Moderating offensive language

[Slut]

Sorry auto correct I meant they shouldn’t use the word

Nobody should. As long as the N word is part of pop music, all kinds of people will keep on using it. Should be a no-brainer.

[Proletarian]

Well, it's a semantical discussion for sure

I do not believe that it is a semantical discussion...

but let's at least agree that having no one speak out against something, and having no set of rules against something, certianly doesn't discourage it.

Obviously.

I guess there are a lot of behaviors that are both natural to humans, and identifiably detrimental to social stability.

Such as? I don't believe that either of us have named one.

I've always percieved the whole notion of a "law" or "rule" to be a guideline to prohibit those behaviors and safeguard the stability.

At present, laws are used to safeguard the 'stability' of capitalist societies. My point is that we ignore how the structure of capitalism encourages people to break the rules, and then we punish the individuals/groups who break them.

Nonsense if you ask me.

So, when you know that humans can tend towards a certain behavior, say any kind of crime that gives you some kind of benefit or reward, what you in fact also know is that if you don't employ some kind of system to discourage those behaviors, they will be more strongly represented. So, when you have that knowledge and don't employ a system of discouragement, is that encouraging?

I believe in solving problems at the root. The 'system of discouragement' that we have in place (i.e., the penal system) helps to create an illusion of stability, which in turn helps to protect the system (i.e., the root cause).

In regards to your question... Having a penal system can discourage behaviors, but that doesn't mean that the lack of such a system encourages them. The encouragement comes from elsewhere (the incentive was there before penal rules were put in place to discourage). I argue that the encouragement comes from established institutions, such as those that commodify people and enforce inequality etc.

Well, however we define it, like you said, that would be somewhat isolated from my main point. Maybe you're more right than me on the true definitions, but you surely get what I'm getting at.

Again, I acknowledge that I have steered the discussion away from your main point. I am critically evaluating problematic analogies that you have used to justify your position. I am suggesting that your analogies protect morally/ethically bankrupt institutions, and are potentially far more harmful than a working class white person 'dropping N-Bombs'.

I believe that your main point is similar to the quote, "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor". But I am not yet convinced that any oppressing has happened here, but maybe you're right to question this trey person: I haven't looked at all the discussions.

As for the punching, alright, that's a little bit more complex, because it's also governed by hundreds of psycological phenomenae

I argue that it's governed more by social phenomena.

but again, I'll use the example I already used to counter your question. If there is no system of discouragement, which is a very general term, but for most intents and purposes what I mean would be a rule/penalty solution, but without such a system, you get stronger representation of natural tendencies. If punching one another in the face is a natural tendency, which a lot of things seem to suggest that it is, then having no system of discouragement means higher representation.

There is nothing 'natural' about tendencies that are governed by social phenomena.

If you were here in real life, there would be no reason for a 'system of discouragement' to prevent me from punching you. So who do you believe that such a system is needed for?

Now ask yourself, what are them people lacking, that makes people (such as you) believe that we need penal 'solutions'? And why doesn't our system provide for what they are lacking, if 'social stability' is the real aim?

[Husxle]

Nobody should. As long as the N word is part of pop music, all kinds of people will keep on using it. Should be a no-brainer.

Word.

Sent from my SM-A205U using Tapatalk

[Preach]

I do not believe that it is a semantical discussion...



Obviously.



Such as? I don't believe that either of us have named one.



At present, laws are used to safeguard the 'stability' of capitalist societies. My point is that we ignore how the structure of capitalism encourages people to break the rules, and then we punish the individuals/groups who break them.

Nonsense if you ask me.



I believe in solving problems at the root. The 'system of discouragement' that we have in place (i.e., the penal system) helps to create an illusion of stability, which in turn helps to protect the system (i.e., the root cause).

In regards to your question... Having a penal system can discourage behaviors, but that doesn't mean that the lack of such a system encourages them. The encouragement comes from elsewhere (the incentive was there before penal rules were put in place to discourage). I argue that the encouragement comes from established institutions, such as those that commodify people and enforce inequality etc.



Again, I acknowledge that I have steered the discussion away from your main point. I am critically evaluating problematic analogies that you have used to justify your position. I am suggesting that your analogies protect morally/ethically bankrupt institutions, and are potentially far more harmful than a working class white person 'dropping N-Bombs'.

I believe that your main point is similar to the quote, "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor". But I am not yet convinced that any oppressing has happened here, but maybe you're right to question this trey person: I haven't looked at all the discussions.



I argue that it's governed more by social phenomena.



There is nothing 'natural' about tendencies that are governed by social phenomena.

If you were here in real life, there would be no reason for a 'system of discouragement' to prevent me from punching you. So who do you believe that such a system is needed for?

Now ask yourself, what are them people lacking, that makes people (such as you) believe that we need penal 'solutions'? And why doesn't our system provide for what they are lacking, if 'social stability' is the real aim?

I totally 100% do not share your viewpoint of corrupt institutions. It seems like you are suggesting that we don't need a penal system at all. I don't really have a comment to that, but feel free to convince people to do a little experiment on that if you want. I also believe capitalism is an inevitable byproduct of reality that can't be dealt with - it's like happiness, or sadness. You can't just "take it away", it's an embedded part of human nature. Let me rephrase that - I believe the benefits that come from propagating our competitive nature far outweighs all the bad in the world that it supposedly causes, and do not think starving children in poor countries is a reason to "fight capitalism", but rather, a reason to keep expanding it. So we will never see eye to eye on those points and thus I won't bother commenting on that further in this thread. I don't look at it from some perspective as if human nature is an alien force on this earth that we need to be ashamed of and reverse, and so I believe things like inequality and capitalism are less like "human-made, human-centric problems associated with greed" and more like "the imperfect distribution of finite resources in a finite universe", and so I'm not down with the oppression of the system. I would fight the idea of communism and anti-capitalism to the death, and btw., I'm stacking up at the bottom in the capitalist world. I'm not rich or successful, so it's not out of greed that I say that. But anyway, that's all I'll say on the matter because this is too vast for me to have as a side-discussion in a topic. I don't believe capitalism is a "structure" because that implies that is has been built.

I don't know who I think the system is needed for. Let me ask you, do you honestly believe we don't need a system in place in the world? It's difficult to gauge what you really mean. It's hard to imagine what your vision for the future of humankind is based on the things you say.

I don't know why we need to define those behaviors that are both natural to humans and causing instability to society. Rape, murder, grand theft, violence. I'm not sure what there needs to be disagreement about. If you want to come here and suggest that rapes or murders don't cause social instability then the burden of proof falls on you man, I dunno if anybody ever raped you, but that's pretty detrimental... And also pretty common. I CBA to go quote some statistics somewhere, these are uncontroversial things I'm saying. Rapes are common and rapes are detrimental to their victims. We should have a law that prohibits rape, a social on-going discussion that schools growing adults about the law and the collective way of thinking about rape, and there needs to be something that happens to those that decide to rape nonetheless. Various experiments have been run throughout the ages, with differing levels of success. I need to ask you again, please clearify your position because it feels like you're saying we don't need any of these things that have developed over time as a reponse to the problems that we have been facing.

[Proletarian]

I totally 100% do not share your viewpoint of corrupt institutions.

You think our institutions are just and fair, and that they don't encourage undesirable behaviors?

It seems like you are suggesting that we don't need a penal system at all.

I'm not sure that we would need one if society's other institutions were not so insane, but if we did, it would not need to exist in the same form as our current penal system.

I also believe capitalism is an inevitable byproduct of reality that can't be dealt with - it's like happiness, or sadness. You can't just "take it away", it's an embedded part of human nature.

Many people felt similarly about feudalism... and the slave trade...

How wrong were they?

I don't look at it from some perspective as if human nature is an alien force on this earth that we need to be ashamed of and reverse...

What is 'human nature' to you? How humans behave is largely a result of social phenomena, which means that 'human nature' (as you call it) is changing all the time, and it is different in various places at the same time.

You don't think people need to be ashamed and reverse their so called 'human nature', but you think we should lock certain people up who embrace it... Wtf?

We need to change the environment (i.e., institutions etc.) if we want people to really change. Threatening people with the penal system does not work: this method has been tried and still people carry out crime. The penal system is clearly not an effective means of discouraging undesirable behaviors, yet you place your faith in it like a christian with the bible.

... and so I believe things like inequality and capitalism are less like "human-made, human-centric problems associated with greed" and more like "the imperfect distribution of finite resources in a finite universe", and so I'm not down with the oppression of the system.

I'm not following you here... Aliens or 'God' did not make capitalism: humans made it. When it was created yes, I would argue that it was the 'imperfect distribution of scarce resources', but that was over 200 years ago. Today, the situation is different and capitalism is rotting.

At present, inequality is a product of our economic system (aka capitalism). You can choose to believe that inequality is a 'necessary evil' if you wish; many people will agree, but that doesn't make you right.

I would fight the idea of communism and anti-capitalism to the death, and btw., I'm stacking up at the bottom in the capitalist world. I'm not rich or successful, so it's not out of greed that I say that.

I wouldn't assume it is greed that makes you say it. Many working class people accept ruling class values as their own. You're not alone.

Irony: a few weeks ago you said, "Is this what the Black Panthers fought for? For the right of white people to say the word 'nigga' and think it is ok?". You use the name of the Black Panthers as if to suggest that you support their aims, but you now suggest that you would fight against the Black Panthers to your death.

I don't believe capitalism is a "structure" because that implies that is has been built.

Capitalism was built and it has a clear structure. Do you understand the meanings that are given to the words 'built' and 'structure'? I advise you look them up in a dictionary.

I don't know who I think the system is needed for.

... What..?

Let me ask you, do you honestly believe we don't need a system in place in the world? It's difficult to gauge what you really mean. It's hard to imagine what your vision for the future of humankind is based on the things you say.

Socialism and communism are systems. Such a question leads me to believe that you haven't been reading the things I say, or else your understanding of the English language is very limited.

I don't know why we need to define those behaviors that are both natural to humans and causing instability to society. Rape, murder, grand theft, violence. I'm not sure what there needs to be disagreement about. If you want to come here and suggest that rapes or murders don't cause social instability then the burden of proof falls on you man, I dunno if anybody ever raped you, but that's pretty detrimental... And also pretty common. I CBA to go quote some statistics somewhere, these are uncontroversial things I'm saying. Rapes are common and rapes are detrimental to their victims. We should have a law that prohibits rape, a social on-going discussion that schools growing adults about the law and the collective way of thinking about rape, and there needs to be something that happens to those that decide to rape nonetheless.

Big straw man argument...

You haven't read either of my last 2 posts properly. First you say I started a semantic debate (which I didn't), and now you say that I suggest rape, murder, grand theft and violence don't cause social instability. I never made these claims. The burden of proof that I made these claims falls on you; quote me if you can, and good luck with that.

I suggested that rape etc. is not 'human nature'. The idea that you think it is says something about you.

Unequal power relations and using other people is the very essence of capitalism. Capitalists exploit the working class for their labour power and don't pay them in full (that is where 'profit' comes from). This is regarded as 'the natural order of the world'. Everybody is regarded as a commodity. We are bought and sold on the (labour) market, just like fruit juice, spaghetti and sheep. Then we wonder why some people think it is ok to use another person. This way of thinking is not natural: it is taught and learned. It is not 'human nature' to see other people (and ourselves) as mere commodities, but that is what capitalism makes us.

The system alienates people from their own nature and in turn each-other. No number of discussions in schools about 'the law in relation to rape' will prevent rape. Why does the threat of trouble with the penal system have to come into it? You think that people, in any social environment, will always be unable to understand that it is wrong without the threat? That's a fucked up way to think in my opinion (it suggests that you would believe that rape is ok if it wasn't illegal).

please clearify your position because it feels like you're saying we don't need any of these things that have developed over time as a reponse to the problems that we have been facing.

The penal system as it exists was not developed over time as a response to problems that the working class have been facing. Most laws were wrote by and for the ruling class, and many laws were implemented as a means to control the 'dangerous classes'.

Who cares if the penal system (or any other powerful institution) developed over time? That is not a valid argument. The christian religion 'developed over time' too, but that doesn't mean it is a desirable form of social control.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority - Because the ruling class said so...

If you were here in real life, there would be no reason for a 'system of discouragement' to prevent me from punching you. So who do you believe that such a system is needed for?

Now ask yourself, what are them people lacking, that makes people (such as you) believe that penal 'solutions' are needed? And why doesn't our system provide for what they are lacking, if 'social stability' is the real aim?

I posted these three questions at the end of my last post. The analogy of punching you can be applied to rape, murder and theft etc. If you actually answered these three questions using your own logic, I believe you would not be asking me to clarify my position in relation to the penal system, and how we can adequately discourage undesirable behaviors.

[Preach]

You think our institutions are just and fair, and that they don't encourage undesirable behaviors?

I don't know what you mean by "institutions". I believe every "institution" is a conglomerate of people trying to achieve a goal in a world that pushes back. That leads to a lot of things, but to say that it's the institutions that's unjust, and not life itself. is to flip reality on its head in my view. "People" are trying to do "things", and there's all kinds of people, and they are trying all kinds of things. People are led by all kinds of instincts and emotions and behaviors. That leads to all kinds of situational fallout. The problem at the core is the that the world is dangerous, and you could die any moment, and we all have to get along, and many matters do not boil down to a single truth. So the institutions are imperfect attempts, in the same sense that we're imperfect people, to counter the challenges of human life. I don't think of them as unjust and corrupt systems that we must combat. Then, with that said, surely there are institutions where the top people tend more towards corruption than other institutions, and then there can be something about the culture within an institution that cultivates undesirable behavior, but that bevaior already exists within people, ready to be unlocked within the "right circumstances", which an institution may or may not unintentionally cultivate. I don't think it's as easy as pointing at them and saying they are corrupt, and so have to be abolished. Part of the equation are the people.

I'm not sure that we would need one if society's other institutions were not so insane, but if we did, it would not need to exist in the same form as our current penal system.

So let's be clear, this is your fantasy. I might have my idea of what the world would look like if only we did such and such and such... And you clearly have your version of that fantasy, as does everyone. Historically speaking, there is nothing that suggests that you're correct, although if there are instances of lawless societies that worked that I'm unaware of, I'm sure you can point me in a direction, but I just want to make it clear for the record that you are basing all your following slights at my expense on what you THINK, not what you know. Maybe you're right, you know. Or maybe you're very, very wrong.

Many people felt similarly about feudalism... and the slave trade...

How wrong were they?

Well, feudalism and the slave trade were byproducts of human nature. Capitalism is a byproduct of human nature. The question is whether the byproduct is productive for society and desirable. Feudalism isn't the same as capitalism. You could argue that it's just a different way of maintaining power over people, but so then we're back to square one of the discussion of figuring out whether capitalism is bad or not. It's hard to control for, because the world has changed in a lot of ways that were positive for humans as a whole. Worldwide poverty is decreasing. There's some logical meat to the argument that growing economies create more jobs, andf there's some logical meat to the idea that economical growth can't continue forever. But it's not so clear that capitalism is bad. That's your, and a lot of people's opinions. But it can be debated, and has been, heavily, for a long time. Historically speaking, it looks like the most effective system we have been able to employ. Attempts at employing different systems has led to mass death in every country where it has happened. Maybe something about the individuality of capitalism caters to human existance because there's something actually "right" about it, I don't know, but it looks like any other system causes instability. So then you could make any kind of suggestion for why you think that is, but so then we have to be clear again. It's what you think , not what you know. To know that you're right, you would have to inspire everyone to actually listen to you, then put the system that you imagine would be perfect into place, and letting that run for a few decades to see how it goes. At that point, I'll forfeit that you're right, but in the meantime, please realize that this is a debate and not a teacher-student scenario, and that ultimately, your take on capitalism are personal opinions just like mine, and not universal facts. You're sounding very top down.

What is 'human nature' to you? How humans behave is largely a result of social phenomena, which means that 'human nature' (as you call it) is changing all the time, and it is different in various places at the same time.

You don't think people need to be ashamed and reverse their so called 'human nature', but you think we should lock certain people up who embrace it... Wtf?

We need to change the environment (i.e., institutions etc.) if we want people to really change. Threatening people with the penal system does not work: this method has been tried and still people carry out crime. The penal system is clearly not an effective means of discouraging undesirable behaviors, yet you place your faith in it like a christian with the bible.

Well, in this context I think of "human nature" to be all that makes us tick. So when you look across different human cultures, there's a lot of things that's different about them, and there's a lot of things that's exactly the same about them. Both the things that make them different and the things that make them the same are part of what I conceptualize as "human nature". If three boys getting together without parents often tends to lead to them doing something unadvisable or other, say rough up some other kid, or smoke their first cigarette, or whatever have you, then that's human nature. The capacity for humans to go to war is human nature. The capacity for nazi Germany is human nature. The capacity for giving your life for something you love is human nature. Everything and anything that humans do or not do, is human nature. The social phenomena that often play out when we reach certain mass, is part of human nature. If systems often tend to be totalitarian, I guess totalitarianism is a part of human nature on some level. But so is anarchism. So "human nature" is a lot.

I'm not following you here... Aliens or 'God' did not make capitalism: humans made it. When it was created yes, I would argue that it was the 'imperfect distribution of scarce resources', but that was over 200 years ago. Today, the situation is different and capitalism is rotting.

At present, inequality is a product of our economic system (aka capitalism). You can choose to believe that inequality is a 'necessary evil' if you wish; many people will agree, but that doesn't make you right.

Everything you're stating here is, again, your personal perspective. You make too many passing judgments on big topics in one fell swoop that I can synthesize a sensible response, but let me get you the wiki definition of capitalism so we're on the same page:

Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3][4] Central characteristics of capitalism include private property and the recognition of property rights, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system and competitive markets.[5][6] In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investments are determined by every owner of wealth, property or production ability in financial and capital markets whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.[7][8]

So the part of this idea that's "created" by humans is the part where we enforce this as a system. But you're not incorporating human nature into your analysis it seems. Humans want to own things. That's not just a social phenomena. There are even birds that collect shit and build nests with collections of shiny items. People's relationships to things are nested in all kinds of behavior, like virtue singaling, sexual signaling, survival (I immediately start thinking of extreme hoarders, which is like that instinct gone haywire for whatever reason), and probably a lot more. You can't just not take these kinds of things into account when you're going to design a system for humans to live within. Let me ask you, what is capitalism to you then? Because it must be something more than what the idea itself realyl purports to be. Are you talking about the people taking advantage of the system? Because they are not the system itself. It's not clear what exactly about capitalism you are against, but I get that you're against inequality. That's a problem that's much deeper than capitalism. Your definition of capitalism seems to incorporate some of the behaviors of individuals that take advantage of the situation. As if those same people wouldn't have somehow taken advantage of any situation they were in, capitalist or not. Is that not what communist russia taught the world? That even though some people have noble goals, those same assholes that ruin it for everybody can ruin anything for everybody, because the problem isn't the thing, the problem is the people? How are you blind to this?

I wouldn't assume it is greed that makes you say it. Many working class people accept ruling class values as their own. You're not alone.

Irony: a few weeks ago you said, "Is this what the Black Panthers fought for? For the right of white people to say the word 'nigga' and think it is ok?". You use the name of the Black Panthers as if to suggest that you support their aims, but you now suggest that you would fight against the Black Panthers to your death.

You have misinterpreted what I was getting at with that. I'm all for paying history some respect, and with all due respect, Pac was about black rights. To have fans of his that are white going around calling eachother "nigga" seems disrespectful. If you disagree, cool. That's what I think, though. I fail to see the irony. It's also not just a matter of working class me accepting the ruling class values. What a disrespectful way to reduce an individual to nothing in your approximations. It sounds like it's not the systems humans create, but humans themselves that you have a gripe with.

Capitalism was built and it has a clear structure. Do you understand the meanings that are given to the words 'built' and 'structure'? I advise you look them up in a dictionary.

Stop being so smug. I know the meaning of the words, it's just that you're wrong when you say we built them. They exist as part of the framework of human nature. We merely enforce those components of it that are productive. It can be explained in a lot of ways.

To successfully save lives, we need doctors.
If you put out a call "anyone wants to be a doctor? come here and take this test", people will get different results.
If the test is good, the people most suited to be a doctor will do best on the test.
This is desirable because you want the best doctors.
Because they will save the most lives.
But out of all you ask, some might say no that might otherwise make good doctors, for reasons like "their life doesn't allow it", so then you incentivize.
Then someone else tries to incentivize more because good people are hard to come by.
So many lives and not enough people to save them.

Right there is a logical structure that creates an inequality, because it means not everyone can be a doctor. Not everyone can succeed at everything. But you want the best people to succeed at the things they will be doing, that's in their best interest and your best interest. So the structure of inequality is actually what serves society best. To solve the problem of what inequality does for people that flat out at the bottom, requires more than to simply "let go of capitalism", which like I've tried to explain to you before, is embedded deep in our nature (or capacity, rather). You can't simply "just take it out", and any previous attempts at that have ended with mass death in the country that did it. Based on that, you should know something. You talk to me like I'm some idiot, or like you're some genius. I don't know why, we're just measuring penises. The ruler will show the truth.

... What..?

It's my way of deflecting a weird question. I don't know when this became an interview, but what about you tell me your great idea for dealing with crime instead of just critiquing my views on the matter? Show us how it's done, master.

Socialism and communism are systems. Such a question leads me to believe that you haven't been reading the things I say, or else your understanding of the English language is very limited.

Big straw man argument...

You haven't read either of my last 2 posts properly. First you say I started a semantic debate (which I didn't), and now you say that I suggest rape, murder, grand theft and violence don't cause social instability. I never made these claims. The burden of proof that I made these claims falls on you; quote me if you can, and good luck with that.

I suggested that rape etc. is not 'human nature'. The idea that you think it is says something about you.

Unequal power relations and using other people is the very essence of capitalism. Capitalists exploit the working class for their labour power and don't pay them in full (that is where 'profit' comes from). This is regarded as 'the natural order of the world'. Everybody is regarded as a commodity. We are bought and sold on the (labour) market, just like fruit juice, spaghetti and sheep. Then we wonder why some people think it is ok to use another person. This way of thinking is not natural: it is taught and learned. It is not 'human nature' to see other people (and ourselves) as mere commodities, but that is what capitalism makes us.

The system alienates people from their own nature and in turn each-other. No number of discussions in schools about 'the law in relation to rape' will prevent rape. Why does the threat of trouble with the penal system have to come into it? You think that people, in any social environment, will always be unable to understand that it is wrong without the threat? That's a fucked up way to think in my opinion (it suggests that you would believe that rape is ok if it wasn't illegal).

It's not a straw man argument. It's me laying out what I actually think is a connection. For the record, what does it say about me? And also, I'm not so sure that having anti-rape campaigns in schools isn't affecting the behavior. Surely, informing kids about what constitutes a rape, and encouraging them to reflect on what constitutes a rape from an early age, has an overall effect. I don't know how you can know that it doesn't, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that it most likely does have. Maybe part of the problem is that when you say "rape", a lot of people think "assault rape" and fail to consider the most common types of rape, which could be argued is more situational. When you say that no amount of discussions about rape will prevent rape I'm really wondering how you can know that. Sounds like you just think that. You think some people are born to be rapists and there is no hope for them. You think you could never have crossed a boundary in some other situation you were in where things got blurry. That's a fine position to have, but it's not realistic. I'm not so sure you're right in your estimation, it can be argued either way whether it might have an effect or not, and rape statistics are eskewed by the fact that there's a social movement that has lead to more reporting. So rapes the previously weren't reported are now being reported, which might give the idea that there's more rapes happening now, and there could be, but because you have all these things going on at once, it's not clear what's causing what and etc. So this is another case of you presenting your personal viewpoint as absolute truth that can't be argued with, when it in fact can.

This is just as semantical as whether or not lack of discouragement can be considered encouragement or not. Both are semantical discussions. They are about how we define the terms "encouragement" and "discouragement", and this time around, how we define "human nature". So I already defined human nature as "anything that humans do", so if humans rape, I guess it's human nature to rape. That doesn't mean it's in everybody's individual nature to rape, but it's in the nature of humans because... humans do it. If you can't jive with that definition then I dunno. If you want to have a serious discussion about rape, which the world is trying to have, you have to acknowledge the human element of it. To solve the problem you have to understand it. The most common form of rape is a guy slipping it into a girl when she's drunk and asleep. Assault rapes don't account for the major portion of rapes. So, things like human sexual drive, human's (and any mammal's) capacity for capitalising on weakness, the psycological tendency to tell bullshit stories to self about what's going on, when behaving divergently, etc., are all elements of what leads to the most common kind of rape. To discuss rape, one has to discuss these things, these behaviors. They are human behaviors. Lo and behold, turns out a lot of people don't have a full understanding of what constitutes a rape. Surely, having that understanding might guide actions? You don't act based on what you know? So if you think something is kinda not okay-ish but within bounds, you might do it, and if you know that it's the soulcrushing thing you hear about, you might not, and maybe that would account for half of every rape? I'm not sure why this is controversial to you or why it warrants accusing me of being behind rape lol. And it's why there are informational campaigns. Everyone gets that a murderer-rapist won't just see an ad and go "oh, it's not okay to rape?", but for the most common type of rape that accounts for some insanely high percentage of all rapes, that's actually what might solve it. Please spare me these petty jabs and get real with your perspective. Yeah okay, I support rape, that's why I also support and am arguing for a penal system. Perfect sense. Is this where I accuse you of not reading anything I've said? Your tone is totally unwarranted, and you need to get off your high horse when you debate your personal opinions. You could be wrong, man. They are all untested as far as I know. We live in a capitalist world with laws and rules. It's been that way for a few thousand years, and in that time, humans have increasingly prospered. Any attempts at running a different system has failed miserably. This utopian dream of yours could be a "realization A". You could be ushering in the next great tragedy. Do you think you're the first person in the history of the world with this dream of curing all inequality?

I mean, there's lots of room for improvement in the world, I'll give you that. People could improve in all kinds of ways, like not speaking down to their equals over petty disagreements over personal opinions, making outlandish accusations. It sounds like if we put you in charge and let you realize your utopian dream, the world would be in for a repeat of history. You sound just like anybody else with a desire to play legos with the world without care. You're obviously not handling me disagreeing with you very well, evidenced by all these attempts at belittling my position, these cheap shots at my wits, my language capacity, or my attentiveness to what you're saying. Oh, not to forget, I'm pro-rape. You realize you're representing some of those parts of human nature that lays the foundation for inequality with that behavior,?

The penal system as it exists was not developed over time as a response to problems that the working class have been facing. Most laws were wrote by and for the ruling class, and many laws were implemented as a means to control the 'dangerous classes'.

Who cares if the penal system (or any other powerful institution) developed over time? That is not a valid argument. The christian religion 'developed over time' too, but that doesn't mean it is a desirable form of social control.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority - Because the ruling class said so...

I guess we just see things differently. Also, I think I spent enough time humoring you. Bottom line is, yes, I think lack of discouragement coupled with knowledge of most likely outcome is the same as encouragement. And I think lack of encouragement coupled with knowledge of most likely outcome is the same as discouragement. For example, if no one is speaking out against something, it's easier for anyone to not be discouraged and so thusly encourage themselves, so by proxy you encourage them, so for all intents and purposes you create a climate of encouragement by not discouraging. By men not actively discouraging rape, we are creating a climate within which rapers will feel more encouraged to rape. And, if you have a kid, and you don't encourage your kid, you are practically discouraging your kid, because there exists some amount of psycology literature on the matter of the kinds of encouragement that children need, and we know this now because it's 2020 and you can google "I am about to have a baby, what do i do?", and so if you have a kid and don't actively work to encourage your kid in the ways neccesary for them to succeed, you are indirectly discouraging them from living their life in the best way possible. That's what I think about the issue you brought up. You make a few somewhat interesting interjections, but in the end, that's what I actually land on thinking. Deal with it.

I posted these three questions at the end of my last post. The analogy of punching you can be applied to rape, murder and theft etc. If you actually answered these three questions using your own logic, I believe you would not be asking me to clarify my position in relation to the penal system, and how we can adequately discourage undesirable behaviors.

To be honest, I just wanted this thread to be about what it's about and have that be it. It's a 2Pac forum. Having white people going around saying "nigga" is not a good look. It's not good in any way, capacity or shape. I'm weirded out by the fact that the majority seem to either not care, or to even actively encourage it or excuse it. This is all weird as hell to me. I'll report any posts I react to and it feels like mods kinda feel the same way as me, just not as adamantly, but it's all good. I'm just a little surprised.

[Proletarian]

I don't know what you mean by "institutions". I believe every "institution" is a conglomerate of people trying to achieve a goal in a world that pushes back.

Definition of institution: an established law or practice.

Any established law or practice. We inherit most of them. We generally reproduce them unconsciously, rather than consciously.

That leads to a lot of things, but to say that it's the institutions that's unjust, and not life itself is to flip reality on its head in my view.

Blaming 'life' sounds stupid to me. How can we say 'life is unjust'? Life is life. To say life is fair or unfair is an abuse of language. Who is life unfair/fair for? It's completely relative.

In contrast, I can name a number of unjust institutions, and I don't consider the idea of them being unjust to be 'relative'. Being born to impoverished parents makes you most likely, statistically, to fail at education, carry out crime, die young and/or carry out suicide etc., therefore I argue that inequality is unjust. You can say this is fair, and that 'human nature' or 'life' is the problem, but that's a bit too abstract for me.

So the institutions are imperfect attempts, in the same sense that we're imperfect people, to counter the challenges of human life.

You paint all institutions with the same brush.

Some institutions were established by members of the ruling class who were countering challenges that their social class face, rather than society as a whole.

there can be something about the culture within an institution that cultivates undesirable behavior, but that bevaior already exists within people, ready to be unlocked within the "right circumstances", which an institution may or may not unintentionally cultivate. I don't think it's as easy as pointing at them and saying they are corrupt, and so have to be abolished. Part of the equation are the people.

So lets give an example of police killing poor people regularly, and almost never a rich person. You think the equation for why poor people rather than rich people die to police is 'the people in the police', rather than our penal institutions..?

Or another example. Under capitalism, politicians cater to the rich and powerful (a minority), rather than the majority. You think the problem is 'the politicians that we voted for', rather than our parliamentary systems? If so, you clearly have a very limited understanding of how our institutions actually work: these are systematic problems...

So let's be clear, this is your fantasy. I might have my idea of what the world would look like if only we did such and such and such... And you clearly have your version of that fantasy, as does everyone. Historically speaking, there is nothing that suggests that you're correct, although if there are instances of lawless societies that worked that I'm unaware of, I'm sure you can point me in a direction, but I just want to make it clear for the record that you are basing all your following slights at my expense on what you THINK, not what you know. Maybe you're right, you know. Or maybe you're very, very wrong.

Did you not read what I said? Established institutions encourage crime. That is not something I THINK; it is a fact.

If our established institutions were not encouraging crime (and discouraged it instead, by means other than penal threats) we would not need the type of penal system we have now.

You can say this is just a fantasy, but I say that you're ignorant in relation to how crime is socially constructed and encouraged.

Worldwide poverty is decreasing.

Some organisations and countries have lowered the poverty line, so poverty might not be decreasing at the rate you think. Also, you fail to mention that inequality is increasing, which has very serious social implications.

There's some logical meat to the argument that growing economies create more jobs, andf there's some logical meat to the idea that economical growth can't continue forever.

I don't really know what you're getting at here...

But it's not so clear that capitalism is bad. That's your, and a lot of people's opinions.

Maybe it is not so clear to you. My opinion is the product of social science (social facts); science you clearly have limited reading in.

Some people still think that, "it's just an opinion" that the earth is round, while arguing that it is flat, because they ignore the science.

BHistorically speaking, it looks like the most effective system we have been able to employ. Attempts at employing different systems has led to mass death in every country where it has happened. Maybe something about the individuality of capitalism caters to human existance because there's something actually "right" about it, I don't know, but it looks like any other system causes instability.

I believe I saw you telling people on this forum to read up on logical fallacies.

Your logical fallacy is: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope


However, yes, them State capitalist systems caused alot of death. So does our capitalist system. Our global economic system causes 20-40k people to starve to death each day. More people have died as a result of our system than any other, but you ignore that and say 'inequality is natural'.

So then you could make any kind of suggestion for why you think [previous revolutions have failed], but so then we have to be clear again. It's what you think , not what you know.

How do you know what I know? Historical facts explain why revolutions failed. But you have no interest in the topic so you don't read about it.

You seem to think that if you don't know about something, nobody else does and that anybody who thinks they do is just guessing.

To know that you're right, you would have to inspire everyone to actually listen to you, then put the system that you imagine would be perfect into place, and letting that run for a few decades to see how it goes. At that point, I'll forfeit that you're right

I don't have to inspire anyone to learn what I know in order to 'know that I am right'. Do you think that the truth only becomes true after a certain number of people believe it?

and that ultimately, your take on capitalism are personal opinions just like mine, and not universal facts.

My take on capitalism is based on social facts. I didn't pull my dislike for capitalism out of my ass.

And I've heard every cliché that you've used to defend capitalism before.

Well, in this context I think of "human nature" to be all that makes us tick. So when you look across different human cultures, there's a lot of things that's different about them, and there's a lot of things that's exactly the same about them. Both the things that make them different and the things that make them the same are part of what I conceptualize as "human nature".

So everything? It's human nature to kill yourself, and it's human nature to do anything you can to prevent your death? To say that both opposite things are 'human nature' confuses issue(s).

For example, it's proven that certain social circumstances encourage suicide, and other social circumstances discourage suicide. It would make more sense to say that, under X circumstances, it is within human nature to do Y (i.e., carry out suicide). And it's the same for other crimes.

You can't take the social conditions (which includes society's institutions) out of the framework for understanding a phenomena and call it 'human nature', without confusing the issue.

Everything you're stating here is, again, your personal perspective. You make too many passing judgments on big topics in one fell swoop that I can synthesize a sensible response

You wrote this in response to a quote where I stated two FACTS (i.e., not perspectives):

1) Capitalism was not created by Aliens or 'God'. - (Are you joking around in saying that this is just a perspective? You think aliens or god might have created capitalism?)

2) Inequality is a product of our economic system (aka capitalism). - Economics is what decides how resources are distributed (fact). I have basically said that, '"Our system of resource distribution is responsible for how our resources are distributed...". It's like saying that chocolate tastes like chocolate... it's not just a 'perspective'.


Instead of engaging with the meat of my arguments, you keep repeating that I'm expressing 'opinions', 'fantasies', 'personal perspectives' etc. like a spiritual mantra.
(1) and (2) are facts, not perspectives.

Your logical fallacy is ad hominem and straw man: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem; https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

, but let me get you the wiki definition of capitalism so we're on the same page:

Yes, because wiki pages are wrote by a large group of multi disciplinary doctors that came to an agreement about how the world is... And yes, that is sarcasm.

If you get all your information from wiki pages, I'm starting to understand why we are in disagreement...

Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3][4]

Agreed.

Central characteristics of capitalism include private property and the recognition of property rights, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system and competitive markets.[5][6]

Source number 5: mainstream economist source. Mainstream economist's definitions differ from Marxist economists. Marxist economists (who teach economics at University) claim that a central characteristic of capitalism is exploitation. But I guess these University lectures are just expressing their fantasy/opinions? And those wealthy mainstream economists are showing us the objective facts?

Source number 6: it's from a book called American capitalism, not capitalism. And I can see why. Competitive markets have not always been a central characteristic of all strains of capitalism.

In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investments are determined by every owner of wealth, property or production ability in financial and capital markets whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.[7][8]

So, the distribution of goods and services are never determined by whose family people are born into? Inheritence is a thing, right?

The whole, 'prices are determined by supply and demand' is bullshit too. This is an economic theory that has been proven wrong time and time again (it's a fantasy).

[Proletarian]

So the part of this idea that's "created" by humans is the part where we enforce this as a system.

It was established long ago. The majority of us reproduce it unconsciously, rather than create/enforce it consciously.

But you're not incorporating human nature into your analysis it seems. Humans want to own things. That's not just a social phenomena. There are even birds that collect shit and build nests with collections of shiny items. People's relationships to things are nested in all kinds of behavior, like virtue singaling, sexual signaling, survival (I immediately start thinking of extreme hoarders, which is like that instinct gone haywire for whatever reason), and probably a lot more. You can't just not take these kinds of things into account when you're going to design a system for humans to live within.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here to be honest.

Let me ask you, what is capitalism to you then? Because it must be something more than what the idea itself realyl purports to be.

Capitalism is a system where society's productive forces are privately owned and used for profit.

Are you talking about the people taking advantage of the system? Because they are not the system itself.

What? No. I'm talking about institutions, not people.

It's not clear what exactly about capitalism you are against

Correction; not clear to you.

, but I get that you're against inequality. That's a problem that's much deeper than capitalism. Your definition of capitalism seems to incorporate some of the behaviors of individuals that take advantage of the situation. As if those same people wouldn't have somehow taken advantage of any situation they were in, capitalist or not.

Heard the cliché before.

Is that not what communist russia taught the world? That even though some people have noble goals, those same assholes that ruin it for everybody can ruin anything for everybody, because the problem isn't the thing, the problem is the people? How are you blind to this?

Russia never achieved communism...

Russian socialism (not communism) failed because of forces outside of Russia. Lenin a Trotsky predicted prior to the revolution that the revolution would fail without other countries helping Russia. The cause of the failure of the Russian Revolution was identified before the revolution took place. The assholes were only able to step in because the revolution failed.

You have misinterpreted what I was getting at with that. I'm all for paying history some respect, and with all due respect, Pac was about black rights.

Pac was about more than black rights...

To have fans of his that are white going around calling eachother "nigga" seems disrespectful. If you disagree, cool.

As I said in this thread already; whether it is disrespectful or not is context dependent. It may or may not be disrespectful, but that depends on the situation.

That's what I think, though. I fail to see the irony [in using the Black Panthers name to oppose the use of the term 'nigga' by white people, while opposing the actual goals of the Black Panther Party].

The irony is that you strongly oppose the goals of the Black Panther Party, but you suggest that you support them.

It's also not just a matter of working class me accepting the ruling class values. What a disrespectful way to reduce an individual to nothing in your approximations.

But you do accept ruling class values.

So, Gramsci and Althusser reduced individuals to nothing but their approximations? First time I heard that.

Also, I don't believe it was disrespectful to suggest that you received your values from society...: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

It sounds like it's not the systems humans create, but humans themselves that you have a gripe with.

Straw man: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

How many times I gotta repeat myself? It's the system, not humans, that I have a problem with.

Stop being so smug. I know the meaning of the words, it's just that you're wrong when you say we built them.

Definition of build from a dictionary.

"to create and develop something over a long period of time"...


So we didn't create and develop our institutions (and capitalism) over time...?

[Institutions] exist as part of the framework of human nature. We merely enforce those components of it that are productive.

You're painting all institutions with the same brush again. We reproduce a lot of institutions unconsciously.

It can be explained in a lot of ways.

To successfully save lives, we need doctors.
If you put out a call "anyone wants to be a doctor? come here and take this test", people will get different results.
If the test is good, the people most suited to be a doctor will do best on the test.

Actually no. Tests often determine who is privileged enough to engage with and succeed in education. Ask yourself, why do most doctors come from privileged backgrounds?


"They promise education, but really they give you tests and scores
And they predictin' prison population by who scoring the lowest
And usually the lowest scores the poorest and they look like me" - Killer Mike

This is desirable because you want the best doctors.
Because they will save the most lives.
But out of all you ask, some might say no that might otherwise make good doctors, for reasons like "their life doesn't allow it", so then you incentivize.
Then someone else tries to incentivize more because good people are hard to come by.
So many lives and not enough people to save them.

I'm losing you here, maybe to typos?

Right there is a logical structure that creates an inequality, because it means not everyone can be a doctor. Not everyone can succeed at everything. But you want the best people to succeed at the things they will be doing, that's in their best interest and your best interest. So the structure of inequality is actually what serves society best. To solve the problem of what inequality does for people that flat out at the bottom, requires more than to simply "let go of capitalism", which like I've tried to explain to you before, is embedded deep in our nature (or capacity, rather).

Ah, the ruling class values again...

You can't simply "just take it out", and any previous attempts at that have ended with mass death in the country that did it. Based on that, you should know something.

Ah, the slippery slope argument again: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

You talk to me like I'm some idiot, or like you're some genius. I don't know why, we're just measuring penises. The ruler will show the truth.

I'm talking to you like someone who is ignorant about what they are talking about, because you clearly are.

It's my way of deflecting a weird question. I don't know when this became an interview, but what about you tell me your great idea for dealing with crime instead of just critiquing my views on the matter? Show us how it's done, master.

Don't call me master. The masters are the people locking others in cages like they're dangerous animals, without any real attempt to prevent crime, other than locking more people up. The masters are the ruling class.

It's not a straw man argument. It's me laying out what I actually think is a connection.

It is a strawman argument. You suggested that I argued that rape does not cause social instability, as if I'm some sort of psychopath. I never made the claim

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Surely, informing kids about what constitutes a rape, and encouraging them to reflect on what constitutes a rape from an early age, has an overall effect. I don't know how you can know that it doesn't, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that it most likely does have... When you say that no amount of discussions about rape will prevent rape I'm really wondering how you can know that. Sounds like you just think that.

Another straw man argument. I never said it has no effect: I said it won't prevent rape from happening.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

What I actually said: saying rape is bad in a world where economic rape is praised is not going prevent a high rate of rape.

Lets not forget that capitalism has naturalised and continues to rely/depend on patriarchal institutions for its very survival.


Stay ignorant of these facts and praise the penal and education systems all you want. Let me know when these institutions solve the problem (which they never will)...

You think some people are born to be rapists and there is no hope for them.

Will you stop with the strawman arguments? I'm saying that rape is socially caused, like suicide. People are not born to kill themselves or rape.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

This is just as semantical as whether or not lack of discouragement can be considered encouragement or not.

If I don't discourage you from eating dog shit, that doesn't mean I'm encouraging you to eat dog shit. That's not semantical.

Both are semantical discussions. They are about how we define the terms "encouragement" and "discouragement", and this time around, how we define "human nature". So I already defined human nature as "anything that humans do", so if humans rape, I guess it's human nature to rape. That doesn't mean it's in everybody's individual nature to rape, but it's in the nature of humans because... humans do it. If you can't jive with that definition then I dunno.

I don't like your definition of the concept of 'human nature'. It includes everything and confuses issues. If you pay me money to eat dog shit every day, then according to your definition, 'it is human nature to eat dog shit every day'
(rather than it is human nature to respond to economic incentives under our current social conditions).

If you want to have a serious discussion about rape, which the world is trying to have, you have to acknowledge the human element of it.

Of course, but you also have to acknowledge the social element of it, which you appear to completely ignore. The 'human' element of it does not exist in isolation from the social.

To solve the problem you have to understand it. The most common form of rape is a guy slipping it into a girl when she's drunk and asleep. Assault rapes don't account for the major portion of rapes. So, things like human sexual drive, human's (and any mammal's) capacity for capitalising on weakness, the psycological tendency to tell bullshit stories to self about what's going on, when behaving divergently, etc., are all elements of what leads to the most common kind of rape. To discuss rape, one has to discuss these things, these behaviors. They are human behaviors. Lo and behold, turns out a lot of people don't have a full understanding of what constitutes a rape. Surely, having that understanding might guide actions? You don't act based on what you know? So if you think something is kinda not okay-ish but within bounds, you might do it, and if you know that it's the soulcrushing thing you hear about, you might not, and maybe that would account for half of every rape? I'm not sure why this is controversial to you ...

Again, I never said this is controversial.

Straw man: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Everyone gets that a murderer-rapist won't just see an ad and go "oh, it's not okay to rape?", but for the most common type of rape that accounts for some insanely high percentage of all rapes, that's actually what might solve it.

Might being the keyword.

Please spare me these petty jabs and get real with your perspective. Yeah okay, I support rape, that's why I also support and am arguing for a penal system. Perfect sense.

Oh, you claim again that the penal system is an adequate institution for preventing rape. How is that working out for society? Has the illegality of rape prevented the high frequency of rape yet?

Is this where I accuse you of not reading anything I've said?

The pot calling the kettle black. I read what you write.

Maybe you read my words, but you clearly don't understand what you read. And I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, that you're using straw man arguments because you misunderstand, rather than as a deceitful means to make my arguments easier to attack.

Your tone is totally unwarranted, and you need to get off your high horse when you debate your personal opinions.

Says the person who takes the moral high ground while suggesting that I'm a psychopath.

"If you want to come here and suggest that rapes or murders don't cause social instability then the burden of proof falls on you man, I dunno if anybody ever raped you, but that's pretty detrimental... And also pretty common. I CBA to go quote some statistics somewhere, these are uncontroversial things I'm saying. Rapes are common and rapes are detrimental to their victims". - Preach.

You could be wrong, man. They are all untested as far as I know. We live in a capitalist world with laws and rules. It's been that way for a few thousand years

Capitalism is less than 200 years old...

, and in that time, humans have increasingly prospered.

Were there ever any set backs? Yes, and so the word 'increasingly' is misleading.

Was the increase in prosperity shared by all equally, leading to power and decision making to be shared equally? No. Some democracy.

Any attempts at running a different system has failed miserably.

Yes, and attempts at overthrowing feudal lords and plantations failed miserably, but I'm thankful that people didn't give up.

This utopian dream of yours could be a "realization A". You could be ushering in the next great tragedy. Do you think you're the first person in the history of the world with this dream of curing all inequality?

I think I'm finished debating with you. You rely too much on logical fallacies.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

Irony: I've seen you on this forum preaching about the need of forum members to read up on logical fallacies, but you depend on them to 'win arguments'.

I mean, there's lots of room for improvement in the world, I'll give you that.

No shit.

People could improve in all kinds of ways, like not speaking down to their equals over petty disagreements over personal opinions, making outlandish accusations.

Again, you're the one who started speaking down, suggesting that I'm a psychopath who thinks rape is not harmful.

It sounds like if we put you in charge and let you realize your utopian dream, the world would be in for a repeat of history.

Lol. You obviously don't understand bottom up socialism. I don't want to be in charge, so how could I 'realize my utopian dream from a position of power'? Bottom up socialism is made by the working class, not a few individuals.

ad hominem: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

You sound just like anybody else with a desire to play legos with the world without care.

ad hominem: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

You're obviously not handling me disagreeing with you very well, evidenced by all these attempts at belittling my position

Again, coming from the person who suggests I'm a psychopath who thinks that rape is not a problem.

ad hominem: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Oh, not to forget, I'm pro-rape.

You were repeating that rape is human nature. You gotta admit, it doesn't sound good, since you are a human and all.

You realize you're representing some of those parts of human nature that lays the foundation for inequality with that behavior,?

Back with the human nature concept, which includes everything that any human has ever done, or will do...

ad hominem: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

I guess we just see things differently. Also, I think I spent enough time humoring you.

I feel the same. I'll end this waste of time of responding to your logical fallacies here.

[therealtruealtog]

Except you are wrong about your interpretation of the concept.

Freedom of speech is regulated in a number of ways, and there's a general consensus on which ways it should be regulated. One way that everybody agrees on is that freedom of speech should not be allowed to be used to incite crimes, or for hate speech. A white person calling a black person "nigga" is the definition of hate speech that gave us hate speech laws in the first place.

TreyTyson says he's half black, so i guess he gets a pass?
I would be more pissed off if he said "******" instead of "nigga"
If we attempt to control this type of speech then we become exactly like the idiots at BLM & Antifa.

[Slut]

TreyTyson says he's half black, so i guess he gets a pass?
I would be more pissed off if he said "******" instead of "nigga"
If we attempt to control this type of speech then we become exactly like the idiots at BLM & Antifa.

Isn't it racism to have words that only blacks can use? People have to analyze someone's bloodline to determine if that person had the right to use a word? That's funny and fits nicely into today's PC world where toothpaste packaging cannot have the text "whitening" anymore.

If one wants to fight racism, shit like this needs to go. And no, I'm not suggesting that everyone should use the word... quite the opposite.

[Preach]

Why don't you argue how rape is not human nature instead of repeatedly making moralistic claims that it says something about me as a person that I can make an argument that it is? I asked you this before, why don't you lay out your vision? I don't know what you mean by "it doesn't sound good", I just explained you exactly what I meant by that statement. What doesn't look good? Are you able to separate ideas in your head or what's the issue lol? If humans are capable of a behavior, and that behavior is statistically represented among humans, then in my estimation, that behavior is part of human nature. It's also part of human nature to kill. Because humans kill. That doesn't say anything about how I as an individual person think morally about those behaviors, it just merely cements them as typical human behavior, without defining exactly how typical. What doesn't look good? Are you arguing that humans do in fact not kill and rape one another? Or do you just have a different conceptualization of what "human nature" means? Because if it's the latter, I don't get why you keep insisting on this point. The truth is ugly some times, I don't know what you want me to say. Are you suggesting I am somehow condoning rape because I state that humans do it? I just don't understand WTF you're on about. Because it's fucking nonsense. You're taking cheap jabs. I thought you were an intellectual.

Also, I don't have time in my life to keep doing back-and-forths like this with dissecting everything you say and responding to single points. You surely have an overall point. Write it as an overall point so I can follow what your point is. If I'm not mistaken, this started with you reacting to me saying lack of discouragement is effectively encouragement. You didn't agree, which is fine, but why do I have to spend all this time talking about all this shit that has nothing to do with the thread with you? You should read a book or find someone that cares if your grey matter is fiending, the scope of this has blown way out of proportion.

Nice move to respond to like 30 points in list format, then end it with a "I'll end this waste of time here". I would just really love to hear you say something substantial about these visions you have. Bottom up socialism doesn't work. Please prove me wrong or explain what I fail to see instead of being smug and showing off your knowledge of phallacies. PS! I know about them too. It's pretty cheap to deflect someone's honest opinions like that.

[Preach]

TreyTyson says he's half black, so i guess he gets a pass?
I would be more pissed off if he said "******" instead of "nigga"
If we attempt to control this type of speech then we become exactly like the idiots at BLM & Antifa.

When I made this thread, I was actually thinking more like, "PR Relations". This is not a good look. Liability. I tried to think what it would be like to be like a journalist and go do a deep-dive into the Pac scene for research and realizing it's a bunch of nerds with sweaty ballsacks and "White Lives Matter Too" facebook pics. I felt a slight embarassment that I can't quite explain. It's not that it makes me furious, or that it offends me, or that it makes me sad. It's just that it weirds me out because it's such a loser thing to do. Even 16 year old me would tell you that, so it's just a feeling I've always had. Why would you, as a white dude, integrate a culture that's essentially foreign to you to such an extent that you cross those lines. I am actually pretty convinced he's a psychiatric case. Or if not that, then a troll. And in any case, it's still just not a good look. I still don't get why some people don't think of it that way. I don't understand how some people see that and think it's perfectly okay. It's a mystery to me.

[Preach]

Oh jesus fucking christ, I just realized you have a whole other post. You're trying to like discuss everything at once. I didn't sign up for this at all lmao.

You clearly think you're right, and you clearly are so much more knowledgable than me, you have demonstrated that well by linking to wikis a million times while at the same time putting me down for relying on a wiki quote. You're all over the place. You're one of those people that love to argue on forums. You go on and start all kinds of new discussions about all kinds of other topics from single sentences I wrote, as if I'm trying to hash out everything that ever was with you in this thread. I just wanted to say that I think it's fucked up that we have a white dude going around saying "nigga" in threads and getting away with it. I've said mine, and you definitely said yours, and I totally disagree with everything you stand for. It's all cool, we don't have to murder one another unless there's a revolution, and maybe we'll be fine even then. But I totally will never agree with your position. Because I'm too dumb and not smart like you. And obviously, being a capitalistic democrat just sidelines me completely. I'm hopeless! Hilarious that we get to this over disagreement of what constitutes encouragement. A person like you is the exact kind of person I look to for answers to moral questions. A person that within a few posts demeans another person completely. This is where Pac would say "You need to get off my dick". I used to be like you like ten years ago so I'm not gonna hate too much but you need to look at yourself lol.

[BayAreasFinest]

This has turned Into a full on debate lol. Basically if you're white don't say the n word.

Mods please close the topic now lol

[Slut]

This has turned Into a full on debate lol. Basically if you're white don't say the n word.

Mods please close the topic now lol

That shouldn't be the right answer though. It's pure racism to have words that can only be said if your skin pigmentation is the correct one.