So, I saw a poll yesterday saying that among Democrats Andrew Yang is the preferred candidate for only about 1% of them. I think we can safely say his campaign is a train bound for nowhere.
Friendship ended with Drumpf. Now: Andrew Yang is my best friend
Posts
Total:
186
-->
@Swagnarok
So, I saw a poll yesterday saying that among Democrats Andrew Yang is the preferred candidate for only about 1% of them. I think we can safely say his campaign is a train bound for nowhere.
> Writing off political candidates for polling poorly before the first debate
Whew, I knew some people were slow learners, but this is impressive!
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I bet if he grabbed pussy and ate from the wrong side of a pizza hut crust people would know him.
-->
@RationalMadman
what exactly about my post do you disagree with?
We have to make this multicultural society work. It isn't the society I prefer but it's the one we have and we all have a vested interest in making it work as smoothly as it can. Trump was the last chance to change this process (even he was probably far too late) and he failed...Yang is the way forward. At least for the left
-->
@Wylted
Some good points but how can I be sure that he is an enemy to the establishment? Like I would legit work to get Kanye West elected. I have a lot of hate for the people who destroyed this country ( kept it from being optimally best for society)
I do too and would also vote for Kanye in an instant. And the point you're getting at is true. The monsters who own this country would benefit under a Yang presidency because they'd benefit under anyone who stabilizes the current system.
But at some point you have to look past getting revenge and look towards making things work as best as they can for you. What is the alternative? Trump was the last chance to spit in their eye before they won...and we got it. But unless he rapidly turns things around and stops doing nothing but live tweeting Fox News and complaining about SNL reruns, he's done. So you can either stew in bitterness and anger about the previous political conflict that we lost, or you can join the Yang Gang and look towards the future.
Politics is never over. The failure of Trump makes it clear that the left won this "round"...but we have a whole new set of political issues coming up in the next few decades, and Yang is the only one who is getting the jump on them. And while I don't agree with his social views or his signature UBI policy I absolutely prefer him over any other democrat running
Ths Irish are basically the niggers of the white race and they do fine.
damn i cant wait for the first debate
-->
@Wylted
Trumpanzees are the narccistic immorals of humanity.
The truth of the deplorables comment hurts the Trumpanzees ego.
Ego is the sleeping dragon, except in case of narcissist, whose ego never sleeps.
What does the narcissist dream?
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I don't think that's accurate at all; if it were, phenomena like the Cagots would never have existed. In reality, the group which presents the biggest threat to rural whites (the majority of whites) are urban whites.
I think this is the exception and not the rule. Sure, sometimes groups other than race will be in-groups, like in the example of the Cagots. Labour unions will also block up in terms of profession, of which has nothing to do with race.
However, my data shows that race is the primary differentiater. All you have are anecdotes.
Black people, on their own, would not be pushing for massive Latin American immigration. They have no reason to want that. They certainly want more resources and political autonomy, but its simple self-interest. The real danger to working class whites are the urbane bourgeoisie liberals who control the means of production and want a proletariat class which is as divided, materially desperate, and impoverished as possible. Those are the people who have all of the incentives to provoke ethnic replacement and economic disenfranchisement. These are the people who materially benefit from said division, and from the exploitation of cheap labor.
I think this only is possible in certain circumstances, wherein racial in-group isn't cared about (for whatever reason), and wherein capitalism plagues the minds of people. This is already an abnormal society. Perhaps this has something to do with Dunbar's Number, wherein you stop seeing people as human.
Every intense ethnic hatred is borne towards the proximal, not the distal.
True.
The Germans didn't hate the Japanese with a genocidal passion, they hated German Jews. The Soviets hated the Kulaks, the English hated the Irish. And the American upper class hates rednecks. The idea that vastly disparate cultures hate each other and compete more intensely is bunk; that only happens when community boundaries are dissolved (which, again, the urban whites do against the wishes of all communities involved. Look at the history of busing in Boston.)
Half of these examples involve racial distinctions (Germans versus Germans Jews; English and Irish).
In any case, I'm not denying in-group play happens outside of race. All I'm saying is that race is primary.
White working class people, very rightly, don't see white people who are part of this country's privileged power structure (but hilariously larp as socialists) as 'brothers'. Those people hate us from on high, and they want nothing more than for us to die pathetically. The only black people who think like that are the ones who have, through social climbing and 'bourgeoisization', embedded themselves into our decadent urban power structures and alienated themselves from their own communities in the process. But that's not your average black person; most black people have simple self-interests which can be reasonably appealed to (like any healthy human being does).Trying to make racial appeals to a class which, for hundreds of years, has been bounded by a clan-based ideological system and haunted by a deeply-rooted, cultural fear and loathing of anything which is rural or rustic, is insane. I'd gladly join arm in arm with any group which wanted to tear these degenerate Brahmins down from their ivory towers and neutralize them.
Again, all this comes about after racial in-group bias is suppressed. For example, capitalism is a big-brained idea that is awfully cerebral. It strips humans of their human qualities and turns them into numbers. No group of people who cared about their own kind would sacrifice their humanity for a 3.7% increase in efficiency.
Lol. Ghettos are made by the rich to keep the "filthy scum poor" together and away from sight. You don't know or understand a damn thing about poverty and who keeps the poor staying poor.In social democracies like Canada, Western Europe l, Australia and such, there's no ghettos just poor areas that sure, still need to be properly introduced to social democracy to stop stabbings and gang culture but there's something true: the more isolationist and rich vs poor the nation is, the worse and more severely non-integrated their "ghetto dwellers" are to the rest of the nation.
Why is it that this website continuously provides me flog responses to my heavily sourced, multi-point comments?(https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1448?page=5&post_number=102) You addressed ONE point I made, and even then you didn't source or explain your reasoning. SecularMerlin did exactly the same thing. Hell, you started talking about countries other than the U.S, and then made the point that ghettos don't apply to those other countries.
I'm tired of reading your admiration for Nelson Mandela's terrorist attacks. I'm tired of reading your degenerate wigger raps. I'm tired of you dropping so many points that I have to read your response several times to make sure it was directed at me. No wonder South African Whites are being culled and raped in droves -- they have people like you in their ranks.
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Okay, so White Liberals are arguably more leftist than Black Democrats, given that they emphasise the role of racial discrimination against Blacks, and seem less concerned with individual effort. I think this could be a correlation argument for the Progressive narrative not fading in intensity? The ideological narrative is so strong here that it has convinced Whites against their racial interest over that of Blacks, when both (millennial) racial groups rate race as their most important personal identifier: (https://imgur.com/a/MWT4uRo). In other words, Whites have been convinced, through mere words (which oppose their racial in-group preference) more convincingly than Black's far more powerful racial in-group bias.
Yeah, it really is insane. I'm hoping that it collapses under the weight of its own insanity and I think it's inevitable that it will but how long it can last remains to be seen.
However one minor nitpick about liberal votes going against their interests...they really aren't. Their out-group isn't black people or hispanics, its BadWhites. It's been obvious for years now that when progressives talk about how much they hate white people they aren't talking about themselves.
Firstly, the United States is roughly 75% White (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States). So, we're dealing with the problem 1/4 people cause, rather than nearly half.
If you count hispanic people as white it is. If you don't it's only 60% white and dropping rapidly. Non hispanic whites are already a minority among children under 5. Now some hispanics actually are white but the trend is clear...if you're worried about the USA becoming minority majority, too bad and too late. The question now is how do we manage this with as little conflict as possible.
Secondly, the United States could be partitioned into sections that reflects the interests of its people. If you have a place that is 90% White Christian, then you could tighten the borders, enforce a White only immigration policy (or something close to it), and the remove government ties with degenerate places like Detroit
I think when you decentralize things and devolve power from the federal government to as local a level as possible this basically happens without having to make it explicit. Of course we have an extremely long road to go down before we get there. I like Yang because what he's essentially doing is punching a giant hole through the democratic narrative by eschewing identity politics. If we can break the grip the insane racial narrative has on the left (who, lets be honest, control every important institution hands down) than we can actually start talking about the issues facing America and figure out a way to make this multi racial society work. And it can work...if by work you mean "is a functional economy that doesn't end in bloodshed."
I don't have all the answers, but when you find yourself in a hole the first step is to stop digging. Right now the US government is hellbent on spreading diversity to white areas. Just stopping that would go a long way, and so would policies that keep people from moving around so much. We should encourage people of all races to set down roots and create multi generational communities. I don't have the time to go into it right now but the neoliberal project and therefore the US government is the exact opposite of this
I posted it above (I think in response to RM), but just look and see how ideology and nationality take a back seat, in terms of personal importance to millennial Americans (https://imgur.com/a/MWT4uRo). . . Hispanics follow a similar trend, but to a far less extent. That's why you get at least half of most foreign ethnic groups living in the United States (i.e. legal citizens) not even considering themselves to be America (https://imgur.com/a/pyFhLzv).
Yeah well millennials have had their minds totally addled by mass media and the internet. There really isn't much hope for that generation. But I don't disagree with what you say here...the last statistic about many minorities not considering themselves American's is especially depressing. The establishment GOP says we are a proposition nation but they also don't care if immigrants agree with those propositions. Immigration really needs to slow down and it would've been great if Trump had been able to trade DACA for cuts in legal immigration like he wanted to, but our real rulers, the courts, said no.
Yang sucks on immigration but immigration policy is set in stone for the foreseeable future. Which is sad bc even from a pro immigrant perspective our policies are stupid
You don't think that Blacks, Hispanics and Asians will fight for land? You don't think they'll want to get some freebies from the U.S. government? ALL groups have a problem with each other: that's how politics work. It's just a matter of time before interests between groups conflict, people revert back to their base instincts (i.e. tribalism), and then you have fighting for resources. You cannot unify these people when the most important thing to them (race) makes them enemies.
I fully agree, but I think the point you're missing is that there are different degrees of conflict. Any multi ethnic country is going to have conflict, but you don't have to go out of your way to make it worse, which is what the federal government has been doing for decades. Yang is going out of his way to make it better.
And we can still be superficially unified by a civic identity. It will never be as strong as a "blood and soil" nation with roots as a people and culture stretching back millennia but it doesn't have to be a low key war zone either
-->
@spacetime
One thing people overlook about automation in the near term...it’ll only take one instance of an automated truck failing and accidentally running down a dozen civilians before the technology is banned for a generation
I've wavered on this issue a lot in the past, but I think I've finally come to the conclusion that it isn't possible to achieve universal gainful employment.
It is with a heavy heart that I must announce I change my mind on this again.
-->
@mustardness
Are you retarded or crazy?
-->
@spacetime
oh? Do tell
-->
@thett3
I was giving up on the idea of universal employment mainly because it felt pointless to try ensuring that everyone has a job if most jobs don't actually pay enough to afford a decent standard of living. But that doesn't necessarily have to be the case -- as you've said before, simply finding ways to control the skyrocketing costs of standard fixed expenses (e.g. housing, healthcare, education, childcare) would make it much easier to live a decent life despite low wages, and there are plenty of policy steps that can be taken to increase wages themselves as well.
I also did a lot of research into the types of jobs where demand for labor is expanding, and it helped me regain faith in the idea that there are more jobs getting created than automated. I know we like mocking the idea of retraining with the "Learn to Code" meme, but I think that's a strawman -- there are more than enough medium-skilled, non-programming jobs that I can easily see former blue-collar workers getting retrained into.
Also, like you just said, we can literally just ban certain types of automation under the pretense of "safety" if needed.
-->
@Wylted
Typical narrow//short minded-ness cannot get beyond even the most simple duality.Are you retarded or crazy?
Your type only see a the narrowest set of only this or that scenarios.
I think you need to look in the mirror and do some deep micro-introspection before coming out of your hole in the ground and attempt to enter our macro-finite, wholistically comprehensive and eternally existent Universe.
-->
@thett3
Yeah, it really is insane. I'm hoping that it collapses under the weight of its own insanity and I think it's inevitable that it will but how long it can last remains to be seen.
It should eventually collapse, if not under its own weight, the under the biological drives to in-group racial bias. I think I already showed you the Millennial personal identifier graph, but despite all the brainwashing, White Milennials still put race/ethnicity as the most important personal identifier (if only be a relatively slim margin) (https://imgur.com/a/MWT4uRo).
But yeah the narrative is so thoroughly wrong that it's quite incredible that it has lasted this long.
However one minor nitpick about liberal votes going against their interests...they really aren't. Their out-group isn't black people or hispanics, its BadWhites. It's been obvious for years now that when progressives talk about how much they hate white people they aren't talking about themselves.
I mean okay, currently, BadWhites are the outgroup. However, I think that if you dissolved the Progressive narrative, most of those BadWhites would revert to White Nationalists (assuming that the U.S. would still be majority White). Personally, I think White Nationalism is the default for most Whites, due to the primacy of race in politics, albeit this is a bit debatable.
I used to be one of those BadWhites. I was raised with all the brainwashing. I believed the 'everyone is equal' lies. You might have, at one stage, been one of those BadWhites, too. Yet I've become a pretty ardent White Nationalist. Some Whites might be genetically incapable of becoming a White Nationalist, but given the right environment, I think most Whites will revert to default White Nationalism.
If you count hispanic people as white it is. If you don't it's only 60% white and dropping rapidly. Non hispanic whites are already a minority among children under 5. Now some hispanics actually are white but the trend is clear...if you're worried about the USA becoming minority majority, too bad and too late. The question now is how do we manage this with as little conflict as possible.
Ah yes. Sorry, I forget the U.S. treats Hispanics as Whites, in regards to Census data -.-
Idk if this can be managed with "as little conflict as possible". I think that's what got Whites into this mess in the first place. I'm not saying that we need Christchurch 2.0, but Whites need to start embracing political conflict -- if we get our people in power, we need them to give Whites stuff at the expense of other races. This is precisely what other races do, and it works very well.
I think when you decentralize things and devolve power from the federal government to as local a level as possible this basically happens without having to make it explicit. Of course we have an extremely long road to go down before we get there. I like Yang because what he's essentially doing is punching a giant hole through the democratic narrative by eschewing identity politics. If we can break the grip the insane racial narrative has on the left (who, lets be honest, control every important institution hands down) than we can actually start talking about the issues facing America and figure out a way to make this multi racial society work. And it can work...if by work you mean "is a functional economy that doesn't end in bloodshed."
Eschewing identity politics? I think I've already said this, but it's worth saying again: identity politics is politics. You're not going to get most people to think in terms of objectivity. They're going to vote their in-groups in power, sometimes even if they vehemently disagree with what their in-group believes. So, in fact, Whites are doing themselves a disservice by eschewing identity politics, because all the other racial groups are engaged in it AND it's effective.
I don't want just a functional economy. I want my in-groups to be catered to by the government. Wanting anything else puts you at a disadvantage.
-->
@thett3
I don't have all the answers, but when you find yourself in a hole the first step is to stop digging. Right now the US government is hellbent on spreading diversity to white areas. Just stopping that would go a long way, and so would policies that keep people from moving around so much. We should encourage people of all races to set down roots and create multi generational communities. I don't have the time to go into it right now but the neoliberal project and therefore the US government is the exact opposite of this
How do you stop the diversity spreading? White people are so disenfranchised that they cannot speak out against this. I made a post about this to Skep not too long ago: (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1499?page=1&post_number=18).
In short, Whites are quickly running out of peaceful methods of opposition. I'll never commit one of these terrorist attacks, but plenty of other Whites are being pushed beyond their breaking point. You're right in writing that the spreading of diversity needs to stop, but seriously, how would that occur?
Yeah well millennials have had their minds totally addled by mass media and the internet. There really isn't much hope for that generation. But I don't disagree with what you say here...the last statistic about many minorities not considering themselves American's is especially depressing. The establishment GOP says we are a proposition nation but they also don't care if immigrants agree with those propositions. Immigration really needs to slow down and it would've been great if Trump had been able to trade DACA for cuts in legal immigration like he wanted to, but our real rulers, the courts, said no.Yang sucks on immigration but immigration policy is set in stone for the foreseeable future. Which is sad bc even from a pro immigrant perspective our policies are stupid
Idk if those policies are set. Revolutions can happen in the blink of an eye. I'm not sure how many Whites need to be thoroughly disgruntled before they finally do something, but if, as you said, the Progressive narrative is breaking, then plenty of Whites are going to become VERY upset with their country quickly. It only took me about 2-3 years to go from relative indifference about the racial demographics of my country, to quite upset by them.
I fully agree, but I think the point you're missing is that there are different degrees of conflict. Any multi ethnic country is going to have conflict, but you don't have to go out of your way to make it worse, which is what the federal government has been doing for decades. Yang is going out of his way to make it better.And we can still be superficially unified by a civic identity. It will never be as strong as a "blood and soil" nation with roots as a people and culture stretching back millennia but it doesn't have to be a low key war zone either
I think racial conflict is always going to devolve into something bad; I don't believe small degrees of conflicts last. It's nice that Yang is trying to make it better, but it's not something that can ever be good. It's always going to be a ticking time-bomb. The racial and cultural majority needs to be established and maintained. If Whites won't do that, then other groups will.
Ethnonationalism is dumb. Cultural differences are infinitely more relevant than racial/ethnic differences.
I realized last night that Yang is an actual techno Luddite. Absolute legend
-->
@thett3
A genuine eco-terrorist? Not like that fake Al Gore with his 9 million dollar beachfront mansion?
Savage!
-->
@spacetime
Ethnonationalism is dumb.
You mean the top two ways in which people derive identity (ethnicity and nationalism) are "dumb?" (whatever that means) (https://imgur.com/a/MWT4uRo).
Cultural differences are infinitely more relevant than racial/ethnic differences.
Race is by far the most important thing in politics (see link above). I could go into more detail, on how like Blacks voted for Obama despite being Republican, too. This isn't even to mention how racial distinctions (found in genes) affect culture, too -- culture doesn't create people. I'm sorry, but this is easily the worst comment I've ever seen you make on a debate website.
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Race is by far the most important thing in politics
It's difficult to empirically demonstrate the paramount importance of culture because there's no way to explicitly define and categorize cultural groups. However, what we can do is look at cultural proxies like religion, geography, and partisan affiliation, and there are tons of studies showing that they all tend to be more important than race/ethnicity. Here are just a few:
I could go into more detail, on how like Blacks voted for Obama despite being Republican
Black loyalty to the Democratic party is a unique phenomenon with a lot of complicated historical reasons behind it. If it were simply a matter of racial tribalism, then we'd expect to see similar levels of political solidarity among other racial groups... but we don't. There is substantial political division among literally every other racial group in America, including whites, latinos, and asians.
In fact, rising political polarization in America is being driven almost exclusively by conflict between whites, which completely undermines the narrative that interracial competition defines American politics.
-->
@spacetime
plenty of black Obama voters voted for Trump.
-->
@thett3
- The most promising candidate so far. It would be interesting to live in a world where the leaders of the two superpowers are Chinese... Could be awkward too...
-->
@spacetime
"Race is by far the most important thing in politics"
Before I get into your articles, it should be noted that you didn't explain my data (expressed in graphs). Even if culture is difficult to collect data for, that doesn't disprove the fact that I have data which shows that race is paramount. To be quite honest, in light of your potentially correct argument, I'd rather take my argument which does already have the data to support it.
It's difficult to empirically demonstrate the paramount importance of culture because there's no way to explicitly define and categorize cultural groups.
That's because it's part of a genetic mesh. Separating culture and race into non-contextualised vacuums causes conceptions of them to be limited. Albeit, I'd argue that genes (and thereby partially race) creates culture. In other words, Islam is partially a representation of Arab genetics.
(1) The data is behind a paywall, so I can't access it to assess the methodology.
(2) I'm going to directly quote the article, of which details an explanation of their conclusion, "One reason, the researchers find, is that who you support politically is your choice while factors like your race and ethnicity are assigned at birth. Therefore, because support for a political party is a deliberate decision for an individual, it’s viewed as a choice that more accurately reflects who that person truly is."
Unfortunately, this isn't entirely correct because your genes dictate part of your political affiliation. Given the validity of twin studies (i.e. that twins have 50% genetic similarity, and identical twins have 100% genetic similarity), it has been calculated throughout plenty of studies on this topic that political views are, on average, 0.4 heritable (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038932/). Thus, political affiliation isn't wholly a "choice," in that you don't choose your genes.
It should also be noted that there is quite a lot of nuance on this conception. Age is most definitely a modifier of gene expression, in that political affiliation becomes more dependent on heritability as one ages (0.57 by age 50) (https://www.procon.org/sourcefiles/genetic-and-environmental-transmission-of-political-attitudes-over-a-life-time.pdf).
Finally, heritability of political views changes based on the issue. This was found in this Swedish study (https://www.pol.gu.se/digitalAssets/1317/1317434_political-orientations-100927.pdf). For example, Left-versus-Right self-placement had a low 0.154 heritability, whilst immigration opinions had a much stronger 0.604 heritability.
As you can see, political opinions are certainly not wholly a "choice" (implying that the environment affects all of it), and it's not wholly a reflection of who the person "truly is" (as it is partially environmental, especially for younger people on certain issues).
(3) This comes from the next "reason why" point they make, "Another reason is that – unlike race, religion and gender, where social norms dictate behavior". Social norms only partially dictate behaviour. A serious problem with these conclusions is that they are treating people as these rational actors devoid of evolutionary baggage.
For example the MAOA is found at roughly 9 times the rate in Blacks than Whites (in the U.S.). Considering Blacks are 9 times more likely than Whites to commit murder, there is strong reason to suspect correlation here (http://conservative-headlines.com/2012/06/does-maoa-gene-make-black-people-more-violent/).
Clearly, social norms are not dictating all of this behaviour.
Due to these evidently partially wrong statements these "researchers" made, I have reason to suspect that their research isn't robust. If their explanations of why culture trumps race have been at least partially neutered, it may well be that culture does not trump race, in regards to politics.
I'll address the other sources when I find some more spare time -- this is very time consuming (I'm used to idiots providing easily beaten arguments).
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
I'll address the other sources when I find some more spare time -- this is very time consuming
Let me save you some time, man -- I'll go ahead and concede that point for the sake of argument. Even if it's true on a theoretical level that race is the most important component of personal identity, that doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the prevalence of interracial conflict in the real world. The fact is that there really isn't that much interracial conflict happening in the United States. There is substantial political division within every racial group in America (except for blacks), and the political division among whites actually serves as the country's primary source of social instability: https://www.axios.com/political-polarization-whites-america-left-right-e2d8ba14-535f-4439-84f6-3ff60324beee.html
-->
@spacetime
Even if it's true on a theoretical level that race is the most important component of personal identity, that doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the prevalence of interracial conflict in the real world. The fact is that there really isn't that much interracial conflict happening in the United States. There is substantial political division within every racial group in America (except for blacks), and the political division among whites actually serves as the country's primary source of social instability: https://www.axios.com/political-polarization-whites-america-left-right-e2d8ba14-535f-4439-84f6-3ff60324beee.html
Interracial conflict, in terms of voting, doesn't do a whole lot. Sure, it undermines the White in-group bias (as we saw in the initial graph I provided). But since race is the most important personal identifier, and people are tribal, people won't care all that much about the arguments being made (since, for example, ideology is well behind race in terms of importance). You can have that 14% zealous few arguing and warring -- the majority of Whites are "exhausted" (according to your new source), won't listen to any of it and will simply indulge in their racial in-group bias.
Besides, you don't need overt conflict in order to sway voting patterns. People will naturally vote for their own race over anything else, and this is by some margin. It took a serious, anti-racist narrative jam-down, with a stranglehold on media and academia, to drastically lower White racial in-group bias, yet racial in-group bias remains the most important factor when it comes to voting.
In other words, unless the social instability is significant (and you agree that there isn't a whole lot of it), people will simply default to their racial biases.
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
yet racial in-group bias remains the most important factor when it comes to voting.
On what basis do you continue to assert that? Neither of the two largest racial groups in the U.S. (whites and latinos) demonstrate any consistent sense of solidarity in their voting patterns. The evidence simply doesn't support the narrative that racial in-group bias reigns supreme.