Morals

What do you value in life? List specific things instead of labels such as political parties.

>>1

What do you value in life?

Abstract:
Comfort, Happiness, Safety, Security, Fairness, Freedom, Stability, Privacy, Individualism, Free Speech, Health, Environment, Neutrality, Tolerance.

Cultural:
warm climate, vegetarianism,
old videogames and anime, memes, fast/uncensored/unfiltered internet,
Classical and ambient music,
static typing and type inference,
Esoteric Hinduism,Buddhism,Taoism, Ancient Egyptian/Mesopotamian Mythology.
Yoga, meditation, spirituality.

Political:
Strong Social Safety Nets/Basic Income
Mostly Free Market, critical industries such as electricity/water supply/internet controlled by government and subsidized
Economic Centrism in most areas, especially digital economy
LGBTQIAP+ rights but without affirmative action or special privileges
Digital Libertarianism
Isolationism and non-interventionism


Specific:
Net Neutrality, unfiltered Interent
Anti-Copyright/Anti-Patent/Copyleft/Free software
Government sponsored science/research
Pro-eugenics, Pro-genetic engineering
Nuclear spaceflight allowed in dedicated areas
Pro-nuclear energy/Thorium reactors
Pro-solar energy
For reduction of fossil fuels
Forest conservation, green spaces in cities
Pro-endangered animals, unless they're venomous/toxic/parasitic or represent an economic(pests)/safety(large predators) threat in nearby communities
Radical Free speech: every opinion/content/media deserves space.
Pro-Cryptocurrency

Dopamine

>>2
I'm not trying to rip apart what you said, but I just want to talk about it. Please don't misinterpret my post.

Comfort

Comfort is dangerous. It seems nice, but it makes you weak, and contributes to over-consumption and pollution. It feeds the current flawed capitalist system.

Individualism

In other words, not caring about your community. It's important to be a part of a group that's bigger than yourself. Individuality is antisocial. You don't have to let other people dictate your entire personality, because that would be dumb. But too much individuality harms community. No man is an island.

Tolerance

Is it good to tolerate mosquito bites? Is it good to tolerate a cockroach infestation? Do you tolerate your own replacement? The media makes it sound like tolerance is a good thing, but it is actually bad in a lot of ways. Tolerance is similar to apathy or ignorance. Discrimination isn't as bad as people say it is. It has a purpose. Let's say you harvest some apples. Some of the apples are good, but some are rotten. Some are infested with bugs. Tolerating the bad ones will harm the good ones. Discrimination is vital for survival. Unchecked tolerance will be your own undoing.

vegetarianism

Vegetarians claim that meat is bad because it harms animals. But consider this: our mere existence harms and destroys entire ecosystems. Even being vegetarian won't change that. There are simply too many people and our lives are too destructive. Colony collapse disorder. Roadkill. Deforestation. Extinction. Endangered species. All of these things can exist in a 100% vegetarian society. "Save the whales" bumper stickers, "green" organic vegan food at the grocery store, and recycling won't save anything. Those things are a drop in the bucket. The only way to make significant change would be to completely restructure society, but people don't want to do that. People don't want to give up their comforts. Not even you.

old videogames and anime

Nostalgic about those particular things from the past based on their objective qualities, or is it more nostalgia about when you were younger and more innocent and unaware of all the upsetting things in the world? I sometimes find myself feeling nostalgic, and I think it's more to do with the latter.

Ancient Egyptian/Mesopotamian Mythology.

Zoroastrianism? Why?

Mostly Free Market

The tragedy of the commons. The problem with a free market is that it allows people to make seemingly innocent decisions that are actually collectively harmful. Think of it like this: if you examine a drop of water, and bring everyone's attention to the small scale rather than the large, they will think water can do no harm simply because a single drop of water has no harmful properties. But the problem isn't an individual drop of water. A flood is nothing but drops of water put together, but there are emergent properties of harm that come with large scales. Individual, people might think they're not contributing to overpopulation, over-consumption, unsustainability, climate change, and so on. But the problem isn't a single person. The problem is with billions of people.

Economic Centrism

Fence-sitting, basically.

LGBTQIAP+ rights

Why is this something people concentrate so much on? Both conservatives and liberals have silently agreed to care so much about unimportant issues like this. They have different views on it, but on any given day, LGBT shit doesn't affect my life. You know what does affect my life? Taxes, immigration, pollution, and the fact that, as a species, we are heading down the path to destruction with our disgusting modern lifestyles. But people don't want to talk about that. They would rather talk at length about whether it's okay for a dude to have a dick in his ass or not. People care more about that than the fact that we're melting the ice caps, replacing European populations, and ultimately going to kill ourselves off if we don't make drastic changes soon. What is wrong with the world?

Modern culture is awful. It's just buying things, consuming media, throwing things away, being disconnected from your roots, only being a part of sports groups instead of meaningful ones, etc. Video games and anime are just escapist consumerist garbage. It doesn't encourage you to live a more meaningful life. It's just temporary escapism. We are also way too concerned about entertainment and leisure instead of purpose and doing what is right. People focus too much on wants rather than needs now. Materialism and fun-seeking. Communities and interaction are dead. Long replaced by screens and narcissism and gluttony.

I'd say we could lead more important lives by respecting nature and adopting more ascetic habits. Religion, nature, community, sustainability, and no self-hatred when it comes to race. No replacement. Concentrate on meaning rather than how many dollars you can make. But don't bend over backwards for certain groups just because the telescreen tells you it's progressive to do so.

Strong Social Safety Nets/Basic Income

UBI is an incomplete reaction to bigger systemic issues. We need to fundamentally restructure society and culture before we can think about thing like income. Unchecked capitalism wants everything to be competitive, which means many people don't have job security. Capitalism and globalist multiculturalism is part of the reason why many have economic issues. There are some winners, but many losers made through this system.

Libertarianism

Never go full retard.

Isolationism and non-interventionism

Oh no, what are you doing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Government sponsored science/research

Bias and manipulation always seep in. It becomes weaponized and politicized. Scientists say LGBT is natural, so let's destroy the idea of the nuclear family. Scientists say we need more diversity. Scientists say you should consume more. And so on. More than that, people often conduct experiments and get data on useless subjects. All while leading nihilistic lives devoid of meaning. I like Linkola's attitude towards science and technology. It has a purpose in some ways, but it is often misguided and also overemphasized. I am saying this as a STEM major, by the way.

Pro-eugenics

Would you still be pro-eugenics if it turned out that your genes were deemed to be bad? Who has the final say in what genetics are good and what genetics should be weeded out of the gene pool? I think gene editing is more likely. It's already being researched in China. The West is afraid to touch it because of moral issues. Instead of telling someone they can't reproduce because they have webbed feet, you can just alter their genes so their kids won't have the same problem.

Pro-nuclear energy/Thorium reactors

I used to be ro-nuclear all the way, but there's still the problem of the nuclear waste lasting for too long and there not being a good place to put it all. If we had a space elevator, that might not be a problem. But we don't.

Pro-solar energy

It sounds good, but there are issues with people switching from the power grid to solar. If more people have their own solar panels, power companies will have fewer customers. Their operating costs will still be similar, if not the same. So in order to offset the lack of profit, they will have to increase prices. Do you see where I'm going with this? People who are privileged enough to have money for solar panels can then get rid of their utility bills, but in doing so they are causing poor people to have to spend more on electricity because of the diminishing customer base. Poor people won't be able to afford solar panels, so they will have to continue to use the power grid, and when the power grid is in decline, it will cost more and more. Life can be very expensive when you're poor, since you can't afford the more cost-effective things that are cheaper in the long run but cost more up-front. So the proper way to do solar would involve a lot of planning, not just individuals buying solar panels for their individual homes. Or perhaps the government could help power grids convert to solar, instead of only individual households converting. Solar farms in the middle of a sunny place in the middle of nowhere. But this issue is more complicated than a lot of solar advocates make it seem.

For reduction of fossil fuels

I agree with this too, but the problem is that it's not just technology here, it's also political since many people will lose power and money if we switch away from oil, since many economies rely on their local oil fields. You can't change the tech without changing economy.

Radical Free speech

What about subversive mainstream media that encourages people to hate your demographic and destroy your identity?

Pro-Cryptocurrency

Slow distributed databases backed by gaming graphics card hashing. Hmmm, no. At the end of the day, Bitcoin is very bad for the environment, very slow, and you can't buy very many things with it. I think a lot of people who are pro-cryptocurrency are either unaware of the underlying technology (blockchain = inefficient hashed distributed linked list) or just in denial about the numerous problems.

>>4

Comfort is dangerous. It seems nice, but it makes you weak, and contributes to over-consumption and pollution. It feeds the current flawed capitalist system.

I fix flaws in my house everyday.
For example the exhaust of PC was blowing towards my bed causing me discomfort.
I turned the PC around and comfort increased by rerouting the exhaust toward a wall. How did it made me weaker? Do i need to "take it like a man" and allow this exhaust into my face?

People who ignore discomfort, who don't want to disturb the status quo to seek some extra comfort are hypocritically dense. If you want to change the world "the current capitalist system" you just want to increase your comfort levels: but you can't admit it, because "comfort is for degenerate/decadent/bourgeois scum". In reality revolutions start because comfort disappears - persecution/hunger/poverty are just aspects of individual discomfort that force one to see flaws in the system.

>>5
Excessive air conditioning. Fast food. Obesity. Disposable products. Debt racked up after buying unnecessary things. Being easily offended because of a culture of being overly polite. Spending hours on end watching Netflix. Allowing social media and TV to reprogram your brain and feed thoughts to you so you don't have to think very hard. These are all the results of the pursuit of comfort.

You misinterpret what I meant by comfort. The exhaust thing isn't an example what I'm referring to.

all the results of the pursuit of comfort.

Your "discount comfort" is example of poor people getting the lowest levels of comfort. These are cheap solutions to seeking comfort but they don't actually give you anything valuable.

Rich people have better comfort solutions and their life quality doesn't degrade from over-comfort. Your argument is just "poor people shouldn't have comfort, it makes them weak and lazy, they should work harder and get by the bootstraps."

Try to rewrite your argument for millionaires and how too much comfort they have.

>>7
You are either just not understanding what I'm saying, or you're willfully twisting around what I say because you want to misrepresent my views. Whatever. There's no point in talking with you if you're going to be like that. Have fun being a delusional lolbertarian.

>>8
Here is how you argument sounds for rich people:
>Excessive air conditioning.
They have luxury air conditioning with ULPA filters, UV anti-bacterial lights, Ionisers, air purifiers. They set the temperature as they want. There isn't a problem: for them electricity is pennies.


>Fast food. Obesity.
They have luxury, organic and healthy food and diet created by professionals.
If there is one thing rich people value is health. Still there is plenty of healthy comfort food that doesn't make one obese.

Disposable products.

Not a problem for rich people. They can buy a higher quality non-disposable version too, since they can afford it.
Poor people can only afford the least quality low-end stuff that breaks often or disposable crap.

Debt racked up after buying unnecessary things.

Rich people don't have debt as some damocles sword hovering over them, since their consumer spend is far lesser proportion of income.

Being easily offended because of a culture of being overly polite.

They don't bother getting offended since they don't need to play the victim for sympathy. But they can more easily influence society if they find themselves offended.

>Spending hours on end watching Netflix.
Rich people have DVDs and media collections that they can watch as they please, no rush to use up the allocated subscription time.

Allowing social media and TV to reprogram your brain and feed thoughts to you so you don't have to think very hard.

Rich people don't need to resort to TV/social media to get their self-esteem up or to feel happy. They have means for selecting their own personal entertainment/media/leisure activities: practically anything you'd think too expensive.
TV/Facebook is the cheapest plebeian entertainment.

These are all the results of the pursuit of comfort.

These are cheap comforts that have flaws and damaging properties.
Its like thinking:
Cheap Product X is unhealthy, therefore all products of Class to which X belongs are unhealthy.

The point is of course Comfort is only bad when its low-quality cheap comfort.
Shaming other for only being able to afford lowest levels of comfort is equivalent to shaming them for being too poor to achieve true comfort.

>but rich people can use cheap comforts
But rich people can afford to fix themselves, while cheap comforts for poor people work as you expect.

>>9

Rich people have DVDs

You're not even making sense anymore.
What exactly are you trying to say? I don't understand your incoherent points.

Just because rich people are different doesn't discount what I've said. If anything, it gives it more credence. The people in power who are able to dictate what happens in society have created a trivial society and culture. People who are powerless to changes things are influenced by those who are able to control things. So yes, poor people's lives are turned into shallow, consumerist, wasteful existences.

It doesn't matter if it's their fault or not. What I'm saying is we need to change this. We need to change culture and values in order to have a meaningful society. Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they live a meaningful life, nor does it mean they are inherently evil. But what I am saying is that things need to change so that the average person and average city/town isn't just structured around pointless consumption and entertainment, which is wasteful and useless, aside from giving money to corporations to keep our flawed economic system going. Additionally, there are too many people and our emissions and waste are destroying the environment. When will it end? People will probably only care once it's too late.

>but isn't too much comfort bad
Yeah, lets test this theory by removing comfort. Think of all the comfort you have now and try to turn it off one by one. Hows your quality of life going?
Now imagine a person without 50% of your comforts, will his quality of life go down or up if he suddenly gained the other 50%? Will it be worse with extra 100%?

The people in power who are able to dictate what happens in society have created a trivial society and culture. People who are powerless to changes things are influenced by those who are able to control things. So yes, poor people's lives are turned into shallow, consumerist, wasteful existences.

You are trying to weasel out of your argument that "ALL COMFORT is bad, unhealthy and degenerate".

But what I am saying is that things need to change so that the average person and average city/town isn't just structured around pointless consumption and entertainment, which is wasteful and useless, aside from giving money to corporations to keep our flawed economic system going. Additionally, there are too many people and our emissions and waste are destroying the environment. When will it end? People will probably only care once it's too late.

This is ridiculous argument:
Instead of removing comforts from people, we need to improve them to the level of luxury comforts and make them more environmentally friendly.
Reminder; Toilets were a luxury comfort of royalty and aristocratic class.
Toilet paper was too. So are bidets now.

R A D I C A L C E N T R I S M: Luxuries become commonplace
Comfort levels gradually improve
Free markets fix it
Life quality increases on average
Commies, Nazis and SJWs can only screech autistically, powerless to ruin society

>>16
t. Neo-liberal Status Quo shill

>>13

without 50% of your comforts

What you're saying is you want me to imagine changing one aspect and leaving everything else the same. I am saying everything needs to change. Not just a tiny thing that you are deciding to autisticly fixate on.
You got butthurt about comfort and ignored the rest of what I said.
>>14
There's more to what I was saying than comfort. "Muh comfort" doesn't change the fact that we are destroying the planet and our current ways of life, at least wit this high of a population, can't last for much longer.
>>15
I never said people should have the exact same lifestyles sans comfort. I am saying lifestyles need to be vastly different from how they are now. The only reason why poor people love comfort stuff is because the rest of their life sucks. Why not make it so that people have purpose and then don't have to resort to escapism when they're off work? What if we make a society that isn't centered around preying off of people's stresses and inadequacies and dislike for life and work? What if we form meaningful, traditional communities based on sustainability, family, community, purpose, and, you know, not just buying shit or making useless shit or doing things that fuck up the environment?
I recommend reading "Can Life Prevail?" by Pentti Linkola. Basically, we simply can't have 7 billion people on earth. No amount of "well we reduced our waste by 5%" will change anything at all.
>>16
Centrism is a cop-out non-position by people who want to pretend that being apathetic is the most rational stance to take. I'm not a commie, nazi, SJW, or centrist.

Radical environmentalism and family values.

One reason why people are poor is competition for jobs and universities. There are so many people that people are in low demand, but in high supply. That would change with a low population.

When there are over 7 billion people alive, the value of a single person decreases. That's why, for a single job application, there might be tons of applicants. Housing and cost of living is going up because our numbers are increasing, but our planet is not. We have a finite supply of resources and space.

>>19
What ways to realistically reduce like 6 billion of humans you can think of?
By the way, do you find that dolphins are equally intelligent to humans and should have human rights?

Why not make it so that people have purpose and then don't have to resort to escapism when they're off work? What if we make a society that isn't centered around preying off of people's stresses and inadequacies and dislike for life and work? What if we form meaningful, traditional communities based on sustainability, family.

You can't make it so without totalitarian control over all human cultures and societies.
This also has the hints of eco-fascism and it won't work because people will choose personal comforts over abstract goals.
The best examples of your lifestyle exist in deeply religious areas with high poverty.
Basically turning everything into India:low to none comforts, traditional society, low ecological impact,etc. We can have 20 Billion indians. But would they be happy or struggling to live?

>>20

What ways to realistically reduce like 6 billion of humans you can think of?

It's a very touchy subject. I'm not going to say some of the edgier ideas some people have.

One child policies, or perhaps NO child policies, or only allowing people with permits to reproduce. It's not like eugenics, since eugenics is based on genes. Someone with good genes could still turn out to be useless, uneducated, and poor. And a bad influence on their local community. But if only people who are successful can reproduce, that will be better. Not just based on inheriting money, but also based on aptitude tests, social standing, morals, and things like that. No fat people can have kids, no stupid people can have kids, no dumb people can have kids, no bad people can have kids, no antisocial people can have kids. Maybe these ideas need to be ironed out more, but the fact of the matter is that there are too many people.

A lot of people are still in the old-school mindset of having a ton of kids. You know why? Because people (and even animals) are used to higher rates of infant deaths. But now we have modern medicine to stop that. So most people who are born live to be older. So the solution is for people to simply have less kids to begin with, since the ones that are born will be here for the long haul. Heavy penalties for getting pregnant without a license. As in, going to jail.

You can laugh or say it's stupid. It'll probably never be implemented. Hell, even China got rid of their one child policy. It didn't even really work all that well anyway. It just resulted in a lot of female infanticide because families wanted male heirs. And some people just bribed doctors to keep their extra births on the down-low. In the end, nothing really changed.

You can say I'm wrong. But look at the facts: we're heating up the planet. We're releasing crazy levels of emissions into the air. We're polluting rivers and tearing down forests and building malls and apartment complexes. The ocean is filled with plastic. The ice caps are melting at an astounding rate. Some people pretend that it's all a conspiracy. But why? Why would people make this all up? Besides, the evidence is out there. This is really happening. We are fucking everything up, possibly irreversibly.

This is a collective issue. You could say "I'm just one person" and that's how everyone else rationalizes it too. There are simply too many people. The resources we require, the trash we create, and the heat we give off (including power grids, cars, etc) is too much. Our planet can't handle us. At least not in the billions.

Hundreds of millions? Maybe. But not billions. Reducing carbon footprints per capita is not enough.

And it's not a matter of "what do we do now" since it might already be too late. It's kind of a retrospective "what should we have done differently instead" since we never should have gotten to this stage as it is. People have this bullshit idea that all problems have scientific solutions. Some things can't be undone. Maybe we're just going to die once we heat up our planet.

I am powerless to change anything, and at the end of the day, nothing will change. We will just continue to seal our own fate by destroying our environment.

Feel-good shit only serves to ease people's minds, but it doesn't do anything. "Oh, Timmy and I planted two trees today! We're saving the world!" Cool, but the average person eats 7,000 animals in their lifetime, and causes so much carbon emissions too.

Capitalism is a big part of the problem. Capitalism requires constant growth. People want to invest in a company, and when someone becomes a shareholder, they demand that the company do all they can in order to grow. Population growth helps economic growth. It's like a malignant tumor on society. It's a ponzi scheme and it helps people who got in on it early, but fucks over later generations who have to deal with the messes the early players made. We will never be able to convince people to have governmental policies that encourage population shrinkage as long as we have capitalist economies. Communism is stupid too though.

I don't think dolphins deserve more rights. But maybe we should stop polluting the oceans. I eat meat even though I know it's bad. It's hard to change when everything is designed around you playing the part and being a cog in a machine that you can't escape. For millennia, it's been normal for animals to eat other animals. But there's nothing normal or sustainable about the meat-industrial complex. Scale matters.

>>21

This also has the hints of eco-fascism

Hints?! Buddy, I fucking mentioned Pentti Linkola. "Hints" is an understatement.

We can have 20 Billion indians.

That's not the point. The point isn't to have a huge population. It simply isn't sustainable. A lot of societal problems are caused by the fact that there are too many people, which in turn decreases the value of an individual. It's an employer's dream world right now, since there are tons of applicants so they can pick and choose who to hire, and pay people shitty wages. If there was less competition, employees would make more money and have a higher quality of life. More land per person, less resource scarcity, and so on.

I'm not a luddite though. I want humanity to travel to Mars and other places too, but at the rate we're going, we're going to destroy Earth before we can even leave it. I almost feel like Elon Musk and other techie capitalists think that it's okay to destroy the planet as long as we have plans to live in space, but I don't think we'll get there before climate change and pollution reaches the tipping point. Space travel and living on another planet rather than in some tin can orbiting the earth is way farther down the line.

The Virgin Authoritarian SJW Environmentalist vs Chad The Comfort Seeking Anarcho-individualist Libertarian

Virgin:
We must sacrifice our comfort for the planet
We need to restrict our birth rates
The planet is under immense strain&stress
Birth permits
Water rations
Spooky future
Soylent Green
No fun allowed
Government TV Channel No1
Subsidized Concentration Commieblocks
It wasn't real environmentalism

Chad:
Comforts > Spooks
The galaxy is big enough for all of us
Free market will fix it with cheap tickets to mars

I only care about what's trending. That's literally my religion.

>>24
Radical environmentalism isn't SJW. SJWs only care about social issues like identity politics. At the end of the day, they don't give a rat's ass about the planet, aside from giving meaningless lip service to get more likes and retweets on Twitter. SJWs care about social standing more than anything else. It's all about people, not the consequences people have.

>>25
yassss queen #winning

Free market will fix..
http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

>>26
There are right-wing SJWs and they're just as bad. Moral panics, witch hunts and censorship wasn't invented in last 20 years.

>>29
The Virgin Social Justice Warrior vs
the Moral Guardian Chad

>>30
The Virgin Social Justice Warrior vs the Moral Guardian Virgin more like.

>>31
The Social Justice Victim vs Moral Guardian Crusade

virgin sjw vs virgin moral guardian vs chad dubs

The Social Justice Millennial vs Moral Guardian Boomer

The GenZ "Kids These Days" vs
The Social Justice Millennials vs
GenX Thought Police vs
Moral Guardian Boomers vs
Silent Generation Patriarchy

The argument about comfort being degenerate falls apart when you try to convince people to switch cars for bikes.

Cars=degenerate comfort "food" that makes the planet unhealthy due pollution and resource use
SJW = drop unhealthy cars and use healthy bikes
Free market solution = Electric cars, electric buses, electric trains

>>36
The reason why people can't do that is because many towns and small cities (and even big ones in some areas) are designed all around cars, not bikes or public transportation. We'd have to redesign cities and towns to be able to accommodate more bikes and fewer cars.

Freedom.

>>39
individual freedom harms humanity's freedom

your freedom to pollute infringes on my freedom to have descendants who can live in a world without deforestation or climate change

>>40
Have more abortions, problem solved.

>>41

Liberals: it's okay to kill babies
Also liberals: it's NOT okay to separate illegal immigrant children from their parents

Really makes you think.

Comforts are key element of civilization.
If you see all comfort as hedonism, you're welcome to live with the monkeys in the jungles while it lasts.

>>43

Stop derailing the discussion. I said way more than just comfort. But you ignored the rest and focused in on that.

>>44
You mean gems like this?

In other words, not caring about your community. It's important to be a part of a group that's bigger than yourself. Individuality is antisocial. You don't have to let other people dictate your entire personality, because that would be dumb. But too much individuality harms community. No man is an island.

Individuality is antisocial! Praise China and hive mind mentality.

>>45
Did you just ignore the following sentences?

>>42

Also liberals: it's NOT okay to separate illegal immigrant children from their parents

How is that wrong?

>>47
It seems that over the past decades America has turned from the country of freedom and capitalism into the country of limits and socialism, because it was previously unthinkable that someone would tell a private entrepreneur whom he must hire, or that useless lumpen proletarians will receive wealthfare and a medicine at the expense of other people. This all led me to think that one of the main problems of our time lies in the institute of citizenship and its accompanying problems.

Citizenship is an instrument of discrimination, invented in ancient Greece and Rome, when society was divided into citizens and slaves (helots). Today citizenship is used by self-styled xenophobes to oppress non-citizens. Citizens should feel ashamed and guilty for their undeserved privileges. Nothing makes a citizen better than an illegal immigrant. For private business, citizens are immature, spoiled and capricious employees who tend to demand too much from the employer. And while homeowners bought their homes, citizens, on the other hand, did not pay anything for their citizenship. We live in the 21st century, where there is no place for discrimination based on religion, nationality or nation. Now is the time to abolish citizenship and undeserved privileges associated with it.

The argument of a citizen is this: my parents created this country and left it for me, so America is now mine. My dad built this railroad for Rockefeller, so it belongs to me, not to Rockefeller, so Rockefeller has no right to hire Mexican workers on this railway. Then the citizen uses abusive delusions and generalizations, implying that all Mexicans are criminals who illegally smuggle drugs, rather than admit that it is just a small minorty of Mexicans affiliated with cartels whp engaged in this, with the support of the US citizens themselves. Opponents of illegal immigration are the same sexists and chauvinists who enslave women and insist that the woman's place is in the kitchen.

There is nothing wrong with illegal immigration, because no human being is "illegal", except for the fact that immigrants make angry these lazy xenophobes and other neo-Nazis. Illegal immigrants are invited by businesses that are willing to provide them with work, food and shelter. Illegal immigrants can also pay taxes if the government gives them permission to work. At the same time, a lazy white person should not have the right to work and receive high wages only on the fact of his birth in the United States. If we open borders and allow the free movement of human capital, the cost of labor will drop to the average world level and all products will become cheaper. If a citizen is not ready to work for a lower salary, then he is simply not competitive and is a burden for the economy and taxpayers. Illegal immigrants are human beings and have human rights, including the right to compete for work under fair rules. Immigration laws are simply obsolete and should be abolished. Oppose Nazism - support illegal immigration.

Regarding to immigration laws: illegal immigration is not a crime, because there is no victim. And when the law oppresses people, there is nothing wrong with breaking such a cannibalistic law. Immigration laws are racist, xenophobic and violate human rights, so they do not deserve respect. Period.

Country borders must be abolished. In our time there is no place for borders; humanity deserves free movement of labor and goods. To achieve world balance, peace and progress, we need to have borderless world. Immigration laws can and should be abolished. Moreover, the borders between countries should be recognized as illegal. Likewise, citizenship must be abolished so that all people receive equal rights, since people deserve equal rights from birth, regardless of the country of birth. Only xenophobic followers of Hitler want to limit immigrants' rights. There is only one race - the human race, therefore immigration laws should be abolished as slavery, because they are not suitable for the 21st century.

Citizenship is an undeserved privilege, not your private property. You did not pay for your citizenship, you have no proof of purchase, Mr. lazy fat white citizen. If you are a US citizen, then you can view America as your country, as well as something to be inspired by, but America is not your property, America is not your house, not your inheritance, because inheritance is what you own, but you do not own America, America is no more your property than your wife, your manager in the workplace or your president, America deserves to be open to all, America is a country of immigrants. I repeat: America is not your property, America deserves freedom from xenophobic Nazis. Freedom for Mexicans is freedom for America.

over the past decades

Yeah no. What about the prohibition? What about the WWII era? What about the forced sterilization programmes?

freedom

Good

capitalism

Bad

limits

Bad

socialism

Good

when society was divided into citizens and slaves (helots)

They also had foreigners who were not citizens nor slaves.

There is nothing wrong with illegal immigration, because no human being is "illegal", except for the fact that immigrants make angry these lazy xenophobes and other neo-Nazis

I will agree with this.

>>48-49
get the fuck out, liberal shills

>>50
I don't think that you know what liberalism is, Capitalism is part of liberalism.

>>51
yeah and it sucks ass
we need a planned economy and an authoritarian right government

>>52
Authoritarianism = "I don't like X so nobody should be able to do such X even if it affects only themselves. Also, free speech is overrated".

>>53
free speech allows for subversion

>>55
controlled speech allows for github?

>>16

Free markets fix it

why do ancapistani fucks love jew cock up their ass so goddamn much

>>53

Authoritarianism = people who know what the human race should do (not destroy earth, move to other planets, not import tons of non-white immigrants into white countries, etc) being in charge and not letting plebs subvert society for the sake of ``muh personal freedums''

>>57
USA was the big innovator in space travel, environmental protection, segregating niggers, etc. and accomplished all that without authoritarianism. Authoritarian countries have actually always failed to compete, showing that human intelligence and creativity increases through the play and experimentation that comes from not having a boot stomping their face.

You can choose racial homogeneity over authoritarianism, which is what the USA did until they were kiked. The police weren't "militarized" where there were no niggers, and everybody liked them. Judges weren't handing down 100 year sentences when there were no niggers, and crime didn't spiral out of control. There was no welfare until the 50s, and nobody bitched and moaned. The only reason to demand authoritarianism is because you are too cucked to admit that niggers are the real problem.

The winners decide how to tell History. History creates morals. They are the Super Men, the source of all values. It is necessary to deconstruct all values, not simply compare them. Most of what you value in life has been sold to you, pre-made, by some thinker or another, trying to create in his mind an argument that would convince the greatest amount of people. Be the source of your own values.

>>58
but they are caused by soft government that tolerates too much

authoritarian regimes don't put up with bullshit

>>59

It is necessary to deconstruct all values, not simply compare them

Why don't you start by "deconstructing" why you should bother to "deconstruct" all values in the first place? It is ridiculously arrogant to think that you are even able to conceive of the reasoning behind common values, since these values formed over thousands of years of trial and error while your mind only formed by reading a few shitty postmodern books by Jewish boomers in the 50s.

And since these values you claim need to be deconstructed are part of the social fabric that keeps you entertained, slovenly, and not-murdered, you can only attempt to deconstruct them if you reject all fruits of the society that birthed them. That does of course include this website. You will need to leave.

>>61
I don't need to reject a value simply because I deconstruct it. You seem to fail to grasp what deconstruction is. It means removing the sacred aspect of it, and finding out its true origins and nature. I might find a better criterium for my actions than simply doing what's popular.

>>62
To be fair, it seems as though you completely misinterpreted my post. This raises further questions in regards to the arrogance and folly you are displaying by claiming you are capable of deconstruction. "Removing the sacred aspect" is just a $5 way of saying "understanding" and I am here to tell you that you will never understand common values because they are emergent from the collective and so are you. It is completely pointless to attempt to understand such things while being within the system emerging from the values you are trying to understand. Tht's why you need to reject every aspect of common society, such as the internet, to begin "deconstructing".

>>63
hurr durr don't think, just accept.

t. brainlet

postmodernism is people just claiming everything is a social construct that you can deconstruct and that nothing means anything

edgy reductionist nihilistic pseudointellectual bullshit

>>65
That post unironically is a (poor) deconstruction of postmodernism.

>>66

postmodernist faggot detected

``anything I don't like is a social construct''

>>67
``Anything i don't like is cultural marxism''

>>68
triggered

I love postmodernism.
Just because the name implies it is very futuristic. I believe postmodernism is the future, therefore I believe in it.

>>70
What is your opinion on postpostmodernism?

>>65
Nothing means anything a priori, but meaning can be constructed.

I’m a postmodernist. Everything you support is a social construct, therefore your beliefs are invalid. Everything I believe in is better. I am so smart and superior to everyone. Why don’t people love me? Don’t people see how intelligent and deep I am for dismissing everyone else’s views?

>>73
If your values are a product of society, which you simply bought into without any real analysis on your part, then that's something to think about.

We live in a society

>>75
I mean values you had no participation in the creation of. A byproduct of past times, mostly. They are not necessarily invalid, but some were created in order to solve a need that just isn't there anymore, and only remain because they've become popular. For instance, the demonization of racism only appeared on the post-war, to stop the ideology from the losing side from spreading and thus to cement victory, but we still see its unintended side-effects to this day

>>74

My views go against what people want me to believe and value.

Everyone here is super liberal. I am not. If I just went with the flow, and didn’t really think for myself, I’d end up liberal by default. But I do think about things, and I have independently arrived at my own conclusions. Although actually I guess you could say I am conservative BECAUSE of being surrounded by unironic SJWs.

>>78
That doesn't make much sense, most conservatives are liberals..

>>79
t. proud liberal-conservative radical centrist.

>>79
fence-sitting centrist detected

>>80,81
samefag'd :/

>>82
nope, I only posted >>81

Segundo Ayn Rand, a ganância é na realidade uma virtude; ela especula que, tal como propõe Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, em Além do Bem e do Mal, a inversão de nossos valores, de saudáveis para não saudáveis, que se deu no advento do cristianismo, influenciado pelo estoicismo grego, mas deturpando este, foi o que causou essa "elevação da fraqueza" como valor máximo, às custas de valores mais naturais, como os que inclinam o indivíduo ao ganho e acúmulo e por isso o fortalecem, tais como a ganância (para elevar-se) e o orgulho (para não deixar-se ser rebaixado). Porém ela não chega a defender o vício, tal como o hedonismo desenfreado, que o cristianismo também condena. Segundo ela, a ganância só pode ser uma virtude na medida que inclina o indivíduo para o ganho legítimo, sem corte de caminhos, pois estes cortes de caminho indicam outro vício, a preguiça, que ela interpreta como "a repulsão ao trabalho, tanto intelectual quanto braçal". Preguiça para ela é o valor supremo daqueles que parasitam a sociedade, e sucesso em empreendimentos parasitários não pode ser admirado num sistema capitalista saudável, resistente a crises. De fato, crises e parasitismo estão interligados, como ela exemplifica brilhantemente em seu livro A Revolta de Atlas.

Being some years active on the internet and having met people from islamic background. Learned the most valuable thing in life. Our western traditions and values. We need anything and everybody to fight back against this culture this is not ours. Having met with islam, the people behind it and etc... Seen the destruction of life, friendship and values...

In the USA you have freedom of expression. That does not exist in Europe. Some things should be the way they are. Like stay close with your tradition and way of life. But there are only two ways to protect them: 1. by free speech and 2. by the bullet. I prefer option 1. But in Europe there is no free speech. Mrs. Merkel got the free speech prize. But there is no free speech. So it should be impossible the get a free speech prize. The only thing that is bright in the world, right now, is the Trump being president. He is saving the world from total devastation.

Text search for old school websites: https://wiby.me/

>>87
i ain't clickin dat spam link bruhhhh

I tried, it was kind of funny. It worked with no script active, disconnect, umatrix, ublock, cookie autodelete, decentraleyes, privacy badger, ghostery, privacy settings and https everywhere. lol

>>89 @ >>88

>>89

what's funny is that, in an attempt to be more secure, you are trusting tons of third parties, some of whom are not trustworthy in the least (i.e. ghostery)

you think you're smarter than you actually are

>>91 True, you are right. And certainly ghostery is not okay... I will remove it. Thank you for your advice. What about policeman and secret agent???

>https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/policeman/
>https://www.dephormation.org.uk/?page=81

>>91
You've incorrectly used i.e. when you meant e.g.

>>93
how about f.u.

>>94
I'm just trying to help you not make mistakes like this in the future, you might embarass yourself.

>>95
Not him but thanks for the tip. I never use eg and I suspect I have used ie to mean for example in the past. But no longer, armed with this new info.

>>96
Glad to be of help.

>>1

I value chicks with sexy body & boobs! http://185.229.181.245/935675352_1464580511_2163616576_623860720

>>98
Who would even click that? Wow, try a real link next time with a domain and everything.

>>98

That is the most beautiful image I ever seen! Thanks buddies!

>>98,100
samefag found

virus, don't click

>>99 & 101

Same gay alerted & spotted!