The Political Memes Thread (memes too spicy for Channel Zero)

[Mercer]

13 hours ago, abrasivesaint said:

Some people want the state, therefore collapsing the state and starving it economically does not sound like something they were willingly participating in.

 

With a state, one doesn't have any opportunity to consent to rules. Bad news if your values aren't aligned with the dictator, king, or whatever trend the fickle mob want's.

 

You're advocating for a one size fits all solution to govern every individual, making your opinion on consent regarding this matter logically inconsistent. Why on earth wouldn't you want consenting adults to be able to choose their rules, and values to live by?

 

If an individual craves a certain level of authoritarianism, they can voluntarily join a community, or HOA with as many nanny state restrictions in place as they see fit. Don't like weed, or trans people using bathrooms, just build, or join a community where everyone agrees to these terms and ban these things.

 

13 hours ago, abrasivesaint said:

Collapsing a political and economic system will undoubtedly cause violence, so while it may not be direct, it is still resulting in violence.

 

Would you prefer a violent revolution, to avoid violence, or are you just saying anything now with zero regard for logic?

 

Besides, your assertion is provably false. Non violence worked in the USSR to expel the Socialists, it worked in India to expel the British.

 

13 hours ago, abrasivesaint said:

Public property becoming private is also most certainly property being involuntarily redistributed by a collective.

 

Your intentional close mindedness means you can't imagine doing this any other way than by forming a government, or collective to do it.  

 

13 hours ago, abrasivesaint said:

I like public lands, i do not think all lands should be privately owned.

 

I'd like it if I could just use anyone's property out there (not just public) for my own purposes too. That sentiment is a given, but we're trying to fix bigger problems here.

 

Besides, there are such things as privately owned parks that are open to the public, many public parks were in fact privately owned and donated directly to the state, this would still continue except there wouldn't be any need for a state. Total governmental dependence isn't the only way.

 

 

13 hours ago, abrasivesaint said:

Drawing more lines in the sand only leads to more violence. The lines we currently have drawn lead to incredible amounts of violence. The Hatfield’s and McCoy’s can’t dispute their lands if there’s no line drawn. The grass can’t seem greener on the other side, if there is no other side

 

The Hatfields and McCoy's didn't fight over a property line, your example makes zero sense.

 

Besides, this sentiment is complete Anprim/Ancom gibberish that if taken to it's logical conclusion wouldn't allow for agriculture, basic agrarian societies, factories, or any industrial activity keeping the current 8 billion people on this planet fed.

 

There's no incentive to plant a crop, if anyone can just come take it because there's no private property. Same for a house, a factory, etc. It's this same intentional disregard for basic economics that makes socialism an abject failure every time it's tried.

 

If you really wish to live this way, nothing is stopping you from going into the wilderness now and becoming a hunter gatherer. There are even tribes living this way now that if you put in the effort, you might even be able to join with some luck, it's not unheard of.  The rest of us would prefer to live long, comfortable lives, and own smartphones.

[Mercer]

[Mercer]

[Mercer]

 

[Mercer]

[Mercer]

[Dark_Knight]

[Mercer]

[Mercer]

[metronome]

Private charity vs public aid needs a cold hard fact check.

The whole continent of Africa would like a word. 

[Mercer]

 

41 minutes ago, metronome said:

Private charity vs public aid needs a cold hard fact check.

The whole continent of Africa would like a word. 

 

Weird stance. You think their government programs are more efficient over there? 

[metronome]

9 minutes ago, Mercer said:

 

 

Weird stance. You think their government programs are more efficient over there? 

 

no, just that Africa is full of grifting NGOs who take charitably donated private money and make it disappear one way or the other into pockets instead of helping the causes they claim to be.

I'd like to see where that meme is claiming those figures from more or less because I ain't buying it. 

[Mercer]

6 minutes ago, metronome said:

 

no, just that Africa is full of grifting NGOs who take charitably donated private money and make it disappear one way or the other into pockets instead of helping the causes they claim to be.

I'd like to see where that meme is claiming those figures from more or less because I ain't buying it. 

 

 

The meme never asserted private charities were 100% efficient. If that's what you're arguing against here you're constructing a false claim to argue against, an assertion that was never even implied.

 

The meme was comparing efficiency levels between private charities, and tax dollars. A quick google search I just did turned up several sources that estimate around 70% efficiency for private charities. You've got a strong pro government, anti charity bias that you'd assume those numbers to be incorrect.

 

We probably spend more of our tax dollars droning/bombing people in Africa, than we do actually helping them with those same tax dollars. Even if government based aid is actually delivered in undeveloped countries, you and I both know the feds probably only cut your regime a check if you've got something they want strategically, and the people you rule over, that actually need that help, they'll probably never see a dime of it.

[Dirty_habiT]

14 hours ago, metronome said:

Private charity vs public aid needs a cold hard fact check.

The whole continent of Africa would like a word. 

Do you live in Africa and does any of that directly affect you?  No?

 

Some are worse than retards because at least retards don't go around acting like they're not retarded. 
 

Put that in your opium pipe and smoke it commie boi. 

Edited December 5, 2021 by Dirty_habiT

[Mercer]

[Mercer]

[Mercer]

[metronome]

9 hours ago, Dirty_habiT said:

Do you live in Africa and does any of that directly affect you?  No?

 

Some are worse than retards because at least retards don't go around acting like they're not retarded. 
 

Put that in your opium pipe and smoke it commie boi. 

 

Yeah dude we get it, you don't read and you think kids should be shot in schools so you can hump guns.  Keep it moving. 

[Mercer]

[Dirty_habiT]

11 hours ago, metronome said:

 

Yeah dude we get it, you don't read and you think kids should be shot in schools so you can hump guns.  Keep it moving. 

 

You're a privileged far left leaning extremist troll.  Don't try to bring that Saul Alinsky shit in here marxist faggot.

 

edit: wouldn't be too surprised to find out you're a kid fucker either.

Edited December 6, 2021 by Dirty_habiT

[MOOGLE?]

 

[MOOGLE?]

 

[Dirty_habiT]

That dude has too much sugar in his cake. 

[KILZ FILLZ]

[Dirty_habiT]

Lol

[abrasivesaint]

Anytime i challenge your opinions i’m told what MY views are, my words feel like they’re being twisted, or i’m told i’m just unintelligent or i just don’t understand. No matter how many times i express what I ACTUALLY BELIEVE, i’m told shit like i don’t believe in property rights.

 

I will be doing my best to attempt to not discuss political theory topics like this anymore for these reasons. @Mercer

 

Chalk it as a win, or whatever, i frankly don’t fucking care anymore. 

[abrasivesaint]

[abrasivesaint]

[abrasivesaint]

[abrasivesaint]