Red Mosquito

bart wrote:wait are shrimp bad

Bammer wrote:

bart wrote:wait are shrimp bad

The porn part seems kinda forced

Rob wrote:For the record I said nothing about financial reparations making up for slavery. If people want to associate reparations with the rest of the SJW stuff, be my guest. The legacy of slavery is right there in front of us, it’s very easy to see. African slaves helped create a lot of the wealth in America, and clearly were denied the ability to inherit any of it. Literally the only part of this ugly past and legacy we can do anything about is address the wealth disparity, which is extreme and has crystal clear causes. We can’t do anything about the intangibles. It’s not about “taking other people’s money,” it’s about acknowledging that some of this wealth would have gone to other people if not for this great injustice.

I’m always interested in hearing other opinions. I can’t remember the numbers but the average white family is worth something like close to $200k, black people close to 5k. Whatever the number is now, it’s extreme. It’s either their fault, or something was done to them. Reparations have not happened because too many people don’t want them. We all acknowledge the injustice, and then use political arguments to explain why it’s a bad idea. Strip the politics and then you see a group with no accumulated wealth, and a history of the value of their labor accruing to others, by force. I don’t know why doing something about this is ridiculous and unreasonable.

Edit - I had to look up what NPC was. Everyone likes a good troll sometimes, but I ain’t no troll. And plenty of people who aren’t liberal activists have made a case for reparations. Christopher Hitchens has a good 10 min video on YouTube that I find compelling and my argument is piggy backing his.

Bi_3 wrote:ThinkProgress shut down, so things are looking up!

McParadigm wrote:Was it also a circular firing squad when Republicans censured Denver Riggleman for officiating a same sex wedding last month?

More cynically, which do you think is a more useful campaign talking point: being a Democratic senator who was censured for being too bipartisan in a swing state, or being the party that censured a party line-voting official for having an inclusive attitude in their personal life?

Bi_3 wrote:"Part of personal responsibility in the 21st century is about learning to say no to things: the convenience of car culture, the comfort and quiet of suburban sprawl, and the novelty of new gadgets and stuff."

https://theweek.com/articles/865944/une ... ade-iphone

Mickey wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:"Part of personal responsibility in the 21st century is about learning to say no to things: the convenience of car culture, the comfort and quiet of suburban sprawl, and the novelty of new gadgets and stuff."

https://theweek.com/articles/865944/une ... ade-iphone

If you talk about personal responsibility without accounting for how getting involved in civic activism and the democratic process might *also* constitute a form a responsibility, you might be doing ideology.

But we should buy fewer phones and suburban houses, for sure.

Bi_3 wrote:https://dailycaller.com/2019/10/28/mill ... lism-poll/

Rob wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:https://dailycaller.com/2019/10/28/mill ... lism-poll/

I do think capitalism is treated like a religion in America, while any real challenge/policy to counter it is treated as socialism - and not really socialism but Soviet Union type socialism. It's just inevitable that these terms lose their prior meaning, since they don't really make sense anymore. I look forward to a future when people sees these as systems that work in tandem, rather than some good vs evil argument. (To be fair I acknowledge there's people on the left who see capitalism as evil too, but it's not so ubiquitous).