The Box of Chocolates Thread (You never know what you're going to get!)
Welcome to the General Discussion thread. If you have a topic that doesn't warrant its own thread, post it here. Have a free form discussion going that no longer fits in the original thread? It may be moved here to give it a place to wander. Also, general chit chat is welcome!
I'm not denying that the idea of gender, and especially gender roles, doesn't have real affects on people's lives, because of course it does. In fact, I think that gender roles are a pretty big part of what makes people feel they are trans. If men and women were treated exactly equally by society in every way, they had exactly the same opportunities and the same (lack of) expectations, I believe far fewer people would feel they have been
This is ultimately correct, but we live in a reality that is very very far from this ideal and we may never reach it, which is why most of the time this is brought up, it is brought up as an excuse to discriminate rather than an ideal. It is also often offered up disingenuously in other ways. For example in some hypothetical world where race did not exist as a social construct, Martin Luther Kings complaints about the black community being discriminated against in Alabama might very well be false.MLKs claims were not false; he was right about everything. In fact in that world he wouldn’t even be considered black. But we are very very far away from that world. In reality black people exist and are discrimated against, and most people who say they don’t see race really do. In fact most of the people who say they don’t even see race are just people who don’t understand racism.
Gender bias is much more deeply ingrained in society than racial bias so we are even further from absolving ourselves from that bias, but of course most conversations along this line of thought are aggressively disingenuous. What most people mean when they discuss the “reality” of sex is that they don’t understand that reality at all.
If your answer to the question “ why are black people 6 times more likely to be incarcerated in the state of Kansas?” is “I don’t see race”, then you are unwittingly or purposefully promoting racism.
Similarly if your answer to the discrimination against transgender children is “I don’t believe in gender” you are unwittingly or purposefully discriminating against transgender children.
If your answer to the question “ why are black people 6 times more likely to be incarcerated in the state of Kansas?” is “I don’t see race”, then you are unwittingly or purposefully promoting racism.
Similarly if your answer to the discrimination against transgender children is “I don’t believe in gender” you are unwittingly or purposefully discriminating against transgender children.
huh?
It usually ends badly when communism and marxism are cited as "the model" for us to follow. But that's me. I'm not eagerly moving to Russia or China for all da freedom they enjoy.
Gaza is still intact today if not for the biggest single day killing of Jews since the Shoah.
I'm sure the British said something similar to justify putting down rebellions in India and Kenya by murdering thousands so I guess you support their actions too.
Edit. I see you say
so you seem quite confused.
What happens when you remember that Marx's economics ideas are largely accepted by most mainstream economists now and realise that you're talking shite?
da fuq? the labor theory of value , which is the basis of all marxist takes on the economy, isn't absolutely "largely accepted by most mainstream economists", you are confusing perhaps with Keynes which actually is (and has nothing to do with Marxism)
Generally I mostly support the actions of the Brits from the 1900's on, yeah. Maybe not Brexit. There are other exceptions.
The Churchill indian genocide (through artificially exacerbated famine ) was bad . We don't talk much about it because Churchill then went on to be a hero of freedom against Hitler, but it was bad.
The Churchill indian genocide (through artificially exacerbated famine ) was bad . We don't talk much about it because Churchill then went on to be a hero of freedom against Hitler, but it was bad.
Not nearly bad enough for Rafiki to object to it though. Same with Mau Mau apparently, when the ratio of ~ a hundred settler deaths to thousands of Kenyans seems eerily familiar now.
da fuq? the labor theory of value , which is the basis of all marxist takes on the economy, isn't absolutely "largely accepted by most mainstream economists"
You're free to disagree with Adam Smith and Ricardo if you want, to name but two.
I guess your idea of mainstream economics is Vienna lol.
You're free to disagree with Adam Smith and Ricardo if you want, to name but two.
I guess your idea of mainstream economics is Vienna lol.
Man the LTV has been througly debunked by the actual mainstream economy (so called neoclassical economy, Walras et al, and a century of research after that), and today only self-defined marxists still use it in economics. You know, utility theory? that very very 101 basic of economics teaching nowadays?
LTV is *not consensus*, it is a fringe ultra-minoritarian view mocked by everyone else these days, like the Austrian bullshit you mentioned (no idea why you think i believe in it), why does the left constantly lies about scientific consensus?
Marxism as a framework is absolutely subscribed to by all the business leaders. they just use it to empower and enrich themselves.
The Churchill indian genocide (through artificially exacerbated famine ) was bad . We don't talk much about it because Churchill then went on to be a hero of freedom against Hitler, but it was bad.
the Commies are who beat Hitler. given your take on the Indonesian mass murder, I wonder how that makes you feel and I wonder if you will admit it.
the Commies are who beat Hitler. given your take on the Indonesian mass murder, I wonder how that makes you feel and I wonder if you will admit it.
The west used the commies as cannon fodder to help beat hitler, the commies being able to do anything only because of massive western shipments of armaments and food. URSS came out super-crippled from ww2 as intended by the west having lost almost a whole generation of young men in that war.
140k american losses in europe in ww2, 10m USSR losses.
Back to now, you take the worst possible position on every geopolitical topic (as typical of marxists), why do you keep engaging with me? if i get banned again it will be for other takes not these ones.
Man the LTV has been througly debunked by the actual mainstream economy (so called neoclassical economy, Walras et al, and a century of research after that), and today only self-defined marxists still use it in economics. You know, utility theory? that very very 101 basic of economics teaching nowadays?
LTV is *not consensus*, it is a fringe ultra-minoritarian view mocked by everyone else these days, like the Austrian bullshit you mentioned
Where and when did you get your degree in finance/ economics?
The west used the commies as cannon fodder to help beat hitler, the commies being able to do anything only because of massive western shipments of armaments and food. URSS came out super-crippled from ww2 as intended by the west having lost almost a whole generation of young men in that war.
140k american losses in europe in ww2, 10m USSR losses.
Back to now, you take the worst possible position on every geopolitical topic (as typical of marx
why do I engage with you? bruv I engage with everyone. wrong and dumb posts are like catnip to me. its proly an addiction.
and speaking of wrong things, I dont want you banned. I dont ever ask for people to be banned.
but to the content, no they did not need massive shipments to win. they had already beaten the Nazis before the large shipments had arrived. if it was some great plan by the West, they could have bled a lot more Russians if they wanted.
and no **** they came out of war of annihilation crippled. kinda amazing how well they recovered. wonder why.
