be2sane

5y

Defending the American economy and interests usually means preying on other non-white nations and peoples

Don't understand why you are prepping up white people in your op, who are literal warmongers and white supremacists

krishna bound

5y

You call me a neocon while you've been legitimately brainwashed by the rhetoric of an establishment that legitimately hates both you and the actual goals said rhetoric claims to stand for. Where did I argue for racism, or for anything to do with race? Did you read my actual post or did you make a reactionary assumption because I posted a video?
I hate to tell you this, but the post isn't about the concepts of "race" or "racism". It's about how market liberalization leads to standardized social behavior even in countries with an ideology who claim different goals. Do you think a country without a capitalist market would ever have incentive produce a video like this? Do you think it's a good thing therefore that capitalism is the primary driver of this content?

be2sane

5y

Its literally in our human nature to feel bad about racism. That’s why it took European intellectuals a whole new brand of terminology to come up with and justify racism. The only countries who employ racism on an institutional level are capitalist countries who were previously colonizing the global South. I’m pretty sure other countries would make videos like this if they needed them.

So again i ask, why does a video about racial justice irk you so much? Because you see it as a product of capitalism/market liberalization or because you’re a conservative who sees a problem with racial mixing and/or harmony?

krishna bound

5y

First off, as I said in the Afghanistan thread, I am literally mixed race between the most hated ethnic groups in modern history by europeans so if you genuinely think I am a pro-western chauvinist white supremacist you are delusional. Actual white supremacists wish I was slaughtered.

Second off, I don't care if you want to argue about what countries employ racism as a means of capitalism because it's completely unrelated to the point. I don't care, because I don't like capitalism. The only reason these videos exist is because social liberalization follows market liberalization, and this is inescapable. But if social liberalization follows market liberalization, and market liberalization is capitalism, then is social liberalization truly "anti-racist" if its a product of capitalist expansionism? This isn't about "racism" as a western concept, this is about the specific form of discourse being displayed. If you think my issue is with the content being displayed as it pertains to some objective societal concept of racism instead of the detached idea of "race" relative to the framework western society has artificially created, you're either purposefully looking to argue with me or you're one of those people who will argue day and night about the evils of capitalism and the need for racial equality but cap for the system at the end of the day when actually faced with legitimate challenges to it.

krishna bound

5y

You call me a neocon while you've been legitimately brainwashed by the rhetoric of an establishment that legitimately hates both you and the actual goals said rhetoric claims to stand for. Where did I argue for racism, or for anything to do with race? Did you read my actual post or did you make a reactionary assumption because I posted a video?
I hate to tell you this, but the post isn't about the concepts of "race" or "racism". It's about how market liberalization leads to standardized social behavior even in countries with an ideology who claim different goals. Do you think a country without a capitalist market would ever have incentive produce a video like this? Do you think it's a good thing therefore that capitalism is the primary driver of this content?

be2sane

5y

Thanks for clarifying

That is not far off from my stance actually.
I assumed worse because OP makes an absolute mockery of intellectual debate.

Yes capitalism is a cancer, just like racism. They go hand-in-hand. But i still find it weird to oppose any meaningful attempt to discuss racism in societies that don’t discuss it enough. You could still criticize said country for their hypocrisy and non-comittal energy around the concept of racism without being weirded out by these videos too much

krishna bound

5y

The reason I levy these criticisms is because I don't think any wide modern discussions about race, or even things like gay rights, or similar, have legitimacy or are anything but disingenuous. This isn't because I'm turned off by concepts in and of themselves; like, no, I don't want racial oppression like any other reasonable person. But I see all of these discourses - especially modern race discourse as originated in western schools of thought - primarily as products of a market shifting capital rather than as a product of legitimate strives for equality. This is why I say social liberalization follows market liberalization - the same changes are destined to happen in any society that wants to maintain its market, its inescapable so long as capitalist growth is at the center of the system. Think about this in the framework of the early 1900s; if a restaurant wants to make more money, at the end of the day, what would be the better way to do so? To only serve white men, or to serve white men and women? And then, how do you keep growing? You have to either raise prices and hope your audience stays, or you have to expand to black men, and eventually black women, because how else could you keep making money? (this is just a quick example, so don't dissect this too much, I can go into more detail with an actual example if you want) "Social liberalization" doesn't mean "human rights", what it means is "the illusion of progress by masking capitalist intention with liberal symbology".

AR15

5y

So capitalism helps create equality?

krishna bound

5y

well, kind of, it's more like it forces a parody of equality since the primary purpose isn't to actually solve underlying issues, it's to create a means of shifting more capital. Some people look at this and think it's a good thing, similar ideology is at the heart of libertarian ethos (they as the biggest progenitors of capitalism wouldn't deny that, hence it's such a strong argument), but the problem is, just because it forces equality within a market, it doesn't actually do anything to address the real issues underlining social conflict. Just because an owner now needs to make more money and is allowing people into the restaurant of all races, does that actually mean the owner isn't racist? Or does it just mean the owner sees these different races as market opportunities? If the owner cares more about the market therefore than the community, what other decisions can be made following that consequentially? At what point does hyper-deconstructionist division become profitable if individuals are objects to serve the market, and the market is the one dictating the meaning of equality?

krishna bound

5y

well, kind of, it's more like it forces a parody of equality since the primary purpose isn't to actually solve underlying issues, it's to create a means of shifting more capital. Some people look at this and think it's a good thing, similar ideology is at the heart of libertarian ethos (they as the biggest progenitors of capitalism wouldn't deny that, hence it's such a strong argument), but the problem is, just because it forces equality within a market, it doesn't actually do anything to address the real issues underlining social conflict. Just because an owner now needs to make more money and is allowing people into the restaurant of all races, does that actually mean the owner isn't racist? Or does it just mean the owner sees these different races as market opportunities? If the owner cares more about the market therefore than the community, what other decisions can be made following that consequentially? At what point does hyper-deconstructionist division become profitable if individuals are objects to serve the market, and the market is the one dictating the meaning of equality?

krishna bound

5y

The reason I levy these criticisms is because I don't think any wide modern discussions about race, or even things like gay rights, or similar, have legitimacy or are anything but disingenuous. This isn't because I'm turned off by concepts in and of themselves; like, no, I don't want racial oppression like any other reasonable person. But I see all of these discourses - especially modern race discourse as originated in western schools of thought - primarily as products of a market shifting capital rather than as a product of legitimate strives for equality. This is why I say social liberalization follows market liberalization - the same changes are destined to happen in any society that wants to maintain its market, its inescapable so long as capitalist growth is at the center of the system. Think about this in the framework of the early 1900s; if a restaurant wants to make more money, at the end of the day, what would be the better way to do so? To only serve white men, or to serve white men and women? And then, how do you keep growing? You have to either raise prices and hope your audience stays, or you have to expand to black men, and eventually black women, because how else could you keep making money? (this is just a quick example, so don't dissect this too much, I can go into more detail with an actual example if you want) "Social liberalization" doesn't mean "human rights", what it means is "the illusion of progress by masking capitalist intention with liberal symbology".

krishna bound

5y

The reason I levy these criticisms is because I don't think any wide modern discussions about race, or even things like gay rights, or similar, have legitimacy or are anything but disingenuous. This isn't because I'm turned off by concepts in and of themselves; like, no, I don't want racial oppression like any other reasonable person. But I see all of these discourses - especially modern race discourse as originated in western schools of thought - primarily as products of a market shifting capital rather than as a product of legitimate strives for equality. This is why I say social liberalization follows market liberalization - the same changes are destined to happen in any society that wants to maintain its market, its inescapable so long as capitalist growth is at the center of the system. Think about this in the framework of the early 1900s; if a restaurant wants to make more money, at the end of the day, what would be the better way to do so? To only serve white men, or to serve white men and women? And then, how do you keep growing? You have to either raise prices and hope your audience stays, or you have to expand to black men, and eventually black women, because how else could you keep making money? (this is just a quick example, so don't dissect this too much, I can go into more detail with an actual example if you want) "Social liberalization" doesn't mean "human rights", what it means is "the illusion of progress by masking capitalist intention with liberal symbology".

be2sane

5y

I get it. But you still can’t offer a logical reason to be upset by harmless information about why not to be racist.

Scratchin Mamba

5y

Are you saying that social liberaliztion can only happen following market liberalization? Because that's just not true lol

Saint Aquinas

5y

Damn

krishna bound

5y

What's your opinion on DeSantis and the current challenge he seems to leverage toward Trump overall? I see a lot of mixed stuff about him depending on the sector of conservatives talking about him

Saint Aquinas

5y

Best governor in the past 10 years. Maybe 20. Doubt he would make a great president since his foreign policy record in Congress is questionable to me and what I want for a president.

I dont think he challenges Trump if Trump decides to run and has a large amount of support.

Synopsis

5y

lmfaoooo good lord you are a twisted little f***

krishna bound

5y

a senator in the US idiotically made a false uneducated statement about taiwan - there are no actual active troops stationed in taiwan, there are about 20-30 people there and they are a mix of civilian personnel and officials. china saw an opportunity to s*** on him and make themselves seem strong and exploited it, nothing will come of this because this isn't actually the case. it's also not as if the US is simply lying because it's pretty hard to hide 30k people on a small island