[ Rules / FAQ ] [ meta / b / media / img / feels / hb / x ]

/b/ - Random


*Text* => Text

**Text** => Text

***Text*** => Text

[spoiler]Text[/spoiler] => Text

Direct Link
Options NSFW image
Sage (thread won't be bumped)

Janitor applications are open

Check the Catalog before making a new thread.
Do not respond to maleposters. See Rule 7.
Please read the rules! Last update: 04/27/2021


Politics Anonymous 54699

anything you want to say you can say here regarding politics.

Anonymous 54700

None of you cowards have the guts to say it so I wiil:

Build more affordable mid-rise flats.

Anonymous 54712

Police brutality and systemic racism is a very real issue that can only be resolved through serious police reform/cutting funding.

Anonymous 54713


>identifying with ideologies against your own interests and controlled opposition movements

Anonymous 54731


Not having an ideology is itself an ideology.

Anonymous 54745

The ideal state would be one with a benevolent dictator.

Anonymous 54746

No, because ideology is the system of ideas that provokes an individual to do something for the good of (non-existant) future, basically. It's like a different kind of worldview, that circles around something one in the future that "can give us our freedom or ect." And in contrary to this there's like scientific(or gnostic) worldwiew, that circles around cognition about the world. There's like a fundamental difference between these worldviews, and this difference is that ideology based around some theory, and ideology is going toward some point in the non-existant future, while scientific worldview has a world to research, lol.

Anonymous 54749

If I could eliminate one thing from this world, it would be commies. It would eliminate so many other undesirables. It's like a filter for human beings.

Anonymous 54750


Anonymous 54751


Anonymous 54752

yeah sis woo. take us back to before the modern centralised state. we need to filter out affordable/public housing and universal healthcare

Anonymous 54757

You won't be getting either of those in a communist shithole. But you're a privileged 1st worlder so you wouldn't know. Killing commies would filter idiots like you who believes in fantasies and that's exactly what I want.

Anonymous 54758


I bet you're burger

Anonymous 54760


>communism is bad because it leads to undesirable outcomes like starvation and loss of life
>kill all the communists

Anonymous 54764

the decline.png

please, you have no experience to flex here. you're either a diaspora baby or an under-30 eastern european. nothing wrong with that, but don't embarrass yourself talking about privilege lol. "communism lifted the standard of living" is not an uncommon opinion in whichever former socialist country you call your own

Anonymous 54765


The issue with that is normative values, culture, economics, ethics, etc, are non-empirical fields and therefore outside the scope of science.

Anonymous 54769


Communism is nothing without capitalism.

Capitalism is perfectly fine without communism

Anonymous 54773

I live in socialist hellhole.

For me it's not about loss of life. It's about maintain the ability to live in a normal country, and not one destroyed by commies. If commies have to die for the greater good, I would happily exterminate them.

Sorry I couldn't hear your over the sound of living in a country socially and economically destroyed by commies.

>communism lifted the standard of living" is not an uncommon opinion

This is cope. Because things are better now, they are less critical of the past. You think those people would actually choose to live under communist regimes in the present? Those countries have their own socialist parties, and yet they don't win any elections. It's because the majority doesn't actually want communism in their current lives.

Anonymous 54775


I love politics, but I don't come to Crystal to post about it and I think it attracts moids.
That's all I have to say about it for now.

Anonymous 54776

Ironically you've encapsulated an important point from Karl Marx. Communism can only be born from capitalist societies in the first place, you can't just skip capitalism and go straight to communism, else you could just set up a communist countries in places like Africa.

Anonymous 54778

Eastern Europe has mostly (or entirely?) banned communist parties outright. Leaving that aside: I'm not going to proselytise a retreat back into the past, or that you or I should personally become commies. It's just replying to what you're saying.

You said that "You know what, since capitalism exists nothing but improvement, well being and prosperity has occured to the world economy," but that's not historically true of capitalism. Capitalism led to a great explosion of misery, the collapse of society as it existed to that point, and an overall drastic worsening of conditions, as seen throughout the 19th century. (& still seen in the third world today.)

Ironically, "improvement and well being" is true of historical socialism, which is responsible for being the catalyst for the overall drastic improvement of human life in the 20th century.

You say "maintain the ability to live in a normal country, and not one destroyed by commies," but socialist revolution has never occurred anywhere that wasn't, fundamentally, already a godawful place to live. Eastern Europe prior to the advent of socialist revolution was a profoundly destitute India-tier place, and it was the socialist era that took it and remodeled it into a basically decent place to live. Pre-communist China was as bad as or worse than Sub-Saharan Africa by every metric we have from that time.

The Soviet, Chinese & the various third world revolutions led to immediate, dramatic and permanent alleviation of material human suffering. Whereas before revolution, capitalism/imperialism played the big initial role by making them so exceptionally godawful to begin with.

Anonymous 54779

images (1).jpeg

Based. We need more Pinochets.
Those idiots advocting for socialist never lived in a socialist "paradise" otherwise they would't be saying all this garbage, though some history and economic books might answer their questions as well.
Oh, yeah, but studying is "opressive" and "elitist".

Anonymous 54780

Are you trying to argue that feudalism gave everyone a better standard of living then the capitalist societies that followed?

Anonymous 54781

Ironically, "improvement and well being" is true of historical socialism, which is responsible for being the catalyst for the overall drastic improvement of human life in the 20th century.
Uh, no? In fact most of the socialist countries grew more before socialism and the less socialist the area in their economy (socialism wasn't uniform) the more this area experimented growth.

Not that economic growth would legitimate totalitarianism, of course.

Anonymous 54782


Living standards were deplorable and
did not start to improve until the labour movements and resultant workplace reforms of the late 19th century.

I think some guys even wrote a bunch of books about it!

Name them? I don't have any trouble naming specifics and posting graphs, you should give it a try.

Anonymous 54783

You didn't answer the question. I knew living standards were deplorable(from a modern perspectice), were living standards not deplorable under Feudalism?

Anonymous 54784


Anonymous 54785


>I think some guys even wrote a bunch of books about it!

How about mentioning a book that is still relevant in 2020 that uses scientific method? You know, those written (and read) by Ivy league authors and LSE/Oxbridge scholars.
Want a good one? There are many others.

Anonymous 54786

Yeah. This is not controversial. Even anti-Marxist historians like Harold Perkin held the position that the industrial revolution led to an immediate decline in the wellbeing of the working class.

Anonymous 54787

Want a few others? No problem.

I'm not asking you to read Ayn Rand, these are all Nobel prize winners except for Mankiw (ironically, the most important of them).
>like Harold Perkin held the position that the industrial revolution led to an immediate decline in the wellbeing of the working class.
That's also wrong. I don't know what anti-marxist writers are you reading but the academic consensus is that the quality of life got better to everyone, especially the poor, after the Industrial Revolution. The problem, as Tocqueville said, was the poverty become more visible.

Anonymous 54788

Alright, it's not controversial. Are you making the assertion that standards of living were better during feudalism?

Anonymous 54789

Fully aware of what the mainstream IMF/NGO ideology is, thanks.

The anti-Marxist would be Harold Perkin, specifically, but it's also just the sort of take you'd read in a British GSCE textbook. EP Thompson, Eric Hobsbawm and the labour historians also expand on that idea. I'm a history major and we don't talk in history of "academic consensus" so that assertion is neither here nor there.

Yeah. See:
>the industrial revolution led to an immediate decline in the wellbeing of the working class.

Anonymous 54790

Alright then, I didn't realize I lived a worse life than a peasent. This is quite eye opening.

Anonymous 54791

>Fully aware of what the mainstream IMF/NGO ideology is, thanks.
Wow, great argument, huh? Did you read any books on the subject? Do you know how they work with evidence? Do you actually believe it's just "ideology"? Lmao, what a brainlet. No, sis, you're the one being ideological here id you don't want accept evidence.

> I'm a history major and we don't talk in history of "academic consensus" so that assertion is neither here nor there.

Are you getting pretentious here because you have a major in history? Because, well, I started by postgraduation (in history) and you're wrong.
Read Service, Conquest, Pipes, Johnson, Ferguson, Gellately, Applebaum and many others and then have an opinion on what is not controversial.

Anonymous 54792

Forgot to mention Gertrude Himmelfarb and John Lukaks on my namedrop. Not that you're going to read them anyway lol

Anonymous 54793

The position of contradiction in history as far as I can tell isn't if industrialization improved living standards, but when they did specifically. It should be self-evident that eventually living standards rose, but did it occur in the late 1800s or whenever.

Anonymous 54794

Even Marx on the first three or four pages of the Communist Manifesto says that the world got better with Capitalism.

Anonymous 54795


Anonymous 54796

Is this some kind of gotcha? It doesn't work if you can just scroll up and read the post you were initially replying to. Living standards
>did not start to improve until the labour movements and resultant workplace reforms of the late 19th century.

>Did you read any books on the subject?
Yes. I actually was obsessed with libertarianism when I was 16.

>Do you know how they work with evidence?

No, Conquest did not work with evidence. He worked with rumours and guesswork, and by his own admission preferred to treat the Soviet Union as a sci-fi entity populated by martians. It was utterly contradicted by the glasnost archive material, which led to a vast downscale of numbers being thrown around in the field.

(Not that anyone cared about how much fictionalising went on in Sovietology, better to just say he was totally vindicated and move on to boosting the Iraq War.)

The others just worked based off of Conquest's inflated numbers, so that's more whatever.

I did predict the muh 100 million Little Black Book of Communism btw.

He talks about improvement of technology and of production.

Greater wealth production does not and did not automatically translate to improved conditions for workers.

Anonymous 54797

Your graph shows that standards started rising in the early 1800s, problem being that cost if living must have also changed during that time.

Anonymous 54798

>Yes. I actually was obsessed with libertarianism when I was 16.
I hope your "libertarianism" isn't based on Atlas Shrugged or Neomisesian "Austrian" Economics. Those are almost as bad as Marx, and for the same reason: they don't do their research with evidence. No one is asking for laissez–faire here, sis! Even F.A. Hayek knew it was wrong and advocated for government services.
If you were 16 you didn't read the actual academic consensus so I assume no, you didn't read anything more complex than Road to Sefdom.
>No, Conquest did not work with evidence
That's quite wrong, but in any case I've mentioned many other authors.
>I did predict the muh 100 million Little Black Book of Communism btw.
I didn't mention Courois or Rummel because they're also wrong.
>Greater wealth production does not and did not automatically translate to improved conditions for workers.
Actually it does. You can check the social standards, they all went up according to available date too. Or, as Alex Tabarrok said, income per capita might not be everything, but in the long term is the most important thing.
Watch this video if you don't agree.

Anonymous 54799


Actually it depends. On average goods got less expensive in the long term. Just check how much a PC costed 30 years ago and now, for instance. Same with food, clothing and other things on that time.

Anonymous 54800

If you can understand how Qatar is the richest country in the world but has a workforce comprised of indentured servants, you understand how wealth does not translate to the wellbeing of the working class.

Anonymous 54801

1 If you are actually a history major you know that anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all. Use evidence!
2. On the other hand, Qatar has the best life expectancy, child mortality and literacy rate in the Islam World. Far from a shithole when it comes to social standards.

Anonymous 54803

>1 If you are actually a history major you know that anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all. Use evidence!
Observing Qatar has one of the highest GDP but the majority of it's (migrant) working class have low standards of living isn't anecdotal evidence. What do you think anecdotal evidence is?
2. On the other hand, Qatar has the best life expectancy, child mortality and literacy rate in the Islam World. Far from a shithole when it comes to social standards.
As far as it's citizens, but 90~% of Qatars working class are migrant workers who don't get counted in such statistics. Their access to medical care and other luxuries are starkly in contrast to the rest of the population.
Qatar is a terrible place to be a member of the working class.

Anonymous 54831


>spending your time arguing with complete strangers over the living conditions in qatar

Anonymous 54866

Does cc believe in rehabilitation or restoration concerning legal punishments?

Anonymous 54877

I think rehabilitation should be the only metric for whether someone should be released from prison. Completely remove the idea of time as punishment; if someone serves their time but is unrepentant and likely to reoffend, they shouldn't be let out. Second offense should be a life sentence, because the offender has proven they cannot be fixed.

Anonymous 54884

I guess it depends on the country. kind of crimes usually committed, type of people, etc..

Personally, I think my fellow countrymen are, most of the time, very nice people. Not as educated as Europeans or Americans, but I wouldn't want them to be treated like animals just because they committed a crime once. I think that it will just turn them into worse people. I don't know the prison conditions here at the moment, probably not good, but if they are awful, a perfectly good/salvageable young man could go in for something he can repent, but if he gets treated terribly whatever chance he gets at rehab is now gone.
Prison would start becoming more of a "rebel badge" and ex-cons would flaunt it. "Yeah bro, I did time," kind of thing.

When you create gangster prisoners, it has effects on people who haven't committed crimes yet, as well. A kid (14) with negligent parents hit a grocer over the head because of some debt. My mother (criminal psychologist) said that "this kid should be sent to a ward to rehab, not prison, if he goes to jail he will be ruined more and start bragging." and I agree with that.

People go to prison for all kinds of things. Sometimes just something like debt. For repeat offenders, it's different, of course. Still, humans all have unique circumstances that can't be ignored. This is why prison should be a decent place. Civilized, proper things to eat, most importantly clean and sanitary, no gestapo type guards, cons need things to keep their brain and bodies busy, conditions to meet family, etc.

Anonymous 54903

Definitely rehabilitative. We know way more about how the brain works than we did even a few decades ago, certainly than we did when the concept of justice under the law was codified.

The reality is that a lot of people that commit atrocious acts often times have some kind of mental deficiencies in parts of their brain. For example, an absurdly high amount of people on death row (something like 40% iirc?) either have or had a prior history of frontal brain trauma (the prefrontal cortex, of course, playing a big role in the suppression of impulse). These are people that can't control their impulses, in the same way a blind person can't see, and is directly equivalent to executing them for their blindness.

What does justice look like, with this knowledge? Really hard to say. But it doesn't look like how we currently handle it.

Anonymous 54905

Justice as a concept doesnt make sense, unless you believe in souls or something like that. Everything we do is determined by our genes and our circumstances, there is no magical free will so in essence youre only punishing people for being born in the wrong shoes.

However, punishment is necessary as it is the best way of deterring people from comitting crimes and whatnot.

Anonymous 54908


Justice is almost the only thing that makes sense.
People definitely have free choice. I would even argue that they have souls, although that is hard to prove.

All crimes are commited between victim and criminal.There is no such thing as paying your dues to society but there definitely is such a thing as paying your dues to the victim.

If a victim doesn't want you to go to jail then that is justice, if a victim wants you to rot in a cell then it should be up to abritation or a judge to tell you how long you should rot.

Raping a minor should go unpunished?

Anonymous 54909

>there is no magical free will
This actually isn't true, and you can prove it phenomenologically and ontologically in an entirely secular way, no magic required. All it takes is a little bit of mathematical chaos (aka or genuine unpredictability). That is outside the scope of this thread, however.

Anonymous 54915


Restorative, otherwise there's no justice for the victim. When someone commits a crime against you, or someone you love, there's no justice in knowing they are just being pampered in prison.

Anonymous 55049

Unironic three-striker. On the third serious (felonies, violence, etc) crime just put them against a wall. Rudy Guiliani's approach vs the incompetent retard DeBlasio is a great illustration on the vivid impact of hard versus soft on crime approaches.
Well you ivory tower limousine liberal, go take a walk around Camden or Oakland and then tell me how you feel. You sit in your little white suburb and tell people who have to live in the inner city about your lofty idealistic notions of the causes of crime. Put down your stupid books and go outside, and you will see what causes crime. Go ahead, put your money where your mouth is. Oh, they're just poor misunderstood creatures? Then go for a walk in south side Chicago. Go stroll around Detroit after dark. Go on. Oh, that's right, you won't, you will drive in a little car from your little suburb to your little overpriced Whole Foods and tell other people about your ideas.

I shouldn't have to be in fear for my life just trying to walk to work in the morning.

Anonymous 55061


The whole prison rape discussion here is not informed by reality.
The United States Department of Justice conducts routine, detailed analyses of crimes which occur inside of prison, including both rape and non-sexual assaults, and staff sexual misconduct.
Men in prison are more likely to be "victims" of staff misconduct (which includes everything between "got kissed on the cheek by a prison therapist once" to "a male guard sold Jimmy some cigarettes in exchange for a hard screw"), but as for the inmate-on-inmate rape, that is far, far, FAR more likely to occur in women's prisons.
So, there are three things to take away here:
1. The rape which actually occurs in prisons is not a deterrent, since nobody can be deterred by something they don't know is real, and nobody realizes the staggering amount of lesbian rape which occurs in women's prisons (most, upon hearing that women get raped in prison, assume it is being done by male guards);
2. The rape which does not occur–and in most prisons, cannot occur, since it is not possible to rape a convicted child molester when at-risk prisoners are separated from rapers by 2 foot concrete walls, Epstein memes aside–is possibly an effective deterrent. If it weren't, District Attorneys wouldn't spend time threatening men with prison rape if they do not confess to various crimes, since that would open them up to liability without reward. So, no-one needs actual prison rape to occur in real life to get any of the alleged, hypothetical social benefits of prison rape.
3. The person most likely to get gay raped by a burly cellmate on a weekly basis isn't the child rapist, it's the woman who turned to addictive drugs and crime after incomplete recovery from being raped as a child and who ended up sentenced to prison for a victimless crime with a disproportionately heavy penalty, such as heroin abuse.

There are various Bureau of Justice statistics and studies on sexual violence in American prison, and not only do they all report higher rates of lesbian rape in women's prisons than gay rape in men's prisons, the expectation of higher rates of rape in women's prisons are actually baked into their models. They expect that women will be 2 to 3 times as likely to be raped by a fellow inmate as compared with a man, this has been a known thing for a very long time.
Another important item this brings to light is you should never, ever trust anything that depicts men in a position of sexual victimhood, even if it indicates that other men were the victimizers. Don't waste sympathy. I wasn't exaggerating earlier about men in prison having an alarm raised over "getting kissed on the cheek by a prison therapist."
>Most victims of staff sexual misconduct were males; most perpetrators were females. Among male victims of staff sexual misconduct, 69% of those in prison and 64% of those in jails reported sexual activity with female staff. An additional 16% of prison inmates and 18% of jail inmates reported sexual activity with both female and male staff.

And the rape rate is actually lowballing the difference in sexual assault, if this is to be believed:
>There were no statistically significant differences between males and females in rates of experiencing staff-on-inmate sexual violence. While female inmates were more likely to be sexually victimized by other inmates than by staff (21.2 vs. 7.6%), male inmates were more likely to report an incident of sexual victimization perpetrated by staff (7.6 vs. 4.3%).
>On average, rates of sexual victimization were lowest for males, inmate-on-inmate victimizations, and nonconsensual sexual acts. Thus, studies focusing solely on inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sexual acts (particularly, rape) in male prisons will provide very conservative estimates of sexual victimization overall.

Now we can have a nice realistic view of prison rape and can talk about how excellent it is and how everyone wins when Gertha Dieselsnatch acts as a champion of justice when she forces a former rape survivor to orally service her in the filthy public shower floor, and is cheered on and applauded for putting on a show by any male staff who happen to be nearby.

Anonymous 59865

mio as a nazi offi…

>my political opinions have become so extreme that people who meet me can tell with one conversation that I'm an unironic Nazi adorer even while hiding my powerlevel to the best of my ability
>I'm not even joking
Hitler did do something wrong–he was too kind. One always regrets being too kind. Anyway I'm not sure where to go from here. Tucker Carlson is a centrist imo and everyone acts like he's a walking clansman and tries to deplatform him. And here I am, living in a very liberal city just trying to keep silent. Even my most mild opinion causes an asspain holocaust with the people here. Somehow I triggered a liberal into shrieking hysterically just having a conversation about wine.

Do you know how you can just look at someone and go, "Yep, they're definitely a liberal." Physiognomy theory must be real. If I get a blond white boyfriend I'm going to get the cops called on me just for going to coffee.

Anonymous 59868

How old r u fam

Anonymous 59894

The Nazis weren't just against the Jews, they wanted white women to be restricted in what they do as well.
So, unless you're fully into the white guy ubermensch head of the house who you follow without question fantasy, it would be pretty bad.

Anonymous 59910

>The rape which actually occurs in prisons is not a deterrent, since nobody can be deterred by something they don't know is real,
You say this as if most major religions don't exist.

Anonymous 59911

Whether or not prison rape actually exists, and whether or not extra-judicial acts of violence on prisoners and felons (which is what Prison Rape was an illustrative point for) is moral or ethical are two different questions.

Anonymous 59935

The parallel in this case would be more like people spontaneously organizing church services without ever having heard of God.

Anonymous 59936

Not really. Your analogy is false.

Anonymous 60039

Idk fam I like the sound of a country where I can walk around my own city without being assaulted, raped, shot, stabbed, or harassed. And the jews deserved it, read up on the weimar republic. but I'm not going to go into it here. blows my mind how many lies they composed about Hitler.
mid 20s.

Anonymous 60058


I agree with all those things, but like that other anon said, Nazism (and all other far-right) ideologies have heavy element of male supremacy too. The only role women had in Nazi Germany was as submissive housewife, they were discouraged/prevent from working, had no role in politics beyond passive support, and existed purely to cook, clean and birth more canon fodder for the war. You could get same experience by turning muslim and hooking up with some conservative saudi guy.

It sucks, but women have to choose between liberals who want us all to be reduced to public sex objects and raped by immigrants, and conservatives who want us to be private property. There is no good political option for women and never will be, even modern feminism is pure anti-woman cancer.

I still kink hard on nazis and think fascism is mostly a good ideology, just a shame that you can't ever have it without the misogyny.

Anonymous 60078

>just a shame that you can't ever have it without the misogyny
Maybe we can, if we have a fascist feminism that puts women first. Of course it can't be called that because those terms have a bad history, but a feminism that's anti-degeneracy and explicitly for women's interests and well-being and against anything that threatens those goals. Some social institutions like religion and public life would have to become more woman-centric for it to work too though. Maybe Christianity is due another reformation but in line with women's interests.
Before someone brings up the radfem meme, lesbianism is pretty degenerate, and they seem to want all their peversions normalized in society too like male gays do.

Anonymous 60102

>You could get same experience by turning muslim and hooking up with some conservative saudi guy.

The quran specifically states women are souless breeding cattle whether as in nazi ideology women were home makers and responsible for raising children, and honored for doing so with the: "Cross of Honour of the German Mother to Reichsdeutsche mothers who exhibited probity, exemplary motherhood, and who conceived and raised at least four or more children in the role of a parent."

You weren't forced to marry either so you could actually have a career, and in some cases even in male oriented professions like Leni Riefenstahl (film maker) or Hanna Reitsch (aviator). I mean yeah, they weren't allowed to teach in universities and such but it's a hell of a difference from how islam does it.

Honestly it sounds cozy as hell, too bad hitler massively fucked it up by going to war instead of moving the rest of the 200k jews to israel in accordance to the Haavara Agreement he signed. Like, out of the 500k jews living in germany/austria at the time, 60k were resettled by the agreement, 250k escaped on their own accord.

Still, people give nazi ideology so much shit when it was nothing like islam, they don't say history is written by the winners for nothing.

Anonymous 60474

femfash? female-equality fascism? it can be done.

Anonymous 60616

It can't. Most women are too into submission to be true feminists and too soft to be fascists.

Anonymous 60725

anarkiddy btfo.jpg

he did nothing wrong

Anonymous 61188

Why not just be national socialist for your race then, add the sexism that is most benign for your race.

Anonymous 61209


Nazism is moid-supremacist and therefore trash.

[Return] [Catalog]
[ Rules / FAQ ] [ meta / b / media / img / feels / hb / x ]