Consept

Referring to Obama as 'Kenyan man' is pretty racist, i understand you may need to drop the level of conversation for whatever purposes you have but please refrain from racism or any other prejudices

What do you consider good sources of news?

Ah cool, youve seen some undeniable evidence then? I got swayed by the numerous court cases that got thrown out, but what you got?

This is an easy go to usually from right wing, libertarian types, not saying you are that but thats usually who comes with this points, its an argument to make it seem like socialist policies shouldnt be pursued. Its lacking so much context its kind of ridiculous, there are many reasons why it didnt work in Venezuela, you can have a look into that yourself rather than using it as a check mate point - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Hugo_Chávez_administration#Cooperatives_and_economic_democratization One point for example is - "Since Chávez was elected in 1998, over 100,000 worker-owned cooperatives—representing approximately 1.5 million people—were formed with the assistance of government start-up credit, technical training, and by giving preferential treatment to cooperatives in state purchases of goods and equipment. There has been an increase in the amount of cooperative enterprises that have tax incentives in the new 1999 constitution. As of 2005, approximately 16% of Venezuela's formally employed citizens were employed in a cooperative. However, a 2006 census showed that as many as 50% of the cooperatives were either functioning improperly, or were fraudulently created to gain access to public funds." The main reasons it failed is that it was just poor management, corruption, no future planning. This of course is very likely in a country with high levels of poverty. In places like Sweden, Denmark etc, they also have a lot of social policies and have been pretty successful, not just financially but the citizens have more opportunities, less poverty etc

OK sorry if i missed it, so your solution is things like what Kapernick did, even though he was still demonised by the right and got sacked from his job. The other thing was to celebrate successful black people, this is done but probably not enough, theres a history of suppressing black inventors for example, these things arent taught in schools, mainly youre only taught about slavery in the context of black history. This can have not only a psychological effect on black students but not expose them to the knowledge of how successful some black people have been, which means they dont think they can achieve these things themselves. Even so black people do celebrate other successful black people its just not talked about in the mainstream as much. So youre suggesting things that have already been done, these are already part of the movement yet high levels of inequality, or if you like an unfair playing field, still exist, so question is should people just leave it at that and accept the unfairness or should they do something else and if so what should they do in addition to what theyre already doing, which you said were good things

Exactly, this is what i see constantly from people like Shapiro and Peterson, theyre very good at the criticisms but they offer no alternative solution. I have many criticisms and suggestions for blm but my aim would be to improve the movement from my perspective, not question whether or not it should exist

Again you still havent provided any solutions for the issue youve raised. I also agree consciousness is important to raise, but if people are in poverty and survival mode that is almost impossible to do so therefore you would want to raise people out of poverty or help them to raise themselves out and then you can work on raising consciousness. But i take from what you wrote that there shouldnt be an effort to move to a more equal society because we arent born equal and we should have to compete. Ill go with you on this for a second, lets say you and me are competing in terms of who can make a million the fastest, if youre born into a poor family who cannot afford private education, are scraping by a living, dont teach you anything about starting a business or a trade etc and im born with every luxury imaginable, i go to a private fee paying school, my dad has connections that get me a great job, i get money to buy my own house and start my own business. Its not really a fair competition then is it? If you believe in competition surely you would believe in fair competition, at the very least everyone getting the same education, medical care or justice right? These are the things people want when they talk about equality, if you want a meritocracy then follow it all the way through and youll inevitably end up with a more socialist society

OK so youre saying do nothing? You have to really be specific here and im gonna push you on it because its the crux of youre argument, youre saying what not to do, that has merit, but also it doesnt usually work. The example i gave earlier was Kapernick protesting peacefully which he got a lot of hate for from the right, they said that he should not have disrespected the anthem, flag etc. So we've established that a peaceful protest can be and was disregarded. The only reason why people are talking about BLM is because of the current protests many of which were actually peaceful. So i ask again what can be done, doing nothing has obviously never worked in history so i dont think that answer is valid. Also a fear that you wont be heard, makes sense as people havent been heard that is the point

I think youre kind of dismissing this question and it is very important for your topic. Youve highlighted criticisms of blm which is cool, but then you have to look at what was the purpose of your criticism? You agreed there would be a need for something like blm but youre not happy with the current movement, so what would you do differently or how would you address the current disparities of race or at least the discontent people feel? If you cant answer these questions i dont think you should really criticise as you cant come up with a better or even a different solution yourself. Otherwise the end point of your criticism is just blm is bad

Do you think blm or something similar is necessary? If so how would you combat racial inequalities? Keeping in mind if you do protest peacefully you would either not be listened to or if you're high profile like in the case of kaepernick be demonised, lose your job etc

Interesting, so just to clarify their points @Claymoree , as i understand it youre saying you just shouldnt take any news coverage seriously as it can be twisted whichever way, keep in mind this is Sky news which is owned by well known conservative Rupert Murdoch. But this kind of argument is an ad hominem attack whereby you call out in this sky news rather than directly addressing the issue raised, keep in mind the full audio is out there in which you can listen and then directly respond to. @Nyseto Excuse me if i mis-characterise you, but it sounds like youre saying the left is just as bad if not worse than the right in which case theres no point in addressing this particular incident because the left has done something just as bad in your opinion, which is that they demonised him. But again theres no direct addressing of the issue at hand. Its the equivalent of saying if a specific man abuses a woman, 'well women abuse men too so....'. What I've seen a lot, potentially on both sides but definitely more on the right, is these type of low quality arguments, I label them low quality arguments because they never actually debate the central point, (Ive left a picture of the debate pyramid below). This has almost become common practice now, in that low level debate tactics to distract from the main point is a valid argument. It makes it quite obvious that a logical debate is impossible because the position just doesnt make sense, therefore to enter into one would look ridiculous, so the defensive ego kicks in and gives you options whereby you can distract and pretend that theres no point in debating the central issue. I think its fine if you support or sympathise with Trump or even criticise the left but there has to be a higher level debate about it otherwise how does it help you get to truth? In the case of this recording, you have a president on tape asking an election official to 'find votes', he is rebuked by the election official and told that no there is no evidence of what youre talking about. This, in a democracy should not be accepted in anyway, so if you are going to refute the point, please directly address it without mentioning democrats or the left or whatever else. Or failing that enter the meta-conversation about why Trump supporters accept and support this behavior and what it would actually take to get them to see these actions for what they are.

I dont know what you mean by people calling those that leave a country cowards, i dont think anyone has said that on this thread. You could argue some, that leave are selfish if theyre trying to do it specifically to avoid tax but thats a different argument. To me this thing is simple, we dont know whats going to happen in the future regarding anything, so all you can do is make the best decision at the time. Regarding brexit, can we say the best decision was made? Definitely not, there is no economist or any other expert you could find who would say it was a good decision. So its like saying Im going to decide to eat junk food as a way to help my diabetes, no doctor or expert will agree its the right choice but you can always say, 'well who knows what will happen'. The fact that the main reason why people voted was immigration which ive pointed out doesnt even really make sense in terms of Brexit being able to sort that out, should tell you that even if the UK is fine after brexit the people were manipulated into voting for something that will most likely be against their best interests, (according to economists).

OK breakdown how being out of the EU instead of in will help with the problems you've highlighted

I wouldn't go as far to call all of them racists, but there are a decent amount of racists in the UK and I can bet you all actual racists voted to leave. You can be nationalist but the arguments still have to make sense, if youre voting for something that could potentially damage your country then how can you even claim to be a nationalist? If they want to sort out immigration that is something that could've been looked at and changed whilst being in the EU. A lot of people literally thought all immigrants would have to leave once we left, also race hate crimes went up significantly after brexit.

Of course, i wasnt saying everyone that voted is stupid, i just found the video funny, its not so serious. Having said that, on that channel there are a lot of people who call in that have similar perspectives, even in my own experience talking to people im yet to hear a coherent argument of why we would be better off out of the EU. It usually comes down to immigration and this was what the campaign was based on, Ive attached an example picture of a brexit advert. The argument that the EU is responsible for problem with immigration is just not correct at lacks a lot of context, ive pointed out why this immigration argument doesnt make sense in an earlier post. So if the decision was based on this it is a stupid decision, anything after the fact is just trying to justify it. There maybe other good reasons to leave and im more than open to hear them i just havent yet. Yes things always need to change and evolve, i just feel that Britain does have a bit of an obsession with this idea of 'sovereignty' and independence sometimes to its own detriment, its very possible to be both independent and work as part of a collective that is mutually beneficial, espeicially in a world thats growing evermore closer together. Another way would be to educate people about politics and critical thinking, instead of giving them misinformation and targeting their fears to make them vote a certain way. Freedom to vote should also mean freedom of manipulation

Im not really saying its specifically because of the EU, it is hard to pin down and as you say there are a lot of variables. The point is that its hard to make the argument that the UK has been hindered or been worse off because of the EU when the numbers are actually higher than American growth which has no such restrictions and is a world super power. So essentially we're trading in something that has worked at least as good as high performing economies and gambling on something that every economist is saying is a step in the wrong direction, i just dont see the logic. Inequality is still a problem of course but this would be something domestic government can really make a difference with through policy, minimum wage increase etc. In fact the EUs human rights policies at least acts to try and prevent exploitation of people.

There is no economist you can find that would tell you the UK will be better off, potentially it may not be a massive disaster as was predicted but thats about it. Even Boris Johnson when he was running was London mayor said how important being in the EU was, meaning he doesnt truly believe its best to be out he just did what he needed to be leader. The only people really for brexit is some rich people who may benefit and seems to be people who are concerned about immigration, which includes you despite being a migrant. This argument doesnt really work considering EU migrants an average contribute £2,300 net per year to the public purse, also non-eu immigration is 4.5 times higher than eu immigration and non-eu immigrants contribution is actually negative (this is because of extra healthcare costs etc). Obviously the Brexit deal will have no effect on non-eu immigration, Britain could always set whatever immigration policy they wanted, Brexit does not help in that regard at all. Travelling and working for British people will be explicitly affected as you can only live in a country for for 90 days in a 6 month period, meaning if you want to live and work in another country you will not be able to, despite being able to drive to other countries. Its like if you live in Ohio america but can only live and work in Ohio, thats a very restrictive measure.

Im from the UK born and bred, in some ways it is worse, some of the things you mentioned like getting a house is definitely harder but that isnt due to being in the EU, im not sure thats your argument, the reason why its harder for younger people is because of things like recessions, austerity, trickle down economics, wages stagnating etc. But this is all due to bad economic policy that favoured the rich. Again if you want to link these things to joining the EU im happy to hear your theory on it. Whats funny is that its mainly older people that voted to leave, these older people have benefited the most from the economy during the EU, theyve managed to own their houses and get full pensions, whereas the young people who mainly voted to stay are the ones that will not benefit from the EU and also will not be able to freely travel. There are even British people who enjoy their retirement in Spain but voted to leave. Again can you point to what will be better after we leave the EU? Nothing just showing the reasoning behind the publics vote, and also i thought it was funny

No i didnt say anyone out of the EU i broke, also keep in mind the countries that youre talking about have trade deals and some are even in the customs union, so they do still benefit from the EU. In terms of whether people have been better off in the UK - since joining in 1973 the UK has experienced 103% per capita gdp growth which is more than the USAs 97%. If you compare to the time when England basically ruled the world between 1872 and 1914 the growth was 0.9% per year compared to the EU time of 2.1% per year. Median income is up 79% compared to the USAs 16%, ratio of trade to economic output has gone up from 48% to 67% and 45% of all UK exports go to EU countries. Regarding rich people wanting Brexit, obviously its not all rich people, my point is that the campaign was funded by some rich people for financial interests, 5 of the richest businessmen in Britain funded the majority of the leave campaign - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-leave-eu-campaign-arron-banks-jeremy-hosking-five-uk-richest-businessmen-peter-hargreaves-robert-edmiston-crispin-odey-a7699046.html If you have other statistics or any ideas on what the actual benefits of brexit are im happy to hear

I would say its stupid decision, the EU isnt perfect but now the UK dont have say in it, so they cant help steer that ship but they will still be affected by the choices the EU makes. UK has made a lot of money and experienced a lot of growth in the last 40 or so years and this is partly due to the free trade that has been enjoyed as a member of the EU. We will still have trade with this deal but it adds a whole heap of red tape and tariffs that will just make it impossible for a lot of businesses to keep trading with the EU. Youll find it very hard to find an impartial economist who thinks the UK will be better off, at best it will be a slight hit on gdp. So if thats the case then whats the point? https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/brexit When people voted for brexit i guarantee you they had no idea what they were voting for, the main reasons i saw were 'sovereignty' which i guess is being able to set your own laws, and also immigration. The fact is we can set our own laws which we do and we can set a stronger immigration policy like other EU countries, which we dont. Most people can not name a law that we wanted to change and couldnt but now can because we're out of Europe. The UK is heavily reliant on EU migrant workers, especially in the NHS, restricting freedom of movement is going to be heavily damaging for the UK, not just for workers coming in but it limits British residents living and working abroad, which obviously is restriction of freedom, there are about 3 million brits living in Spain atm. The people pushing and backing Brexit are rich people who stand to benefit from less EU regulation, it means that they can have a direct line and easier time getting to MPs and prime ministers to make changes to benefit them, rather than the mammoth task of trying to effect change in the EU. UK already has a problem with this as conservatives favour trickle down economics which basically encourages rich people from around the world to invest money into Britain, however it doesnt help the average person in anyway, Brexit is really the next step of that. The average person who voted for Brexit has basically been duped and mainly voted for it on immigration basis, but they will get a shock when things get harder for them and prices go up due to extra tariffs and tax.

Can you point to countries or civilisations that have been green for a reasonable length of time and then collapsed?

Its interesting because how much of this is him touching on certain topics and getting a shitload of views and making money, invited to speak etc. This happens a lot on the right basically because they pay more, so i wonder how much of an influence that has had on him and has convinced him this is the way to go because its 'working'.

Id say theres more hope than this purely based on the fact that a lot more young people voting for Sanders, he got the 18-44 vote comprehensively both times he ran. Also in the UK Sanders equivalent Jeremy Corbyn won the under 40 vote by 61.5% compared to conservatives 23% in the 2017 election, not only that the lower the age the higher the margin for Corbyn who had policies like if you sell your business the workers get first option on it and are subsidised by the government to buy it and start a co-op, hes a hardcore socialist basically that scared not only the status quo conservatives but his own labour party who many rebelled against him. So although many young voters are not necessarily yellow, they would definitely be open to having a yellow leader with more socialist leaning policies. My prediction would be as the boomer generation start dying out the younger generation will be more evolved and pass that on to their kids and society as a whole this will be how things change. Realistically i think in 15-20 years time youll see more green values and above be the mainstream https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/election-2017-labour-youth-vote-under-40s-jeremy-corbyn-yougov-poll-a7789151.html

I think it's a way to avoid the present and also gives hope that if they're in suffering today there was a time when people weren't and maybe they could get back to that one day. To give up hope is to live in the present and most people are trying to avoid that

@Striving for more https://www.google.com/amp/s/mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-corbett-report/%3famp