The Open Thread is a place for open discussion among my readers. Post anything you feel like sharing! From now on, the Open Thread will no longer be monthly. Instead, there will be a new Open Thread whenever it is adequate. The stage is yours. Go ahead!
The latest Open Thread is made ‘sticky’ to improve access.
Please consider throwing a few coins into the tip jar, and buy my books! They are great. Your support is greatly appreciated.
So I was at the sports bar that I frequent watching basketball last night. This hot waitress tells me that the waitress that was serving me was going home and to ask her (the one talking to me) if I needed anything else. So I closed the tab, but the other waitress never left. I thought…..signal?
So I ordered another beer from her, and struck up a conversation. Got some good vibes so I asked her what time she got off and if she wanted to stay for a drink. She said, “With you I would, but…….shows her wedding ring. Lol I’m bad at looking for that! She said she would “later.”.
Probably just wants to keep me coming back. But there is a chance her marriage is on the rocks. Anyway, I’m just glad I keep going for it.
I wish this fucking lockdown would end so I don’t have to depend on asking girls out through business relations.
The bars are open in California, but only for outside seating and they have to serve food. No better than a restaurant.
She wanted you. She kept flirting with you while she was pointing out that she’s married.
Cool, thanks Aaron. I think I’m going to consider her a prospect for the future if and when her marriage dissolves. I’ll just continue to do some light flirting. I’m going to go there anyway. So I figure why not sit at her tables and keep up good relations, while I pursue other options.
how do you have the patience to keep talking to a girl
who you have nothing happens with except prospect for the future i have very little patience for women and would have get pissed off by now.
Is that Rollo Tomasi guy a scammer? He keeps posting pics of chicks and asking his Twitter following “How would you open?” As If what you say when you open makes much of a difference.
Bro, just checked out his tweets, he’s clearly making fun of PUAs/joking around by rhetorically asking “how would you open?”
The first pic I saw was of Kim Jong Un’s sis, and the second was of an ugly criminal antifa chick with purple hair. Realistically, you would not “open” either without a death wish.
Your examples were him being cheeky, sure, but He usually posts hot 10/10 girls and asks “how would you open”.
I saw it as more funny shit posting
It was kinda like a play on that “roast me” except spun in way of a pickup line
There was one time when in the comments of one of his “how would you open” tweets, he commented something to the effect of “this exercise is to show how gameless most men are”. I personally think he views opening as an important part of the game.
Here’s a great clip I just came across:
https://twitter.com/thinking_panda/status/1297539372749742082
Look at those kindergarteners! I would love to see this being pulled off in a Western kindergarten. It could not be done, which would be a wonderful illustration of the degeneracy of the West. You’d have little kids unwilling to cooperate in any way and plenty who lack the basic motor skills to pull off what you see in this clip.
Here’s another one, posted by the same guy:
https://twitter.com/thinking_panda/status/1297746150716370946
I’m very impressed.
Nice videos – sadly the comments in reply to the tweet are fucked up…but that’s twitter
Meanwhile in the USA, you have forced ahem fisting:
https://twitter.com/kunklefredrick/status/1298344285079838720?s=21
Any Catboy Kami fans on here? I’m obviously abhorred by his casual racism and anti-semitism and really can’t bring myself to listen to any of that. However, he has some interesting philosophical clips, too:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/za2J8SOMIw6U/
This video is also interesting from a black pill angle because you see that this woman listens to him because he’s hot. He has clips in which he tells a pretty cute black girl that he hates all blacks and she is so enthralled by him that she enthusiastically repeats what he said! (Obviously, Kami doesn’t hate blacks. He’s merely illustrating the power of charisma.) Another great clip has some leftie chick lick her lips and getting visibly horny. She’s at the opposite end of the political spectrum, yet she keeps talking to him. I would not be surprised if she masturbated right after talking to him.
If this guy softened his language a bit, he would make a fantastic political leader. Then again, if you want to rebuild a country from the ashes, a guy as outspoken as him would probably be quite popular. I can imagine him donning a nice uniform and delivering speeches or demolishing mainstream politicians in a debate. Plenty of women would vote for him simply because he’s good looking.
thanks for the share
Their face resembles each other. Must not be a coincidence.
But this speaks volume of the kind of woman they are anyway.
Pretty good arguments for dictatorship. Here in the US the idea is off the table. I never even considered the idea that Thomas Hobbes was right. In the US Locke = right, Hobbes = wrong.
Over the past few years I’ve rethought Hobbes considerably.
Just watched 20-ish minutes of his debate with Destiny. Definitely got some insights from it. The main one being that debates aren’t about who has the best facts and logic (unless you’re playing an academic game), but in the game that is populism, it’s about keeping your cool, demonstrating that you’re acting in good faith and that your opponent is not. Thus, resulting in your opponent coming across like a dramatic and triggered bitch.
Public opinion in Austria on immigration is changing rapidly:
The last few days there was an attack on a Jewish synagogue from a Syrian Muslim immigrant. The wonders of multiculturalism have finally arrived in Austria.
Almost everyone, even on the forum of a left wing newspaper, is extremely critical of Islam finally. There was also a recent study that Muslims generally fail to integrate, compared to every other group of immigrants.
I just hope this is not just temporary and it is not too late. But I fear it is.
It is easy to invite them into your border, it may be very difficult to evict them from your soil.
Yes, it won’t be easy. But this is a huge wake up call to the Austrians. If there is one thing we really don’t like, it is anyone attacking Jews. Because of our history most people in Austria are hyper allergic to that. So I still have some hope that maybe this will lead to some sanity.
How many Muslims have Austria hiherto allowed to enter the border?
Around 700k, 8% of the population
Do you know any good sources to read on the the beginning of this immigration crisis in Europe? I want to know more about the motives and intentions of European high-ranking politicians.
The book “the strange death of Europe” from Douglas Murray is a good summary.
Motives, hard to say. I am still not sure if Merkel and her friends are just insane, or if there is a deeper conspiracy going on.
That it is not on international news: well no one really gives a fuck about austria
I couldn’t find any news on this incidence in English. I have tried to use both Google and Yandex. Yandex is good to dig out sites that are censored by Google.
“That it is not on international news: well no one really gives a fuck about austria”
Perhaps any article in German will do fine.
“The book “the strange death of Europe” from Douglas Murray is a good summary.
Motives, hard to say. I am still not sure if Merkel and her friends are just insane, or if there is a deeper conspiracy going on.”
I don’t think any of them insane. As a rule of thumb, we can only learn about a period when much time has passed.
In order to understand her and her colleagues’ motives, we have to wait for the opening of relevant state archives.
I will try to gather what is reliable!
A lot of BLM and Antifa rioters were not prosecuted for their crimes. Meanwhile, there is a clamp-down on all non-leftist protesters: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/06/10/51-protesters-facing-federal-charges-yet-no-sign-of-antifa-involvement/#323719354138
Where is your proof that non-leftist protesters are persecuted, while BLM and Antifa are not.
My article states clearly that the police clashed the rebels. So what’s the point?
This is a serious question and not intended to be an insult: are you on the autism spectrum?
“This is a serious question and not intended to be an insult: are you on the autism spectrum?”
I used to doubt that I was autistic. Then I was diagnosed of having another mental disorder (politely abstaining from mentioning). I asked the doctor and she said “no”.
You are the second person, after Old Anon, that asked me that.
Why? I missed some nuances of your answer?
Because you refer to harassing people as “persistence in getting an answer”, and then you’re surprised when people have to literally shout at you to leave them alone.
Do an online autism test.
“Because you refer to harassing people as “persistence in getting an answer”, and then you’re surprised when people have to literally shout at you to leave them alone.
Do an online autism test.”
I would rather trust the opinion of highly qualified psychiatrists, who have the power of prescribe medicine than some random internet tests.
My feeling is that autism and its spectrum is highly distorted in the mind of the public.
“”Because you refer to harassing people as “persistence in getting an answer”, and then you’re surprised when people have to literally shout at you to leave them alone.”
How can you harass someone online? Is it not like I yell at you in real life. If anything, it is a sign of respect that I have for you, so much so that I consulted you. I was totally shocked when you overreacted. You could simply say “you need more time to think”, or any slight diversion. This is just a cup of cake. Full insults are not the solution.
Most of these problems are rooted in communicating in texts. Had it been in real life, there would not be any problem whatsoever.
Again, your autism shines through. You can definitely feel harassed online. It is utterly naive (and most likely also dishonest of you) to express that your actions shouldn’t have consequences just because an interaction didn’t take place face-to-face. Quite frankly, if you spoke to some of us in real life the way you behave in your comments, chances are that you would have gotten slapped across the room multiple times so far.
Try this test CQV:
http://socialintelligence.labinthewild.org/mite/
Thanks Old Anon!
I have taken the test:
Got 26 out of 36. They say I do better than 45% of all participants.
“Your score is 26 out of 36.
Your score is equal or better than 45% of all participants.
Does this test work equally well for all people around the world?
This test was developed in Great Britain and the images you saw were taken from British magazines in 1990’s. Unsurprisingly, the test doesn’t work perfectly for people who are not native speakers of English or for people who come from cultures that are very different from Britain’s.”
But I actually doubt this test. How can you read emotions just from pictures and eyes? What is sorely lack here is motions. In real life, a stream of continuous movements of various facial or body parts provide cues for reading emotions of others. Here, it’s like a freezing moment. Have you ever watched movies, pause, and find the expression of the character, while being in pausing mode, funny?
Another thing is that I am from Vietnam, whose culture is very different from Britain.
One of reason that I doubted that I am mildly autistic is that my interests, including academic interests, tend to be quite narrowing. I enjoy being specialized in a subject. For example, when studying Math, infinite series are all I care about. I fully grasp basic concepts such as derivative, limits, integral, but what captures my attention is the past and present methods of expanding a function into Taylor or even hypergeometric series.
Heck, I even used my saving to buy books of Euler and Lagrange to read more on how do they manipulate series. The hardest book to read is that of Laplace “Theorie Analytique de Probabilite”. I also bought a rare book printed in 1861 of Eugene Catalan on series. His books are chock-full of great techniques. I also read some old papers of de Moivre as well. Only Calc II did I learn a couple of basic methods of determining their convergence.
I love this subject so much that even now I still feel passionate and curious even though I stop studying Math.
I wrote a blog here, I discontinue due to shifting back to my field, which is linguistics, I should have uploaded a couple of more methods:
https://analysisbeauty.blogspot.com/
“Again, your autism shines through. You can definitely feel harassed online. It is utterly naive (and most likely also dishonest of you) to express that your actions shouldn’t have consequences just because an interaction didn’t take place face-to-face. Quite frankly, if you spoke to some of us in real life the way you behave in your comments, chances are that you would have gotten slapped across the room multiple times so far.”
1) First, experts say I don’t have autism.
2) Second, a persistent effort here means to ask the same thing twice. Twice! How can that be harassement?
3) In real life, you can use silence to discourage further inquiry. After all, I get the message pretty fast, and never gets slapped due to harassing.
Lmao! At the end, in response to her confusion he just says, “Just show me your feet, it’ll be a lot easier.” Total Chad move.
I agree that he’d be a rather strong political figure within a certain context, if you know what I mean. However, with clips like this floating around: https://www.bitchute.com/video/4WKQ0ud9W8UJ/ – you can be certain that a certain bureaucracy is hot on his trail. If ever we do get strong and potentially effective leaders, they tend to get snuffed out quite quickly and thrown in jail in many parts of the West.
I have come to have similar views of Democracy as well. Essentially, in such a set up, a crack whore with a clean record technically has the same voting power as an esteemed and highly functional member of society. Utter nonsense.
“I have come to have similar views of Democracy as well. Essentially, in such a set up, a crack whore with a clean record technically has the same voting power as an esteemed and highly functional member of society. Utter nonsense.”
As long as she is a human, she has the basic right compared to anyone else. This is how the US is built.
And after reading these papers 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 47 and 48 of the Federalist Paper, I no longer view the US as a direct democracy, but a representative republic.
You are spouting utter nonsense. When the founding fathers spoke of “men”, they referred to their own kind, i.e. rich landowners of the Protestant faith. If they knew of today’s race riots, do you think they would have gone ahead with their lofty declarations?
The idea of “basic rights” are likewise bullshit. Who is paying for those supposed rights? Sure, claim the right of asylum, free housing, free food, and free education all you want, but by doing so, you are only burdening an ever-decreasing part of the population. Are you even aware that society is literally falling apart, and to a large part this is due to people who believe that even though they do not work or do not have any economically viable skills they should also enjoy a financially comfortable life.
I recommend you look into the collapse of civilizations in the past. You can put on a charade only up to a certain point but eventually there will be an enormous backlash due to simple economics. The US is either right at the brink or already past it. We will have to wait for the dust to settle and those Trump bucks to disappear. Then we can tally up the economic damage due to riots and lockdowns, the number of jobs lost and the long-lasting economic damage due to a collapse of tourism.
“As long as she is a human, she has the basic right compared to anyone else. This is how the US is built.”
I don’t agree with this in terms of absolutes. As in, the dregs of society should inherently be given inalienable rights, just because that’s the moral thing to do. That’s where I stand on that issue personally, good sir. I believe that this system has the potential to be abused in such ways that invariably leads to very chaotic situations and high levels of corruption and ultimately suffering for the productive classes. Also, you might be surprised to find that the way the U.S. was set up initially, certain groups such as women and minorities were not given a vote until some time later.
Disclaimer: I will not be engaging in a long-winded discussion with you on this matter. I believe what i believe and you are entitled to your opinion as well. I have no intention in trying to sway your thinking.
I have watched a bit of Catboy Kami before, but I didn’t know that video. I looked some more into him since my last post as well. I have to revise my opinion: this guy could lead a nation. I am not kidding. If you gathered a bunch of rich industrialists to finance him and push his message into the mainstream, he would get a massive following as he is a really gifted speaker. Another scenario I could imagine, in particular due to him apparently being very popular in Russia, is the Kremlin bankrolling him and trolling the West to no end. Can you imagine the effect it would have if you featured him on RT or Sputnik? Catboy Kami is a superstar. The world has not seen a guy like him for about 100 years. I am genuinely floored. Picture this guy debating Angela Merkel or any Western political leader! It would be a complete slaughter. RT could pick him up and let him decimate a few second-and third-rate politicians and a few has-beens first, as a warm-up, before taunting some NGO leaders and prominent politicians to debate him.
Oh yes, Aaron. I tend to agree. He is quite special. He is only 22 years of age at this current point in time. I have even heard from another person’s account that he has already managed to secure himself financially through speculating in bitcoin or in the market. I don’t know how true this is. However, he is quite something. Even random minorities he encounters are genuine fans of his.
Here is the timeline of the abolishment of property holding rights:
New Hampshire Tax 1792
Massachusetts Property 1821 (prop), tax req. in 1860
Rhode Island Property 1842 (prop), tax req. in 1860
Connecticut Property 1818 (prop), 1845 (tax)
New York Property 1821 (prop), 1826 (tax)
New Jersey Property 1807 (prop), 1844 (tax)
Pennsylvania Tax tax req. in 1860
Delaware Property 1792 (prop), tax req. in 1860
Maryland Property 1802
Virginia Property 1850
North Carolina Property 1856 (prop), tax req. in 1860
South Carolina Tax 1810 (tax)
Georgia Property 1789 (prop), 1798 (tax)
Those are 13 colonies, many colonies abolished them right during the presidency of Thomas Jefferson.
http://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Workshops-Seminars/Economic-History/sokoloff-050406.pdf
“Also, you might be surprised to find that the way the U.S. was set up initially, certain groups such as women and minorities were not given a vote until some time later.”
The way I see it, is that through evolution, the US has become closer and closer to the ideal of the Constitution.
“The idea of “basic rights” are likewise bullshit. Who is paying for those supposed rights?”
Are you trying to say to me that as a member of a society, you seek to absolve all rights and responsibilities that you have for other members of that society?
This is not how a society function, not even in Imperial China.
As a member of the society, you have to cede certain natural rights to the States, to copy verbatim from Federalist No.2, John Jay.
Right now we have a very one-sided social contract. Antifa and BLM members are free to riot without facing any consequences. They destroy public and private property and, to an apparently large extent, live off government handouts. What do they positively contribute to society to make up for that negative contribution? Oh, right, they fight against Orange Man. Meanwhile, as a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen, you get shafted. Read up on the concept of “anarcho-tyranny”.
“Are you even aware that society is literally falling apart, and to a large part this is due to people who believe that even though they do not work or do not have any economically viable skills they should also enjoy a financially comfortable life.”
This may be the excess and illness of Europe, not the US. Here, don’t go to work, no shining future awaits.
Haven’t there been riots in Portland for 90 days straight? What about the riots that are currently underway in Kenosha? The footage I’ve seen is quite apocalyptic.
“You are spouting utter nonsense. When the founding fathers spoke of “men”, they referred to their own kind, i.e. rich landowners of the Protestant faith. If they knew of today’s race riots, do you think they would have gone ahead with their lofty declarations?”
Where is your proof of this intepretation? Where did you read that the founding fathers have solely the class of landowners in mind?
As prescribed above, the number of states which eventually declared null and void the prerequisite of owning lands and properties reach quite a few during the first 5th presidencies (1789-1825, from Washington to Monroe).
1) New Hampshire
2) New Jersey
3) Maryland
4) Delaware
5) New York
6) Connecticut
7) Massachusetts
At least 7 states among the first 13 colonies, and many more among new states.
If the founding fathers wish to secure the republic for men of their own classes only, why did they word that declaration in such an all-encompassing term? Speaking as if the rights that they prescribed belong to all men of various classes. If they wanted to secure the republic for men like them, they should interfere, as their powers would allow them to, as their descendants would do to prevent the abolishment of slavery. Yet they remained silent, a silent consent. This was a trend, even when some of the founding fathers were still alive and kicking.
Thus your premise does not hold in light of historical evidence.
Here is another evidence that deal a decisive blow to your corrupted and unfortunate interpretation of the founding fathers’ intention when passing the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence:
“Under every view of the subject, it seems indispensable that the Mass of Citizens should not be without a voice, in making the laws which they are to obey, & in chusing the Magistrates, who are to administer them, and if the only alternative be between an equal & universal right of suffrage for each branch of the Govt. and a confinement of the entire right to a part of the Citizens, it is better that those having the greater interest at stake namely that of property & persons both, should be deprived of half their share in the Govt.; than, that those having the lesser interest, that of personal rights only, should be deprived of the whole.”
https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s26.html
This article alone, represented by James Madison, suggests that at least one founding father gave a long thought about the universal right of suffrage. He weight both the dangers and benefits of each side on a just scale.
I strongly suspect that you form your opinion on reading some third-party third class articles that dissect the intentions of the founding fathers.
Good study in Humanities, in general, and in History in particular, starts with a careful selection, classification, and analysis of sources.
After reviewing, comparing, and surveying with broad observation on various historical sources, I have come to the conclusion, that the US holds the advantage of not only grant votes the majority of her citizens, but also is equally successful in avoiding bloodshed when it comes to distribute the ownership of land.
As it was in the past, just as it is now, the right of land ownership has been repeatedly trampled by the Communist Party. Millions of peasants were indoctrinated to denounce, insult, and even execute the landowning class, and even more injurious to the reputation of the ruling Party, these barbarous acts were all swept under rug till this very day. The history of any Communist Party, in almost all countries, was a history of terror and violence.
It was the Chinese Communist Party who helped to educate and engineer the abominable land reform in Vietnam.
Long live America!
Good news for you, Sleazy, I have found some other documents that support your view. Bear in mind they do not totally vindicate your judgment:
The website is: https://vindicatingthefounders.com/library/property-requirement.html
“True. But will not these reasons apply to others? Is it not equally true, that men in general in every society, who are wholly destitute of property, are also too little acquainted with public affairs to form a right judgment, and too dependent upon other men to have a will of their own? If this is a fact, if you give to every man, who has no property, a vote, will you not make a fine encouraging provision for corruption by your fundamental law? Such is the frailty of the human heart, that very few men, who have no property, have any judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by some man of property, who has attached their minds to his interest…”
[Adams explains why women, children, and the poor are excluded from the vote. — TGW]
John Adams to James Sullivan
on women, the poor, and voting rights
May 26, 1776
Mind you that this was written before the Constitution was drafted. It was in 1776, still during the opening phase of Revolutionary War.
“We forget that when our government was established the principle of majority rule was nowhere to recognized—that until well along in the nineteenth century the majority of our forefathers did not even have the right to vote… Then a great popular movement swept over the country, and in the political upheaval which followed, the masses secured the right of suffrage.”
[The principle of majority rule was not recognized in the founding. — TGW]
An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States
Charles Beard
1913
Yet, as I have demonstrated above, the requirement for owning property to be able to vote was dropped during the course of the 19th century, and such process had already been going under way during the first 5th presidency of the US. This trend might be occasioned not just by the thoughts of the founding fathers, but also by the general sentiment of the public.
[Protests against the requirement in the Massachusetts Constitution that limited the right to vote to property owners. — TGW]
Return of the town of Richmond on the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780:
Excluding persons from a share in representation for want of pecuniary qualifications is an infringement on the natural rights of the subject.
Return of the town of Dorchester on the proposed Massachusetts Constitution of 1778:
All men were born equally free and independent, having certain natural and inherent and unalienable rights, among which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty, and acquiring, possessing, and protecting property [quoted from the 1776 Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights]; of which rights they cannot be deprived but by injustice, except they first forfeit them by committing crimes against the public… [H]ow can a man be said to be free and independent, enjoying and defending life and liberty and protecting property, when he has not a voice allowed him in the choice of the most important officers in the legislature, which can make laws to bind him and appoint judges to try him in all cases as well of life and liberty as of property?
Return of the town of Mansfield on the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780:
[It is true that some people fail to acquire property because of laziness or other defects. But] shall it from thence be argued that thousands of honest, good members of society shall be subjected to laws framed by legislators, the election of whom they could have no voice in? Shall a subject of a free commonwealth be obliged to contribute his share to public expenses,… and be excluded from voting for a representative? This appears to us in some degree slavery.
Statements of three Massachusetts towns on voting rights
1778-80
Thus, we see the true picture, as depicted in these not-so-comprehensive documents, is quite more complex than our polar views. Yet at the end of the day, the truth still pace forth, that “all men” here enlarges due to the call of equality and justice. Against the constrain of time and magnitude, the people of the US could enforce changes through appealing to the government. This is what so characteristic of America, and so uncharacteristic of China and Vietnam, or any other Communist state hiherto has existed.
Time for a thought experiment: Imagine the founding fathers lived that is a lot closer to ours. Do you honestly think they would have said, “Yeah, democracy is a great idea. Everyone’s voice is important and should have equal value.”
My above post also counters your charge that I am a man who argue not in good faith. This is the second time I have helped my opponents to strengthen his position by providing an effective counterattack or proofs that will be in their favour.
I argue in search of truth, not for being right.
Right now we have a very one-sided social contract. Antifa and BLM members are free to riot without facing any consequences.
What is the base for this claim?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/25/seattle-police-declare-riot-renewed-black-lives-matter-protests/
“On Austin’s Congress Avenue, normally a site for music venues and bars, police were monitoring a crowd of protesters Saturday night when Senior Officer Katrina Ratcliff said shots were fired, killing a man. The suspect was detained, she said, “and is cooperating with officers.”
This is a country where Liberty reigns, as James Madison said, disagreements and social rifts are allowed.
I will need to wait for the dust to settle before passing judgment on these events. I am a newcomer to the States so I am unfamiliar with the roots of these 2 movements. Black Live Matters is obviously more familiar to me, just like the so-called White Live Matters. The Antifa is something I only read from the News, but do not pay much attention to.
A lot of BLM and Antifa rioters were not prosecuted for their crimes. Meanwhile, there is a clamp-down on all non-leftist protesters: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/06/10/51-protesters-facing-federal-charges-yet-no-sign-of-antifa-involvement/#323719354138
Time for a thought experiment: Imagine the founding fathers lived that is a lot closer to ours. Do you honestly think they would have said, “Yeah, democracy is a great idea. Everyone’s voice is important and should have equal value.”
This is an annoying rhetorical question. How can we answer it? It is like what would you do if…interjected a late period. Before the Revolution, there was already riots in the Colonies. Think of the Sons of Liberty who dumped tea to the sea in Boston. After the Revolution, we had the Shays Rebellion, the Whisky Rebellions, Fries’ Rebellion. Would they dissolve the Union and declared that democracy was utterly useless?
Just because popular movements are around doesn’t mean you should throw off a functional and advanced government. We have 1968 movements as examples. Would you go head and abolish the government just because there are movements demanding for change?
This isn’t a rhetorical question. Do you honestly think the founding fathers, who were setting up a republic anyway, would have felt anything besides utter contempt for the degeneracies of modern democracy? Also, you seem to have a rather loose definition of the term “functional government”. In Western democracies, the concept of rule of law seems dead. Again, read up on “anarcho-tyranny”.
“Haven’t there been riots in Portland for 90 days straight? What about the riots that are currently underway in Kenosha? The footage I’ve seen is quite apocalyptic.”
I don’t see the connection between this and this:
“Haven’t there been riots in Portland for 90 days straight? What about the riots that are currently underway in Kenosha? The footage I’ve seen is quite apocalyptic.”
It is like non-sequitur to me.
You claimed that there may be social unrest in Europe while in the United States everything is peaceful. Well, according to the new definition of the word peaceful, you’ve been enjoying plenty of “mostly peaceful protests.”
“Haven’t there been riots in Portland for 90 days straight? What about the riots that are currently underway in Kenosha? The footage I’ve seen is quite apocalyptic.”
I don’t see the connection between this and this:
“Are you even aware that society is literally falling apart, and to a large part this is due to people who believe that even though they do not work or do not have any economically viable skills they should also enjoy a financially comfortable life.”
It is like non-sequitur to me.
“You claimed that there may be social unrest in Europe while in the United States everything is peaceful. Well, according to the new definition of the word peaceful, you’ve been enjoying plenty of “mostly peaceful protests.”
Can you organize your response a bit more carefully, your last quote is a response to this part of my answer:
“This may be the excess and illness of Europe, not the US. Here, don’t go to work, no shining future awaits.”
I am talking about the social welfare of two continents. Which part did I say that the US was totally calm while Europe was caught by a gigantic storm?
“This isn’t a rhetorical question. Do you honestly think the founding fathers, who were setting up a republic anyway, would have felt anything besides utter contempt for the degeneracies of modern democracy? Also, you seem to have a rather loose definition of the term “functional government”. In Western democracies, the concept of rule of law seems dead. Again, read up on “anarcho-tyranny”.
I believe that they will utterly try to stabilize the situation with various means, while upholding every word of the Constitution. You present a false dichotomy. Either choosing to abandon the republic, or let riots destroy the land of Liberty. You can both keep the riots at bay and keep the republic safe.
After all, we have been through much worse trails and tribulation, such as the Civil War, for example.
They will eventually get around to arresting rioters. Took them awhile, but a lot of the people caught on film during the LA riots were later arrested. I think the whole Covid situation have slowed things down drastically.
Weren’t there statements by district attorneys that they will not press charges? The world has changed a lot since the time of Korean rooftop snipers.
Depends on the state and also the statute of limitations. A different district attorney could decide to press charges after elections are held. Could also just be playing politics for the time being as to not make the rioting worse. A lot of prosecutions happen after things calm down.
“You are spouting utter nonsense. When the founding fathers spoke of “men”, they referred to their own kind, i.e. rich landowners of the Protestant faith. If they knew of today’s race riots, do you think they would have gone ahead with their lofty declarations?”
Where is your proof of this intepretation?
“I recommend you look into the collapse of civilizations in the past. You can put on a charade only up to a certain point but eventually there will be an enormous backlash due to simple economics. The US is either right at the brink or already past it. We will have to wait for the dust to settle and those Trump bucks to disappear. Then we can tally up the economic damage due to riots and lockdowns, the number of jobs lost and the long-lasting economic damage due to a collapse of tourism.”
It is my habit to not speak of apocalyptic scenario. I respectfully abstain from further forecasting.
“The idea of “basic rights” are likewise bullshit. Who is paying for those supposed rights? Sure, claim the right of asylum, free housing, free food, and free education all you want, but by doing so, you are only burdening an ever-decreasing part of the population. Are you even aware that society is literally falling apart, and to a large part this is due to people who believe that even though they do not work or do not have any economically viable skills they should also enjoy a financially comfortable life.”
I don’t understand the essence of this passage. Perhaps you want to live in a state where your rights are revoked due to your lack of political allegiance to a predetermined party, or a state where your rights shall be relinquished by a royal authority, such as how it used to be in France or in Imperial China in the 18th century?
“You are spouting utter nonsense. When the founding fathers spoke of “men”, they referred to their own kind, i.e. rich landowners of the Protestant faith. If they knew of today’s race riots, do you think they would have gone ahead with their lofty declarations?”
The forefathers didn’t specify who could vote. They left this decision to the States. You will need much more documentary evidence to prove that it is the intention of the forefathers. Based on my juvenile knowledge of the United States, I believed that this was left out because the tension between the federal government and the state legislature, by that, I mean the federal government might be perceived to wield too much power in the eyes of the authorities of the states.
In 1792, abolishment of the requirement of property holdings was achieved such as Kentucky.
The election of 1828 was when almost all white males who owned or did not own property could vote. That was only roughly half a century after the Constitution was written.
Thus the trend of encompassing larger and larger voters was the historical trend.
Recently, we have a discussion on “verbal intelligence”, this article reflects on this issue:
https://qz.com/566050/people-who-like-pseudo-profound-quotes-are-not-so-smart-says-science/
I find girls tend to buy into these quotes.
Do you guys think that men have a natural proclivity to break down and submit to a girl once she starts crying? Regardless of how badly she had transgressed? I have noticed myself and other men doing this. I think women sometimes fake crying for this purpose.
I think it’s a natural response. Particularly young women with neotenous features evoke it. However, once you’ve realized that there are women who are able to cry on command, you’ll probably stop being affected by it. I’ve seen women switch from crying and seemingly being close to a nervous breakdown to being fully in control of their facilities within an instant. It’s mind-blowing at first. Then you realize that all you ever saw was her putting on an act.
Yes, I’ve seen exactly this. Women hysterically crying to cool as ice, hysterically cry and back again. It mind boggling but now it’s starting to make sense.
Honestly, this is one of the reasons I don’t mind female bosses. They don’t let the female employees get away with this bullshit.
Hi.
This is Martin.
Decided to change my nickname.