Epikur

This is a very low energy or a lazy question. What is wrong?

Ok you convinced me with your sources and links. Now we don't have to believe in other sources like wikipedia. We believe they are peaceful.

Who is antifa and are they violent: Let's ask wikipedia: "Antifa activists engage in protest tactics such as digital activism and militancy, involving property damage, physical violence and harassment against fascists, racists and those on the far-right.[25]" Seems like they are not so peaceful: Btw. respect for the american soldiers fighting fascism and "socialism" (USSR, they called themself antifascist) in the cold war.

Sorry it was then another person in the forum.

I agree that fascists are many levels worse but when I look at the streets with all the violence antifa does not not look good at all. Antifa is said to come from Europe. They are quite violent here in Europe too.

Right. Facts, or better said, unwoke facts are racist or hate speech. Today I found these hate symbols: https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/1352-1390 The truth has a hard time surviving. That is why I am a fan of steelmanning for now.

You are again wrong. You have assumptions of me that has not much to do with reality. I don't watch TV at all. At yt I watch maybe 1% Fox news. That is Tucker Carlson who is quite left in some issues. I do watch much more the trainwreck called CNN as a horror show. Actually I watched the last year probably 90% center left to far left. Lately I watch Vaush a lot because he is entertaining. It might be because I like science fiction and opposing views. It might be that you are biased when it comes to academia. I remember you said you are a socialist.

So even if they vote in a guy who probably would become a dictator like more or less in the case of Hitler? Would you still be in favor of it?

Well the extreme left is more "progressive" than the center left. At least that is what they say and how they bully the center left. Progressive is a spectrum. There is not a trademark for it. Stop acting like it is glass clear. The extreme left is quite powerful not only in academia also on the the street as we see it now with Antifa. I have never said that Kulinsky and Dore are extreme left. On the other thread I said he is center left. In my post above I started with center left, at the end is vaush who is extreme left. Don't act like I told something that i didn't. Read properly. Btw I have an european perspective on these things.

Democracy needs people who are ready for it. The swiss, even their women could not vote till recently, came closest to it. Other countries have a mash up system of Democracy, Oligarchy and Monarchy.

There are talks about defunding the police. It seems we need the police but maybe some people want to put it into test. Steven Pinker, the psychologist who was born and grew up in Montreal recalled how the wildcat police strike and the lawlessness that followed changed his views: "As a young teenager in proudly peaceable Canada during the romantic 1960s, I was a true believer in Bakunin's anarchism. I laughed off my parents' argument that if the government ever laid down its arms all hell would break loose. Our competing predictions were put to the test at 8:00 a.m. on October 7, 1969, when the Montreal police went on strike. By 11:20 am, the first bank was robbed. By noon, most of the downtown stores were closed because of looting. Within a few more hours, taxi drivers burned down the garage of a limousine service that competed with them for airport customers, a rooftop sniper killed a provincial police officer, rioters broke into several hotels and restaurants, and a doctor slew a burglar in his suburban home. By the end of the day, six banks had been robbed, a hundred shops had been looted, twelve fires had been set, forty carloads of storefront glass had been broken, and three million dollars in property damage had been inflicted, before city authorities had to call in the army and, of course, the Mounties to restore order. This decisive empirical test left my politics in tatters (and offered a foretaste of life as a scientist)."[16] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray-Hill_riot

No I have spent hundreds of ours with analysis from center left to hard left. Kulinsky, Packman, Seder, Dore, Vaush... With my example I didn't mean Sanders or AOC. I mean the more extremist progressives specially from academia.

Well I gave you a context. How many fundamentalists should one or your country take in?

I know them pretty good. In the left their is a race about who is the most progressive. In general the extremists are very powerful like in other ideologies like islam. A black man can not be racist to a white men is already a very popularized opinion.

No I asked you a question what is progressive? Where is the limit? Read careful. I didn't talk about the immigrants who are in the country. I talked about why not let in fundamentalists? If not maybe you are not progressive enough?

What is progressive? To let in fundamentalist immigrants in your country? How many? 10 times your countries population? Otherwise you are weird or maybe a racist? Actually this is true for some progressives. Their idea is we have to make everybody brown or make the whites a minority everywhere. This is the priority. We will get some islamistic fundamentalism but that is ok because of emperialism and racism of whites.

It can be seen as playing with fire. It reminds of other revolutions where you got somethings worse like civil war, dictatorships, genocides. There is probably a better way to do it than steeling TV's and destroying peoples livelihoods and being racist to fight against racism. Reminds me of Zimbabwe where the revolutionaries produced hunger and destruction. Now this thing even came to Europe. Thugs on the street. Though sometimes it works.

One reason historically might be that in a greater sense whites hade a kind community. That community seem to have created fascism and world wars. I think that is one reason that whites lost their confidence. They might know they have a lot of power but it went really bad couple of times. Now they want to be more passiv I guess. Little bit like historic empires who lost power or energy and concentrate on living more peacefully. They might become victim to other powers if they can't find the right balance.

In case of indigene groups it seems that they are difficult to integrate into the modern world. Groups like chinese or japanese on the other hand can even be more successful than the west. So it might be thinkable that there are groups in between that are not that difficult to integrate like indigene volks but also not as easily like the asian examples.

My guess is many people in Europe also would not vote for a democratic socialist but rather for a social democrat. Yes with M4A that is how to explain but that is only 20%. I for example didn't understand it at the beginning. Like said before there a still studies that go against these 22 studies. I might dwelve in deeper to understand the numbers when I get the motivation.

I am also not from the US. That is how it looks to me as well. If it would be all white they probably would have M4A.

CNN and friends seem to be big on this divide. They like to stay silent about victims like David Dorn a black retired cop who got shot by looters. Chris Cuomo from CNN said regarding the riots: ""Please, show me where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful,"

In Europe I guess it would be Portugal. They have a very liberal policy. Where in Amerika and Asia would it be? Uruguay comes to mind with South Amerika.

That is one way to see it. I like sometimes watching muslim debates just to check what is out there. One bing imam was from the USA. He is a black guy he had this black coolness mixed with muslim way of life. He said if you are a drug addict then watching MMA is good for you. If you are already high on your way then don't watch MMA. So it depends how high you are. If you are to low you might need still low input, It will just take time and effort to get higher. In the mean time you might 'need' petty human shit. Of course this is probably just the non-dualistic way.

It is good to work with a source that is widely trusted and accepted like Wikipedia that has obviously its faults too. The problem for a reasonable person is that Bernie Sanders doesn't explain that he is not following academic's definition of Socialism. Therefore reasonable people might lose their trust in him. Many center left guys like Kyle Kulinsky were critisizing him for not using the term Social Democrat. He might have gained 10% more votes even some republicans would have voted for him. This way he might look like a guy with a "communist" agenda. For M4A the 22 studies are quite impressiv. The thing is a reasonable person thinks if it is so clear then it is a no brainer. Or is there more to it? One has to play devil's advocate. Blind face even if it is with sources is not enough. After a little bit googling I came to this from the Atlantic: "The Urban Institute, a center-left think tank highly respected among Democrats, is projecting that a plan similar to what Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are pushing would require $34 trillion in additional federal spending over its first decade in operation. That’s more than the federal government’s total cost over the coming decade for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined, according to the most recent Congressional Budget Office projections." A reasonable person would have problems to find a clear answer through the mixed messages. I think if you want to convince a reasonable person one method I recently heard is steelmanning. You try to make your opponent's version as strong as possible and then try to argue against it. For example in our discussions it would be providing me sources against your own arguments before I provided it. Like the the ones from AOC, Wikipedia, the Atlantic. Convincing is sometimes too hard to do. Just to have a reasonable conversation steelmanning would be one element. That way you gain trust and will be trusted as a good faith actor. I know it is very hard to go against ones notions but it is often important to have a balanced view on things even if not for you but for the sake of a satisfying conversation.