrow and spend on them. The new money created by debt then went first to the banks, and from there mostly to the 1% to increase the income disparity and create the problems we are facing today.

In short, the huge income disparity in the US today was inevitable, because the government took on the role of the do-goodie, "fixing" the economy and "helping" the people by means of wealth redistribution. Their means ended up the opposite of their intention. Now the left is proposing to "fix" the situation by doing even more of the same, and accusing anyone who would disagree as being evil.



> the productivity that the poor do most of the work to achieve

Approximately 80% of the US economy is "services" - retail and trade, administration, etc. - which are for the most part not productive but simply middlemanship and pointless bureaucracy. The entire problem is that the poor are trying to work in occupations that for the most part do not generate wealth, but simply consume it, and expect to be paid a "living wage".

This has become a problem because people want easy desk jobs with high salaries, rather than digging ditches or whatever, so they flock to the cities in search of "opportunities" and find themselves working at McDonalds' for petty wages, and if they disagree to the conditions, goodbye, there's ten others just like them waiting in line.

Finding themselves in such a situation, the people then have two options: bite the bullet and move elsewhere in search of better alternatives, or start whining to the government to provide more welfare, higher minimum wages, whatever. While some do option A, others do option B, and the government responds by raising the minimum wages, raising welfare, pouring money into the economy to "create jobs", and it becomes easier to stay there doing essentially nothing, so more people switch to option B: vote yourself more money.

>You think the poor forcing the wealthy...

Actually, I think the political elite is abusing the situation of the poor to gain more power, by promising to "fix" the situation in exchange for votes. It's the political elite who like to tax and spend, because they're sitting in the middle of all that money flowing around. They've invented themselves a job where you don't actually have to do anything, because finding actual solutions to problems would make you redundant. From the government bureaucrat's point of view, having lots of poorly paid or unemployed people around is a boon - it's job security - as long as you can pass the blame to someone else and pretend you're doing something about it.

This is again completely natural - the government could not do anything else because the moment the government defines itself as a "problem solver" and tasks itself to "fix" the society, it immediately sets itself on the path of corruption. The moment the government is let loose to "do good", it starts to do bad.



>American workers are more productive while getting a stagnant share of the pie

That's because "productivity" is measured in terms of GDP, not real goods or resources. It measures how much money the american worker is moving around - how much they're earning their employers - not how much actual wealth they are producing. The actual industry has gone down steadily since the 70's while the financial side of the economy has grown massively.

As the government keeps pumping more and more money into the economy, more and more of the economy is concentrating on shuffling that money around and hoovering it up to the 1% bank accounts, and all those stocks and financial instruments count as "productivity", just as well as some poor sod serving you coffee counts as "productivity" even though that labor input to the system is a net negative in terms of real value.

Everybody's trying to maximize their income and minimize their effort, which is why people opt for non-value jobs that are close by and don't require them to train in special skills or move out of the cities from all the fun services and distractions, creating long lines of applicants for every position and consequently, low wages.


In general we can say, the government, the 1%, if not one and the same, are both abusing the stupidity of the masses to create this situation of massive wealth disparity.

And that statement instantly reveals the other side of the coin: it's also the fault of the people for being stupid, greedy, and short sighted of their own situation. You can't fix the issue from one side only, because one side creates the other - indeed all your attempts will be circumvented by the same pig-headedness of the masses and some other form of corruption takes place.

The government can't fix it, because the government instantly becomes part of the problem. The only thing you can do is take your hands off. Unfortunately, there are always people who won't believe this, and will try to "fix" things by force, and make things worse until the situation becomes unbearable.

Shit needs to hit the fan before the people become wise. Until then, they will blame the rich, blame the free market, the "capitalist" that they themselves have created, for all the problems and keep undermining the basis of their own livelyhood.



>In your mind, the wealthy can do no wrong and anything the poor do other than obedience, is a sin.

I already told you to stop projecting. You're like a god damn multiplex movie theater.



>No "socialism", no post-war economic boom for the US. It didn't take grit, moral character or self-sustaining, it took public works and public expenses.

Or more realistically, it took selling tons and tons of stuff to the recovering European economies. "Made in China" wasn't a thing yet, and everything west of the Urals was bombed to shit.

So the US got to sell all the industrial goods for decades, plus all the weapons exports to NATO countries, and the cold war expansion, then the petrodollars... and as a result we got money left over for goverments to buy popularity with public works - but it wasn't those public works that built the society - it was the money and wealth flowing in from overseas.

Now the money is flowing out, and the government is left with the burden of their commitments that they cannot pay for, and a society of people that believes it doesn't need to manufacture or produce anything to make ends meet - just whine for more handouts.



The wealthy are not the reason you cannot eat. Pride and entitlement is the reason you cannot eat.

Even illegal Mexican migrants will work the fields and pick the fruit, but you? You entitled middle class trust fund baby? You'd rather spout Marxism about the worker's virtue while having the hands of a baby.

You deserve helicopter rides.

File: photo_2018-01-08_15-35-30.jpg - (37.57 KB, 720x693) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.


Fact: Poor, useless people contribute nothing to society. They take, take, take, then want more, getting jealous whenever they see someone with something they want.

Fact: "Rich people", people that made their money, contributed a lot, pay other people for goods and services and know the value of money.

Fact: "Rich socialists" usually get their money handed to them by a mommy or daddy, and do not know the value of money. They are the young leftists who think just because they got their money for free, they believe everyone should just be "given free money"

It really is this simple.


Lotteries, inheritance and royalties are not "earning" money, those are freebie handouts and most rich people are rich because of such things.

File: the gaem.jpg - (21.51 KB, 600x308) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.


The rich fixed the game. That's why they're rich

You have lost the gmae



>>Lotteries, inheritance and royalties are not "earning" money, those are freebie handouts and most rich people are rich because of such things.

Lottery, every party consented to the exchange of money. Royalties? Same thing.

Inheritance? Not free. It comes at the expense of the other family members AND it is a consensual donation upon death.

The government is not handing out it's own money, or the pay of congress and senators, it is handing out tax which is forcibly seized from the efforts of others. Likewise, tax breaks are not handouts, because they merely are telling someone you promise to rob them of less.

You can't compare those things to social programs. Well, you can, but you'd be an idiot or ignorant of context.



>That's bullshit and you know it. No one is saying wealth should be spread out equally to everyone. We are saying it shouldn't be so concentrated at the top that it's a determent to society.

Specially when these dudes can literally control entire countries with their web of money and corruption.
All to modify change and even make laws on purpose to make themselves more powerful and rich.

These people are a disease because they can never be satisfied. They reached a level of Midas.



< The people can obviously vote to redistribute more and more, and they want more and more, so how do you tell the people "okay, this is enough"?

As I have said a few times. The rich are already redistributing money for their own benefit while blaming the "poor" and "socialists".
Very ironic.

The rich pay technically LESS TAXES thanks to using loopholes they can only buy, they use tax heavens, they literally buy politicians and they push for giving as little as possible to workers.

Theres a ton of companies owned by millonaires which are still getting tax breaks and kickbacks that they never needed.



>More specifically: you're not forcing the rich to stop stealing, but simply instituting a redistribution system that is based on stealing the money back. That is simply creating a social convention where it is permissible to steal so long as you've got political power. If you want to be morally consistent, you can't just play Robin Hood. The ends don't justify the means.

History has demonstrated that no rich, no wealthy and no powerful who are addicted to their position, will give ANYTHING BACK. NOONE.

Every single dictator or king were either voted out of power by the majority, or eliminated in a mayor bloody conflict.

"Stealing" money back is pretty much balancing an equation of constant abuse by oligarchs.

What part you do not get about this?

The rich and the powerful are always trying to convince idiotic smochers like you, that you somehow will be rich if you protect the rich interests (hint you will NEVER be rich). They pay huge amounts of PR and bullshit excuses so you protect THEIR wealth so you have the "near zero" opportunity to have some crumbs left.

We're going to reach an Elysium like world where a tiny rich portion will live in the happy lands in extreme ways as the world crumbles because of the greed of certain groups.



Fucking this.

Besides again and again, the wealthy are all about "cost cuts" and leaving billions work free for the sake of numbers in Wall Street.
The wealthy should never be a paramount of stability nor should be entrusted to maintain the economy because they literally do not give a fuck. The mayority of them do not care about the stability of Any country as long they can get away with their wealth and power.

They also refuse to play fair in the rules, giving them a disproportionate easyness to maintain their status quo by cheating and never touching jail. They can now bankrupt entire megacorps based on frauds by enriching a certain tiny group with insider trading and leaving millions in the dust.

Pop and Mom and middle class business were the staple of balance and organic growth based on supply and demand.
The megacorps changed this status quo by purchasing all the levels of production to amass many "too big to fail" business that destroy all other ones that required these levels of production to maintain themselves. And they can no longer have a startup to grow unless you receive huge loans as startup.

That is why a fair government should balance the equation. If you pull too much on one side, you will get another french revolution and heads will roll. And this is one of the reasons the rich and oligarchs are so busy pushing for big brother. For population control and the same way why Foxnews and CNN love to divide a country. A divided country cannot get together to fight the real enemy of the people.
Infact, I bet right now some rich men are laughing loudly about how these loser Trumpists think Trump and similar persons will benefit the loser's position (hint, nothing) while they reposition themselves in their seats of power.



Facts you conveniently missed:

There are POOR people who are WORKING even up to 3 works all by themselves.. either family, debts, medical and even school tied them to poverty.

The Rich do not always "produce" there are many who are just leeching from wall street by products and playing roulette. Depending on Wars that were never needed in the first place to maintain their position while trying their best to pay less and less and less taxes (less constributions, parasitism ).



>"Stealing" money back is pretty much balancing an equation of constant abuse by oligarchs.
>What part you do not get about this?

The part where you don't understand that the people who steal the money from the rich (government) are just other rich people who steal the money to themselves first, and merely promise to give you some scraps.



>every party consented to the exchange of money. Royalties? Same thing.

Royalties are for the most part involutary to the people whom they apply on. For example, do you voluntarily agree to pay for the copyright royalty to the 15 seconds of music that plays every 25 minutes on commercial TV?

Probably not, but you pay it anyways because the company that bought that commercial space has to pay the royalty, so they in turn charge you the money whenever you buy something off of them. In that way, the government has set a law, which allows private corporations and individuals to collect a levy/tax out of everybody.


You think this is voluntary exchange, or plain old abuse?

>It was written in 1893 by Mildred and Patty Hill and first published with the words, "Good morning to you".
>The Clayton F. Summy Company became the song's publisher in 1935. Through a series of purchases and acquisitions, the song now belongs to AOL Time Warner.
>The copyright to "Happy Birthday to You" should have expired in 1991, but the Copyright Act of 1976 extended it, and the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 extended it again, so the song is protected until 2030 at least.
>"Happy Birthday to You" brings in about $2 million per year in licensing fees


>The rich pay technically LESS TAXES thanks to using loopholes they can only buy

No they don't. Their effective tax percentage is lower than the next group down, but in absolute terms they still pay more tax than anyone else combined.

Anyone below middle class in the US right now is actually, effectively, paying negative tax, because they get more government spending directed at them than they pay in taxes - which is the whole point of progressive taxation in practice.

In theory the idea of tax progression is that everybody pays but some pay more because they can afford more. In practice, tax progression means some pay and a great many don't, which perverts the point but hey - that's what you get when you give the people the ability to vote themselves more money.



>The rich and the powerful are always trying to convince idiotic smochers like you, that you somehow will be rich if you protect the rich interests (hint you will NEVER be rich). They pay huge amounts of PR and bullshit excuses so you protect THEIR wealth so you have the "near zero" opportunity to have some crumbs left.

Sums up Hillary Clinton, the Democrat party and Bernie Sanders to a fucking T.

Daily reminder that Bernie has not given away any of his money, 3 mansions or luxury cars after throwing the election.


No one is forcing you to consume music, movies or media. Stop acting like you're a victim of the big bad evil recording industry.

No one is forcing you to buy things from rich people in order to live... except for the democrats, with their insurance policies.

Rich people don't get rich through theft, they get rich because lazy faggots like you lot just sit around bitching while forking over cash instead of... not forking over cash.



>That's because they own more than everyone combined.

Taxes aren't levied by how much you own, but how much you make.

Do you think the purpose of taxation is to level the amount of wealth you have?

No one is forcing you to consume music, movies or media. Stop acting like you're a victim of the big bad evil recording industry.

Even if I don't listen to music, watch television, go to movies etc. I am still paying the royalties because other people do. I cannot escape paying the cost because third parties shift the cost of royalties onto me, for what I cannot avoid buying such as food or housing.



> You act like we are targeting these poor, defenseless billionaires but if they don't pay the taxes no one will because they own everything. They have all the money.

Completely the opposite. I'm merely pointing out the hyporcisy of stealing from the thieves, which is only legitimizing their stealing in the first place. You are not solving the fundamental problem - it's as if you were merely taking morphine to treat the symptoms of cancer.

Taxing the thieving rich won't make the rich go away. It merely makes their presence tolerable. Instead, it creates its own problems where funding a huge underclass of people by the wealth extracted from the rich collapses the productive base of the society. In result, everybody becomes poorer, yet the relative difference of the rich and poor remains and remains to justify taking from the "rich".

To remove this perverse incentive to consume wealth without replacing it, taxes should be level, so that everyone pays proportionally to the benefit they get from the public spending. That however does not yet remove the problem of the government which is inclined to spend the money onto themselves rather than distribute it equally. For that you have to solve the problem of government.


We shouldn't be taxing the rich, we should be seizing their assets and sending them to the wall for being a bunch of hogs gobbling up all the value created by the proletariat. This is the only solution to our problems. Anything else is, at best, delaying the problem and kicking it down the road for future generations to take care of.


And then what?

You spread the spoils around, people live large for a day, then what happens? Same show all over.

Assholiness isn't a difference in human nature, but a difference in opportunity. The same "proletariat" will spawn others who gain wealth, become rich, and then you kill them and take what they've amassed, and keep killing and killing and killing.



Sounds better to me than the constant cycle killing the poor, helpless, and defenseless.



You understand that taking the farmer's food and killing the farmer doesn't make you a farmer right?

What happens when no one wants to be the farmer, because they know they'll be killed?

Oh right, everyone dies because parasites can't live off each other.


Who said anything about killing farmers, kulak scum?



>Daily reminder that Bernie has not given away any of his money, 3 mansions or luxury cars after throwing the election.

Last time I see, Bernie worked his ass off. He didnt suddenly stop paying taxes or lobbying his way to get tax breaks left and right.

You're making stupid false equivalents, which is pretty much ironic considering the monstrous history of Trump using every single dirty trick under the law and any loopholes so he ends untouched every time his "business" tank in bankrupcy.



>That's because they own more than everyone combined. Even if they pay 2% tax, if they own 99% of everything they'll still pay more than everyone else if we are paying 90% tax on our tiny little sliver of the pie. That's why your complaint is bullshit. You act like we are targeting these poor, defenseless billionaires but if they don't pay the taxes no one will because they own everything. They have all the money.

A billonaire who earns 1 billion a month will not drop a single tear if they get taxed 10 million a month.

A middle class might struggle if they lose 1,000 USD out of 10,000 a month.

A poor man losing 100 USD out of 1,000 a month could mean starvation or having to go into debt.



>Taxes aren't levied by how much you own, but how much you make.

And this is heavily abused by using loopholes and tax heavens. See Apple using certain countries as gateways to Europe and witouth having to pay anything near the tax rate of the European nations.

They pretty much mooched and redistributed wealth to the rich by pretty much using a loophole to pay LESS than anyone else in europe.



>And then what?
>You spread the spoils around, people live large for a day, then what happens? Same show all over.
>Assholiness isn't a difference in human nature, but a difference in opportunity. The same "proletariat" will spawn others who gain wealth, become rich, and then you kill them and take what they've amassed, and keep killing and killing and killing.

The point is having a strong group of people and a representative government who have been betted to dont be corrupt or fall instantly in to greed.
And thus preventing the concentration of power and wealth disparity because the rich paid to become even richer by letting their servicemen (elected officials who got bought) change the law and add loopholes.

Some (like Trump) have said many times they only see green, because they only care about money. Thats how corruption is. Trump is the epitome of bad government for the stability of a country.


>>3492531 Could be represented by anything, dipshit. If you associate excelling above your peers with being killed, no one will be willing to excel. No one excelling? No excess. No excess? Starvation and death at the LITTLEST unfortunate or unexpected event.

File: no_more_capitalism.png - (119.02 KB, 500x424) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.


>So you want to end capitalism?



Nice satan trips.

It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late,
With long arrears to make good,
When the Saxon began to hate.

They were not easily moved,
They were icy -- willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the Saxon began to hate.

Their voices were even and low.
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not preached to the crowd.
It was not taught by the state.
No man spoke it aloud
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not suddently bred.
It will not swiftly abate.
Through the chilled years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the Saxon began to hate.

-Rudyard Kipling

File: hillbilly-cop.jpg - (80.55 KB, 262x262) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

That probably happened when you were a teenager back in the 40's.

Whenever I hear stories about a group of black guys, and one token white guy getting involved with the police, and the police treat the white guy way nicer, I have to wonder whether the white guy just happened to be the only one not chimping out, sticking their hands in their pockets, or going aggro on the officers.

Generally when pulling over a local car, that hasn't been reported stolen, and has plates that correspond to the make, year color, and model of car in question, where the driver has license, registration, and proof of insurance that all match the driver... the standard course of action does not include "REST' DEM DAR NIGGERS N ASK christian white male passenger WAT REST'N FOW"



>Funny how I'm talking about vilifying achievement

Perhaps because too many morons think that rich = Success or achievement.

If you're born in riches, its not an achievement, if you cheat all way to the top, is the wrong kind of achievement.



Enormous amounts of examples online.


How about we privilege you with a free trip to the gulag you filthy nazi rat.


Vermin like you make white people look bad. Castrating all rightwingers would make America great again.

File: b91db33f1f7ad05d926bf7b6f4ac81db.png - (5.66 KB, 201x175) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.


>Vermin like you make humanity look bad. Castrating all white men would make America great again.

fixed that for you fam


Poll is over a year old.

Besides, if Conservatives outnumber Liberals by that much, why are Democrats winning elections in Virginia and Alabama, and why has Trump's approval rating been below 50% since his inauguration?



>The point is having a strong group of people and a representative government who have been betted to dont be corrupt or fall instantly in to greed.
>And thus preventing the concentration of power and wealth disparity

You do realize your statements contradict each other: you propose preventing the concentration of power and wealth by instituting a "strong group of people", which is merely the same thing under a different name. Let's remember Thomas Paine:

>for as the greater weight will always carry up the less, and as all the wheels of a machine are put in motion by one, it only remains to know which power in the constitution has the most weight, for that will govern: and tho' the others, or a part of them, may clog, or, as the phrase is, check the rapidity of its motion, yet so long as they cannot stop it, their endeavours will be ineffectual: The first moving power will at last have its way, and what it wants in speed is supplied by time.
>That the crown is this overbearing part in the English constitution needs not be mentioned, and that it derives its whole consequence merely from being the giver of places and pensions is self-evident; wherefore, though we have been wise enough to shut and lock a door against absolute Monarchy, we at the same time have been foolish enough to put the Crown in possession of the key.

Thomas Paine outlines the proper function of a government earlier in the same text; as a necessary evil to settle the differences among men. This it accomplishes by an assemblage of true representatives that rise from the people, and who soon return to the people so they would not form a separate entity and aims of their own. In other words, the just government of Paine does not form a separate political class above the society.

In the modern society, there exists a political class above the people, that develops its own aims as soon as it is put into power. The problem is structural: the problem is in the way we have began to think that the government has a role much like the enlightened monarch. Paine continues:

>laying aside all national pride and prejudice in favour of modes and forms, the plain truth is that IT IS WHOLLY OWING TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE, AND NOT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT that the crown is not as oppressive in England as in Turkey.
>for as we are never in a proper condition of doing justice to others, while we continue under the influence of some leading partiality, so neither are we capable of doing it to ourselves (...) ** any prepossession in favour of a rotten constitution of government will disable us from discerning a good one.**


>So you want to end capitalism? End all money? What's your plan exactly?

As government as it presently exists in concept and in form is only a means for a select group of people to become the elite, end government. Redefine government and its role.

There is no fundamental problem in some people gaining more wealth than others. The problem is in the means with which they do so, and therefore it is not the proper role of the government to take from those who have ang give to those who have not - as a means to treat the symptoms of an unjust society - because that is simply enabling the injustice to persist, and the government becomes its partner in crime.



Maybe you should actually be educated in economics before you make that claim. I don't mean college educated, just well-read above your usual books on the evils of capitalism. For one thing, maybe you would be able to form your own arguments instead of falling back on youtube links.

The Kondratieff Cycle is the perfect example, well supported by data and quite extensively argued. It shows that the most wealth lasts is 10 generations. On average for MOST rich people, their wealth only bleeds down three generations. There are more self made millionaires who are the person who earned the wealth now, than ever, and those self-mades far outnumber legacy wealth millionaires alive today.

Try some Gary North, Jay Taylor and Murray N. Rothbard. Want to go read something not by white men? Look up the concept of 富不过三代 which comes from the Chinese. It can be directed translated to Riches do not pass three generations, it is also backed by strong argumentation and better book keeping given the long continuous history of China and it's lack of intervention.


>>3492723 cute yeah funny you should say that.... the founders of the gay rights movement are nambla supportors.


Another thread derailed into 3B politics shit. You assholes never learn.

File: president poop.jpg - (72.87 KB, 1200x575) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

>>3492788 But nearly all of these are news reports about the 'official White House statement' (and Pence parroting it) which of course blames the Democrats because it's a load of caca-dookie.



Dude, your logic is not internally consistent. Science doesn't require someone have an alternative to say that a current system is incorrect.

"Oh well, since you don't have something other than "God" I guess we better just stick with god!"

You fucking idiot. I prefer capitalism, so far a nation like America has only IMPROVED with time on minority rights, sexual rights, women's rights and so forth. You act as if we've gotten measurably more oppressive than say, 50 or 100 years ago. Get a fucking grip you moron.



Thats What GOP does all the time.. and all the time governments did shutdowns were CONTROLLED by republicans.

The same groups who have blocked almost every single attempt to improve the lives of military personel with new grants and laws in favour of them.



Older books of economy do not apply now anyway.
When there are literal control of every single part of the system (aka single companies owning almost all products, distributions and production centers under umbrella corporations) was not something usual back then.



Ironically is how Trump blamed Obama, claiming the president is 100% to blame in case of shutdown.
Now there is a shutdown and he's blaming Hillary, Obama and every democrat.. in a GOP controlled whitehouse, in a GOP controlled senate, in a GOP controlled chamber..



>So you have spent this entire thread talking about how unfair society is, how unfair and corrupt goverment is, how wealth re-distribution is wrong for reasons you can't explain, and you have no alternatives or even a general concept of what you think a good society would look like...

Just because you choose not to listen doesn't mean I haven't explained it: Take the Government back to the way it was framed by the people who wrote the constitution. Stop pretending that the government is a big daddy and the people his dumb children, and remove the political elites and career politicians from office. Progressive taxation is wrong because it sets up perverse incentives and doesn't actually work to solve any issues in the society - it merely helps to mask the issues and allows further corruption to take place.

It isn't exactly a new tactic out of you pretending to be deaf.



>Slavery? White, men who own land being the only ones who can vote? Being able to legally beat your wife and rape her if she doesn't put out? Fucking your animals?

Law and government are two different things - although all laws should have an expiration date so you don't end up with tons of archaic and irrelevant regulations that no longer do anything. In any case, your complaint is irrelevant.

>And what is your alternative? Flat tax?

You said it. If any tax has to be raised, it should be equal, because the principle of egalitarianism itself calls for having laws which treat everyone the same regardless of things like social or financial status. Progressive taxation is actually anti-egalitarian, but in a "positive" way so it gets a pass from the leftists - after all, leftism is based on hypocricy.


You're making a big strawman out of the argument again.

The rule of law is actually above the rule of government, as the government isn't allowed to rule arbitrarily against the very principles the people have set for themselves. That's why it is due to the rule of law, rather than the rule of government that the society works well or worse. The government can only pervert the law as it tries to do something else than simply upholding what has been agreed to.

Changing the way government functions and re-defining its role doesn't mean erasing all law back to the 18th century. For the relevant parts, the current government is more or less ignoring the constitution and ignoring the principles behind the constitution by sophistry. As they cannot change the constitution itself against the will of the public, they choose to ignore or re-interpret it in ways that undermines its purpose.

The more the leftists pervert the system, the more and more they are making the government function like the English Crown in times of the founding. It is exactly described in the argument for separation, how the Crown derives its authority merely from the fact that the King is distributing lands and pensions arbitrarily to his subjects, which keeps him in power by maintaining a class of crony capitalists and dependents. The same thing is true of a leftist government that derives its authority from re-distributing wealth to keep in power by maintaining a class of crony capitalists and dependents. The leftist mode of government has become the King of England for the modern society - taxing and spending to benefit not the people, but itself.


Point in case, suppose you're a single poor person who's making around $12k a year. Your tax rate will be below 10%. It's low enough that you essentially don't need to mind what it is. 1% point difference corresponds to $10 a month. It's practically nothing.

That's what makes it easy to call for tax-paid public services, government spending, "eat the rich", because if the taxes go up by a small fraction for you, they go up by a disproportionally larger fraction for the other people. You pay 10 cents, the others pay $10, $100, $1,000... it is essentially free for you, because you won't notice the additional tax burden.

And so the government which institutes progressive taxation more or less guarantees itself a loyal base of voters in people who demand costly and inefficient public services to serve their convenience rather than adapting their own lives to the economic realities of the society. Alternatively and simultaneously, they won't notice that the public services the government provides are mostly sleeving the money for themselves. Even if they do, it's somebody else's money anyhow. This also sets the perverse incentive of maintaining the income disparity that maintains most of the population in relative poverty, because if the income disparity dissapears, prices come down and the people stop voting for you to redistribute them the wealth.



>The FairTax is a national sales tax that treats every person equally

Lies. The FairTax is a regressive taxation, akin to taxing a fixed sum out of people rather than a percentage of their income.

All taxes on consumption, sales tax, VAT, are regressive taxes and demand further intervention, inequality and redistribution by the government to make them "work". Sales taxes are also a poor way to raise tax, because they put a damper on trade and encourage grey economy, and they're essentially trivial to bypass because by the rich because financial instruments, investments, are exempt of sales tax.



>So why hasn't this been implemented by now?

Because it's essentialy a ruse by a bunch of irrational people who want to push regressive taxation and abuse the deal.

See >>3492958
Now let's wait for a spam flood of pro-FairTax copypasta by the resident shill.


Ah, here we go again.

>The other ½ of the plan is a rebate to EVERY American to completely cover ALL of those federal sales taxes for spending needed to maintain a poverty-level lifestyle.

Aka. redistribution of wealth by the government. Unequal treatment. You're instituting a "fair" tax by first inistituting an unfair tax, and then having the government "fix" it by granting it arbitrary powers.

All you're doing is throwing the poor a bone to keep them quiet, and for everyone else above poverty, the effective tax level still drops the richer you get, stacking the game in favor of the ultra-rich 1%.



Nice try thoough



>This is another case of either a LIE or not being able to do simple math.

Calling it a lie doesn't make it untrue. The simple math of subtracting a fixed rebate out of a regressive curve still leaves a regressive curve, and you've proven nothing.


>Here is the problem with your idea for a flat tax.
>Since there is massive income inequality, that flat tax, in order to keep the lights on, would have to be a huge percentage of what each person makes.

But that's exactly the point of it. The government is too big and expensive and getting bigger and more expensive by the day and the progressive tax is merely used to hide the fact that the government has long since ballooned completely out of control and out of its basic purpose and mandate by encroaching in every possible area of life where it has no business intruding.

You're making the fallacy that the flat tax should pay whatever corruption and perversion of government that is currently going on, whereas I'm saying the flat tax is properly applied to force the public to scale down the scope of government because it exposes how overbearing the system has become.



>Since there is massive income inequality

The second thing is, the income equality is for the most part caused by the government taxing and spending, and printing more money for what they can't tax, because the government spending is being dumped onto the rich, controlled by the lobbyists, squandered by pork-barrel spending representatives, doled out in subsidies to corporations etc. etc.

The wealth redistribution committed by the government is a huge part and cause of the massive social disparity.



>If you tell poor people you are going to take 40% of their money

Actually, to pay for the current US government spending, the tax level would have to be 43.27%

That's how ridiculous it is. One thing to notice though is that the government is actually, and very often, taxing itself by levying taxes out of the money they've just spent, which inflates the numbers. For example, a government employee pays income tax, which means they need higher salaries to pay their expenses, which shows up as increased government spending. The IRS also considers unemployment compensation to be income, so you pay income tax out of money paid to you by the government, which is the government taxing itself to bounce the money back to itself.

It's just loops and loops of bullshit.


Depending on the exact amount of compensation you're getting, who you're getting it from, the state governments may be taxing the money you get from the federal government, or vice versa, or both may be taxing the money they've already taxed out of the employers in order to pay your unemployment compensation.

But, if you fall under certain tresholds, you may get tax returns out of the tax you've paid, which of course costs the government money to process, which is extracted out of the other taxpayers, which makes the bureaucrats very very happy.


I disagree with some elements of the plan but it's not worth going over. Plans like these will never happen. Politicians get elected because they fight for a specific tax deduction for their specific group. Republicans in Idaho for instance will push for deductions for farmers. Democrats in New York will want deductions for large real estate deals. People don't vote for the guy that will remove deductions and impose a flat tax. Everyone wants a break.


Farmers too - NY is a major apple producing State, just as Idaho is big on potatoes.



Let us explain to you , you gigantic baboon.

a billonaire who earns 100 million a month.. will not shed a single tear for losing 10 million in tax.

A middle class guy who earns 10,000 might struggle if they lose 1,000 USD a month. but most of the time they will go ok.

a poor guy who earns 1,000. losing 100 could mean starve or be unable to pay rent and definitively make impossible to pay medical.

Now you understand why different taxation levels are required?

For rich bastards who for convenient will always say "we're paying too much!' no you're not. (because they want MORE money even if they will never expend that in their lifetime) They are addicted by greed.
And they will want flat tax always or find ways to loophole their money, have the means and lawyers to do so too.

Normal people hardly can do loopholes or investments to get tax breaks, and wont have money for top of the line lawyers.

Poor people? HAH, they can barely afford food.

For the rich, everyone having a stool to see over a wall (despite them not needing one) is "fair".

for the poor being able to see over a wall is FAIR (aka poor get 2 stools, medium class 1 stool and rich get 0 stools).



>just motivated by poor self-esteem and a need to lash out. So this isn't really about taxes. It's about you needing to feel good about yourself

As opposed to those who rush to laud and applaud trump tax cuts while they hilariously get conned by having to pay all what they "saved" in the next years while screaming REEEEE THE LEFT , REEEE THE LIBEALS, REEEEE HILLARY, BUT HER EMAILS?

Also, Projecting much?

As for the fair tax image.. the damn site wasn't loading it. And still is not loading it (cloudflare time out error).

File: vote-for-nobody-nobody-will-keep-election-promises-listen-to-your-concerns-help-the-poor-and-unemployed-cares-tells-the-truth.jpg - (164.85 KB, 720x450) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

^You know what's hilarious? He says that with a serious face, thinks there's someone with a magic wand that will magically fix everything just because they said they can do it without even considering the infinite amount of variables, by the way, I'm not attacking you because I'm a Trump supporter (aka "your enemy") a nazi or anything, I don't care about politics at all, but I can recognize a gullible stupid person when I see it.



>Says the conservative who openly supports Trump and the GOP who are the party of big government.

Again, you just pulled that out of your ass. I'm not a Trump supporter, or a conservative.


Bernie is a socialist, and as a socialist he can promise anything he wants - he's going to do the opposite anyways. He's not addressing the fundamental problems of the government, because his policies, leftism in general, has a totally wrong idea about what the government is and what it's supposed to be doing. In trying to do good, they do bad. That's what I keep telling you.

So what if he scales back the military? It won't take many years before the government bloats up again somewhere else. Quite likely the medicare costs start creeping up slowly as corruption sets in again, or in the jobs programs and the wealth redistribution to state governments.

Taxing the economy hurts the economy, and the government then has to spend the money it gains to fix the problems it causes - or at least should do. "Fixing" the society by taxing and spending is simply trading one problem for another on a fundamental level. That's why the leftist government is totally misguided in its attempt to control and steer the society. It's not the government's job to save the people from themselves, since it's not the government's job to dictate your morals, opinions, ethics or your religion or philosophy about how the society should work and who should or shouldn't prosper in it.


The irony is, Trump's election was a warning signal that the government system has run its course and become absurd and totally disconnected from the people. Half the eligible people didn't even vote for how bad the options were: a clown or a harlot - choose your representative.

If the government was on a healthy basis, nobody would really care that Trump is the president because as a true representative of the people he wouldn't be able to do much that displeases the public. Since this isn't the case, since the government and the president no longer represent the people, regardless of which party they come from, the people are shocked and up in arms.

And the left is up in arms because they recognize what an opportunity they have. Instead of arguing against the system of government, they attack its head, because the left isn't going to change the system - they simply want to become Trump instead of Trump.



Dont forget that hilarious Tank deal, where they are literally making shittons of useless tanks that nobody can use or operate at this point. While tons of these tanks ends in graveyards.



With that kind of attitude you will never solve the problem.

Instead of doubting. You should applaud and approve and support.
If he doesnt do it, denounce and end his political career, problem solved.



>nobody would really care that Trump is the president because as a true representative of the people he wouldn't be able to do much that displeases the public.

PFFFF.. .Sure Jan..

>because the left isn't going to change the system - they simply want to become Trump instead of Trump.

Lol what?
The left isnt for cutting taxes in an irresponsibly way that will lead to monstrous national debt.


IF Trump was a true representative of the people, he wouldn't be a gibbering idiot.

>Lol what?

The left wants the same power that Trump is now abusing. They don't want to fix the system so that other Trumps wouldn't be possible, instead they want their own guy in the office under the same terms and conditions, so that they too could abuse the power.

The left wouldn't make irresponsible tax cuts, but they would continue to bloat the national debt just the same, while making irresponsible tax hikes that drive business and jobs out of the country, while spending whatever money they don't have one feelgood PR and buying votes.

File: Thread-derailed[1].png - (558.39 KB, 610x457) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Back on topic: WHO are the Google furries?


>>3493443 [+]


Bumping this before it's too late.

WHO ARE... the google furries?



>where those who want to learn something and succeed are shamed and humiliated by upper class brats trying to score diversity points.

Hu? How? The conservatives are the ones against education and access to information like basic sexual education and prevention while hiding behind a religious book.

They just want everything to be like the "good ol' days".


Fucking this.
They dont care, they ignore. They just want to still be on top.
And any group that pushes for equality is a danger for their status quo and social position of power and acceptance.



This is a brilliant comic that explains the position of privilege, even when the person who is privileged doesn't think he HAD privilege or refuses to accept that he had help all along (from parents, culture, status, color, etc..).



This is pretty much what is happening to the Walt Disney Corp right now.

File: NoMoreJokes.jpg - (22.72 KB, 480x360) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.


The "good ol days"?

Like when we could have a sense of humor?

Oh no you're right, we're all better off with out it.

File: 250px-The_Monorail_Conductors_Aptitude_Test.png - (98.45 KB, 250x185) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

lolthread made of bitter tears and DFE

bumping for showcase example of sociopathy

lulzvc just naw



>implying Seinfeld and similar shows were actually funny.


Fascinating, but who are The Google Furries?



Delete Post []