Quote:

I don't know why he thinks Europe getting invaded in 2016 is any different to NZ getting invaded in 1840. It's the same story.

---

Quote:

they're now being called 'regressive leftists'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_left

---

akira_akuma said:

Quote:

they're now being called 'regressive leftists'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_left

---

that's just an insult to hurl. regressive left isn't actually anything.

---

Then go and edit the Wiki article with your, err, pearls of wisdom (s/c).

akira_akuma said:

you're nothing but an immoralist-conservative.

see look, i can do it too.

---

You haven't got a link to surmise it because you pulled it out of your arse, so you've done nothing.

Quote:

anyone can just invent a degrading epithet for someone appropriating a catch-all parlance between cooperatives in an in-group mentality.

"regressive left" is just a pejorative term. not an actual ideology.

---

Starter said:

This is perhaps the greatest paradox of the leftists, which is why they're now being called 'regressive leftists'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_left

---

akira_akuma said:

ie. A: you can use the term "regressive left" as an insult, all you want,  that doesn't mean there's a "regressive left", it just means that you like the words to describe something, which is fine; and B: i can use the term "immoralist-conservative" as an insult too, and it holds the same merit linguistically.



which is sorta besides the point: but granted.
to get back to the point:

Quote:

anyone can just invent a degrading epithet for someone appropriating a catch-all parlance between cooperatives in an in-group mentality.

"regressive left" is just a pejorative term. not an actual ideology.

---

^^

---

viktor said:

It's good that there's a name for that sort of person. It makes them easier to understand.

The thing is, I'm a leftist. I consider most of the rest of the left to have betrayed what the left is about (making sure the native working class gets a fair share of the fruits of its labour).

---

bennylava said:

It all boils down to this:

Capitalism is not about destruction. There may be things that get destroyed along the side, but that's not what capitalism is. Capitalism is the great altruistic experiment in human history. That's where the right really goes wrong, when they talk about schumpeter's creative destruction. Capitalism has done more for tolerance and diversity than any government could ever dream of. The reason branch ricky signed jackie robinson, was because he thought he could make money off of him. Who even gives a shit about why, the result was obvious. And the cause was capitalism.

In a certain moral calculus, bill gates has done much more for humanity than mother teresa. Not to say she wasn't a great human being, she was. But bill gates was responsible for the hiring of millions of people, the wealth of millions of people, and changing the lives of millions of people.

But to take a look at the left for a moment..

The left would be perfectly happy for EVERYONE to be able to have a 1998 Nokia cell phone. The right would like to see everyone at some point, be able to have access to an iphone 12. (or insert preferred futuristic phone here). We're not going to get to the iphone 12, if we keep removing the money from the people who actually put up the money to complete the iphone 12. As well as all of their competition which helps make it happen. Capitalism is inherently altruistic, because its about the notion that if I don't give you something that you want, I will starve. Socialism is about the idea that if you don't give me something that I want, I will starve you. Its inherently selfish. So this idea that socialism is this great moral good, is just a lie.

---

Starter said:

---

Starter said:

Politics degrees are bullshit arts degrees that do what, exactly? Real degrees are medicine, science/math and engineering, which add to our technology and development. Hence why my posts are unintelligible to you.

---

Starter said:

So feeling up to some demographic math modeling? The numbers will destroy all of the lib'tard nonsense in this thread about letting in this endless scourge

---

Malkuthian said:

You should be removed from the forum.
Why is moderators accepting this lousy behavior?

---

viktor said:

You are right, but the "let 'em all in" crowd don't do maths.

I knew people like Tipote when I was in Europe 15 years ago. I pointed out that basic mathematics tells us that if we keep taking in a set number of Muslims a year, and if the Muslims already here breed at a higher rate than the natives, eventually there will be a Muslim majority here.

It's maths so simple a seven year-old could understand it. But none of Tipote's kind seemed to be able to recognise this.

15 years ago the rhetoric was that the immigrants would soon stop coming of their own accord and the Muslim population in Europe would level off at about 2-3%.

Obviously, the exact opposite happened.

So when the same sort of person now tells me that the millions of Muslims flooding into Europe will all integrate and become valued members of society I don't trust them. They were wrong when they said the Muslim population would level out, and they are wrong when they say the Muslim population will integrate.

---

airclay said:

bennylava said:

It all boils down to this:

Capitalism is not about destruction. There may be things that get destroyed along the side, but that's not what capitalism is. Capitalism is the great altruistic experiment in human history. That's where the right really goes wrong, when they talk about schumpeter's creative destruction. Capitalism has done more for tolerance and diversity than any government could ever dream of. The reason branch ricky signed jackie robinson, was because he thought he could make money off of him. Who even gives a shit about why, the result was obvious. And the cause was capitalism.

In a certain moral calculus, bill gates has done much more for humanity than mother teresa. Not to say she wasn't a great human being, she was. But bill gates was responsible for the hiring of millions of people, the wealth of millions of people, and changing the lives of millions of people.

But to take a look at the left for a moment..

The left would be perfectly happy for EVERYONE to be able to have a 1998 Nokia cell phone. The right would like to see everyone at some point, be able to have access to an iphone 12. (or insert preferred futuristic phone here). We're not going to get to the iphone 12, if we keep removing the money from the people who actually put up the money to complete the iphone 12. As well as all of their competition which helps make it happen. Capitalism is inherently altruistic, because its about the notion that if I don't give you something that you want, I will starve. Socialism is about the idea that if you don't give me something that I want, I will starve you. Its inherently selfish. So this idea that socialism is this great moral good, is just a lie.

---

is there some highschool right wing forum that has it in for the shroom lately or is this thread coming to fuckin fruition?

---