Bigots and Traditionalists Stab 7 Antifa Members in Protest

[Prussia-Steinbach]

"Human rights" are a silly, nonexistent concept encouraged by states (with no consensus whatsoever) so as to make people feel as if their meager privileges afforded to them by their masters (privileges that can and are stripped when it is deemed necessary) are something special.

I'm struggling to find your point.

That's utterly illogical. If the concept did not exist, then there would be no term for it and it literally could not be discussed.

It seems you are unfamiliar with the concept of a concept.

It seems you're unfamiliar with the concept of a right.

[Dagashi Shojo]

If you cannot see the hypocrisy in claiming that a violation of human rights is in the name of human rights, I'm not sure how to help you.

"Human rights" are a silly, nonexistent concept encouraged by states (with no consensus whatsoever) so as to make people feel as if their meager privileges afforded to them by their masters (privileges that can and are stripped when it is deemed necessary) are something special.

I'm struggling to find your point.

Every concept in the history of mankind has been nonexistent, and human rights have established themselves to be the most efficient way in order to ensure people are treated like basic human beings.

Go live in Somalia and come back to tell us whether the rights we have are "meager." We'll wait....

[Ralkovian Grand Island]

You're not making any sense.

We are trading the wellbeing of violent oppressors for the wellbeing of the oppressed. Your attempt at mocking the quoted stance is nonsensical.

As I stated in response to Atlantica -

You assume people without power, wealth, or privilege agree with you, that doesn't make it the case. Your own progressive, socially liberal ideas would find more traction with the upper classes than they would the poor, rural folk who are often ridiculed as "rednecks." you would see the actual poor marginalized and censored because they disagree with your egalitarianism, while the hypocritical rich who agree with your enlightened principles would have all the platform they need.

Further, for the actual poor, whites who are the largest population of poor in America; they've been antagonized and ignored by their own government and people. While it's true, by and large, that blacks and hispanics still remain impoverished, they have the benefit of common culture awareness and protection from ridicule. Derogatory attacks against them are largely unacceptable and there exists a large amount of charities, scholarships, aid, and public awareness specifically to remedy their plight.

Poor whites receive none of that. Poor whites are looped in with being privileged(though there exists no such thing, in actuality), receive little in the way of support, and are even ridiculed on the national stage by a President who makes fun of small town America that "clings to it's religion and guns."

The fact that these people see a system that either abuses them or ignores them, and that the systems response when confronted by a large body of American Citizens who have received no benefits or luxuries is a hardy "fuck off, you privileged bigots;" it should come as no surprise that they'd look at the haphazard application of Egalitarianism of Today's society and be disillusioned with it.

Maybe you should try reading and following along. There's no denying the hypocrisy in saying the one while doing the other.

You're right. Neo-Nazis are gigantic hypocritical pedants who protest when they're fed their own medicine.

1. In this case, the Traditionalists had come to rally over Trump supporters being silenced with violence by Leftists. The Leftists proved the point by attempting to silence them.
2. Guess what, we're supposed to be better than the Neo-Nazis. The reason we guarantee the rights of these people to speak is so they don't seek violence to make a point, right? Freedom of Speech is a great tool for stopping violence from happening and it's been very successful for our entire society as a whole. It allows a peaceful discussion to occur and furthermore keeps people of all opinions civil.

You may not like the Neo-Nazis rallying, but using violence against them in unacceptable and will backfire every single time. Violence creates chaos, chaos creates uncertainty, uncertainty creates extremity, extremity leads to more violence. And at that time people will start looking to any force that can reinstall Law and Order.

We have our rules for a reason. If you don't like what you hear, you're permitted to peacefully protest against it.

Smashing people over the head with rocks because you don't like what you hear makes you a bad person in our society. Even if you think that the people you're smashing over the head really fucking deserved it. There is no argument to using violence, threats, and intimidation in the U.S. to silence people who have a constitutional right to speak; and "they'd do the same to us" isn't a justification either.

We don't have to agree with the intolerant, nor do we have to provide them with any sort of support in helping them express their views, but we do very much have to tolerate them and protect their legal rights when they are infringed upon.

[Ralkovian Grand Island]

That's utterly illogical. If the concept did not exist, then there would be no term for it and it literally could not be discussed.

It seems you are unfamiliar with the concept of a concept.

It seems you're unfamiliar with the concept of a right.

There exists only one right. And that is the Right of Might. All other "rights" are based off of the Right of Might, and those "rights" are entirely subject to the will of the holders of the Right of Might.

Whoever holds the Right of Might is the enforcer of all other "rights."

Human Rights do not exist, because they are unenforceable without the Right of Might. It may be a human right that people have freedom of movement or religion, but such things are unenforceable unless the Mighty choose to enforce it.

Things that are abstract, fluid, and temporal are concepts. Human Rights are a Concept.

[Pol Lunar]

That's utterly illogical. If the concept did not exist, then there would be no term for it and it literally could not be discussed.

It seems you are unfamiliar with the concept of a concept.

It seems you're unfamiliar with the concept of a right.

You're projecting. You're the one who though the concept didn't exist even as you proved that it did

[Prussia-Steinbach]

"Human rights" are a silly, nonexistent concept encouraged by states (with no consensus whatsoever) so as to make people feel as if their meager privileges afforded to them by their masters (privileges that can and are stripped when it is deemed necessary) are something special.

I'm struggling to find your point.

1. Every concept in the history of mankind has been nonexistent, and human rights have established themselves to be the most efficient way in order to ensure people are treated like basic human beings.

2. Go live in Somalia and come back to tell us whether the rights we have are "meager." We'll wait....

1. You misunderstand. These entitlements that are supposed to be moral and absolute - are not. Rights aren't a concept that actually exist to the theoretical degree they should.

2. lol wat

[Genivaria]

1. Every concept in the history of mankind has been nonexistent, and human rights have established themselves to be the most efficient way in order to ensure people are treated like basic human beings.

2. Go live in Somalia and come back to tell us whether the rights we have are "meager." We'll wait....

1. You misunderstand. These entitlements that are supposed to be moral and absolute - are not. Rights aren't a concept that actually exist to the theoretical degree they should.

2. lol wat

Indeed rights only exist when either the people with a monopoly on power say they do.
And sometimes they have to reluctantly give the people more rights so they aren't dragged into the streets and beheaded.

[Dagashi Shojo]

1. Every concept in the history of mankind has been nonexistent, and human rights have established themselves to be the most efficient way in order to ensure people are treated like basic human beings.

2. Go live in Somalia and come back to tell us whether the rights we have are "meager." We'll wait....

1. You misunderstand. These entitlements that are supposed to be moral and absolute - are not. Rights aren't a concept that actually exist to the theoretical degree they should.

2. lol wat

Most people, with the exception of the religious who attach a metaphysical notion to those rights, would probably agree. That doesn't change the fact that they are incredibly useful, in comparison to any other system that has been devised.

You feel that human rights are bullshit and that you have meager privileges, I advise you to go to a place where those things are actually true, such as Somalia.

[Jumalariik]

If you cannot see the hypocrisy in claiming that a violation of human rights is in the name of human rights, I'm not sure how to help you.

"Human rights" are a silly, nonexistent concept encouraged by states (with no consensus whatsoever) so as to make people feel as if their meager privileges afforded to them by their masters (privileges that can and are stripped when it is deemed necessary) are something special.

I'm struggling to find your point.

If human rights on some level don't exist to you, why would you care about politics? I mean what metric to good versus bad in politics exists without recognized rights?

[The balkens]

1. You misunderstand. These entitlements that are supposed to be moral and absolute - are not. Rights aren't a concept that actually exist to the theoretical degree they should.

2. lol wat

Most people, with the exception of the religious who attach a metaphysical notion to those rights, would probably agree. That doesn't change the fact that they are incredibly useful, in comparison to any other system that has been devised.

You feel that human rights are bullshit and that you have meager privileges, I advise you to go to a place where those things are actually true, such as Somalia.

News flash, he wont.

[Jumalariik]

Most people, with the exception of the religious who attach a metaphysical notion to those rights, would probably agree. That doesn't change the fact that they are incredibly useful, in comparison to any other system that has been devised.

You feel that human rights are bullshit and that you have meager privileges, I advise you to go to a place where those things are actually true, such as Somalia.

News flash, he wont.

Because that would reflect exactly what privilege means.

One could think of it this way:
-Through most of human history, people worked tremendously hard, as most people we know do too.
-Through most of human history, most people had little they could take for granted, and starvation or death by easily transmitted now-curable disease was not an unlikely death.
-The modern living standard in the US is one of the highest that has ever existed.

Is there really too much to complain about?

[PaNTuXIa]

News flash, he wont.

Because that would reflect exactly what privilege means.

One could think of it this way:
-Through most of human history, people worked tremendously hard, as most people we know do too.
-Through most of human history, most people had little they could take for granted, and starvation or death by easily transmitted now-curable disease was not an unlikely death.
-The modern living standard in the US is one of the highest that has ever existed.

Is there really too much to complain about?

Yeah sure, if we ignore the fact that millions of people die each year due to starvation, thanks to the global capitalist economy. You take for granted the fact that you live here, in a first world country, not everyone does. 2/7 of the world's population struggle to live each day. You think that all the world is like America, or Western Europe. It's not. And also, can we please stop with the Somalia argument? For the last fucking time, Somalia is not an anarchist state.

[Jumalariik]

Because that would reflect exactly what privilege means.

One could think of it this way:
-Through most of human history, people worked tremendously hard, as most people we know do too.
-Through most of human history, most people had little they could take for granted, and starvation or death by easily transmitted now-curable disease was not an unlikely death.
-The modern living standard in the US is one of the highest that has ever existed.

Is there really too much to complain about?

Yeah sure, if we ignore the fact that millions of people die each year due to starvation, thanks to the global capitalist economy. You take for granted the fact that you live here, in a first world country, not everyone does. 2/7 of the world's population struggle to live each day. You think that all the world is like America, or Western Europe. It's not. And also, can we please stop with the Somalia argument? For the last fucking time, Somalia is not an anarchist state.

So you think capitalism causes them to die?

I agree. Somalia's not an anarchist state, that couldn't exist. That said, for a while, it was a stateless society.

[The New Sea Territory]

Somalia's not an anarchist state, that couldn't exist. That said, for a while, it was a stateless society.

What definition of "state" do you use?

[Dagashi Shojo]

Because that would reflect exactly what privilege means.

One could think of it this way:
-Through most of human history, people worked tremendously hard, as most people we know do too.
-Through most of human history, most people had little they could take for granted, and starvation or death by easily transmitted now-curable disease was not an unlikely death.
-The modern living standard in the US is one of the highest that has ever existed.

Is there really too much to complain about?

Yeah sure, if we ignore the fact that millions of people die each year due to starvation, thanks to the global capitalist economy. You take for granted the fact that you live here, in a first world country, not everyone does. 2/7 of the world's population struggle to live each day. You think that all the world is like America, or Western Europe. It's not. And also, can we please stop with the Somalia argument? For the last fucking time, Somalia is not an anarchist state.

It has less to do with a global capitalist economy as much as it does with the fact that Africans have less access to resources than Europeans and more wealthier Asian countries do. No one was bringing up Somalia as an example of the misnomer that is an "anarchist state," it was brought up because Prussia Steinbach apparently believes he has meager privileges and that human rights is bullshit. He was invited to go to a country where those things are a reality.

[The New Sea Territory]

He was invited to go to a country where those things are a reality.

Right, because non-agruments about Somalia disprove anarchist criticism.

What? You don't agree with our political system? Leave!!!1!

[PaNTuXIa]

Yeah sure, if we ignore the fact that millions of people die each year due to starvation, thanks to the global capitalist economy. You take for granted the fact that you live here, in a first world country, not everyone does. 2/7 of the world's population struggle to live each day. You think that all the world is like America, or Western Europe. It's not. And also, can we please stop with the Somalia argument? For the last fucking time, Somalia is not an anarchist state.

It has less to do with a global capitalist economy as much as it does with the fact that Africans have less access to resources than Europeans and more wealthier Asian countries do. No one was bringing up Somalia as an example of the misnomer that is an "anarchist state," it was brought up because Prussia Steinbach apparently believes he has meager privileges and that human rights is bullshit. He was invited to go to a country where those things are a reality.

Well, it is partially due to capitalism. Africa has always been the hub for cheap labor and resources, with resources like oil, diamonds, and in the earlier decades, slaves.

[Dagashi Shojo]

Most people, with the exception of the religious who attach a metaphysical notion to those rights, would probably agree. That doesn't change the fact that they are incredibly useful, in comparison to any other system that has been devised.

You feel that human rights are bullshit and that you have meager privileges, I advise you to go to a place where those things are actually true, such as Somalia.

News flash, he wont.

Too fond of his internet access, air conditioner, a government which has to respect his rights, and First World problems?

He was invited to go to a country where those things are a reality.

Right, because non-agruments about Somalia disprove anarchist criticism.

What? You don't agree with our political system? Leave!!!1!

Human rights are not a political system, and I'm fairly certain most anarchists support them.

Do you make a habit of making obnoxious post where you try to make things about your ideology?

[Jumalariik]

Somalia's not an anarchist state, that couldn't exist. That said, for a while, it was a stateless society.

What definition of "state" do you use?

The dictionary definition.
" a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government: Germany, Italy, and other European states.
• an organized political community or area forming part of a federal republic: the German state of Bavaria.
• (the States) informal term for United States."

[PaNTuXIa]

What definition of "state" do you use?

The dictionary definition.
" a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government: Germany, Italy, and other European states.
• an organized political community or area forming part of a federal republic: the German state of Bavaria.
• (the States) informal term for United States."

Right, and Somalia had no government either. True anarchists are not opposed to government, just the state. Also, when you disestablish the state, you can go down the road to free-market capitalism, (Somalia) or actual anarchism. (Free Territory)

[Dagashi Shojo]

It has less to do with a global capitalist economy as much as it does with the fact that Africans have less access to resources than Europeans and more wealthier Asian countries do. No one was bringing up Somalia as an example of the misnomer that is an "anarchist state," it was brought up because Prussia Steinbach apparently believes he has meager privileges and that human rights is bullshit. He was invited to go to a country where those things are a reality.

Well, it is partially due to capitalism. Africa has always been the hub for cheap labor and resources, with resources like oil, diamonds, and in the earlier decades, slaves.

It's problems have to do with causes that existed before capitalism, such as scarce resources, (black-on-black) slavery, etc. The advent of capitalism did nothing to help this, but to say it is the cause isn't true.

[Jumalariik]

The dictionary definition.
" a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government: Germany, Italy, and other European states.
• an organized political community or area forming part of a federal republic: the German state of Bavaria.
• (the States) informal term for United States."

Right, and Somalia had no government either. True anarchists are not opposed to government, just the state.

Please define the actual difference between the two? Also, who decides who a "true anarchist" is?

[Jumalariik]

It has less to do with a global capitalist economy as much as it does with the fact that Africans have less access to resources than Europeans and more wealthier Asian countries do. No one was bringing up Somalia as an example of the misnomer that is an "anarchist state," it was brought up because Prussia Steinbach apparently believes he has meager privileges and that human rights is bullshit. He was invited to go to a country where those things are a reality.

Well, it is partially due to capitalism. Africa has always been the hub for cheap labor and resources, with resources like oil, diamonds, and in the earlier decades, slaves.

That's not capitalism's fault.

See, anarchism's logic is very good: broaden the definition of capitalism to astronomical proportions to be able to blame anything on it, then take the definition of the state and make it so specific that somehow it differs from government. That's not actually logic fyi, it's just moving goalposts to make untenable points just slightly less untenable.

[PaNTuXIa]

Right, and Somalia had no government either. True anarchists are not opposed to government, just the state.

Please define the actual difference between the two? Also, who decides who a "true anarchist" is?

Somalia=Anarcho-Capitalism, or "Anarchy". Free Territory=Anarchism. Anarchism, in my view, aims to restore power back to the people, by dividing into self-governing regions with mutual respect for one another. In essence, it would be a lot like today, except all the regions would be broken up into "communes." There would be no real reason to attack one another, due to the fact that resources would be freely available to all. Stateless Somalia is an example of gang rule, which anarchists do not want in any way.

[Dagashi Shojo]

Please define the actual difference between the two? Also, who decides who a "true anarchist" is?

Somalia=Anarcho-Capitalism, or "Anarchy". Free Territory=Anarchism. Anarchism, in my view, aims to restore power back to the people, by dividing into self-governing regions with mutual respect for one another. In essence, it would be a lot like today, except all the regions would be broken up into "communes." There would be no real reason to attack one another, due to the fact that resources would be freely available to all. Stateless Somalia is an example of gang rule, which anarchists do not want in any way.

I don't believe anyone was bringing Somalia up as an example of anarchism, it was brought up by me in response to a privileged Westerner who enjoys a First World life and thinks that human rights are bullshit.