Let's talk about suppression

tabzer · Sep 30, 2022

Nothereed said:
Your allowing the goverment to control people's bodies. I don't care if it's state or federal. It's a can of worms that shouldn't be ever opened at all. As your empowering the state (European version for goverment) to take away rights.

Government rules bodies of people (and their bodies). The can of worms was opened with monarchs (or kings).

If you understand decentralization of rule to be a good thing (which I am mind to), then further decentralization would be even better. The outcome would eventually be individuals to have more control of themselves.

The reversal on RvW empowers the state to take and give rights on the subject.

tabzer · Sep 30, 2022

Nothereed said:
"You may think that everyone should live in a place where slavery shouldn't be happening, but not everyone wants to live in communities like that"

We are slaves. This "Democracy" didn't end slavery. It regulated it.

Deleted member 586536 · Sep 30, 2022

tabzer said:
Government rules bodies of people (and their bodies). The can of worms was opened with monarchs (or kings).

If you understand decentralization of rule to be a good thing (which I am mind to), then further decentralization would be even better. The outcome would eventually be individuals to have more control of themselves.

The reversal on RvW empowers the state to take and give rights on the subject.

Except that's not how that works.
Decentralization requires that the transition of power is NOT ANOTHER STATE

It's not decentralizing if your fucking funneling into another overarching government. Because that's what states (american version) are. They're just a big government that swollowed city government, swallowed within another larger government.

tabzer · Sep 30, 2022

Nothereed said:
Decentralization requires that the transition of power is NOT ANOTHER STATE

No. Decentralization is the transition from a bigger part to smaller parts. California doesn't get to dictate Texas.

If your issue is with government having overarching reach, I'd agree that it doesn't matter if it is state or federal (national). But if you believe that you have freedom because the federal government gave it to you, then that's not really freedom.

Deleted member 586536 · Sep 30, 2022

That's like saying
"We at crypto inc love decentraling so much, that instead of having 1 center. We moved to another center. Truly revolutionary work has enabled this to happen. We are the most decentralized system into eh world"
If it was TRULY decentralized, it would be handled by many many MANY different entities of incredibly small scale, talking nehbiourhoods. Which the state (USA version) government, does not meet that bar at all.

Also a secondary requirement for something to remain decentralized is a form of decentralized power structure. Aka a power structure that does not defer power to the top, and inheritly attempts to maintain or at least doesn't push for top to bottom. Which surprise. The United States governments (federal,and state) fail that requirement. Rich people still have a say in elections, the people elected have almost zero accountability for their actions. And the poor have practically zero chance to represent themselves.

Deleted member 586536 · Sep 30, 2022

tabzer said:
No. Decentralization is the transition from a bigger part to smaller parts. California doesn't get to dictate Texas.

If your issue is with government having overarching reach, I'd agree that it doesn't matter if it is state or federal (national). But if you believe that you have freedom because the federal government gave it to you, then that's not really freedom.

You seem to not understand the core of leftism.
So let'a get through that.
A leftists is going to look at PRACTICAL effects. What is or has happened. Not what is on theory.

If biden decided to reduce student loan debt by 2,000 for each person. We would say "that's not meaningful change" and that's because it
A. Does not address the core issue aka the for profit education system
B. Does not account for the persons living standards. It would cut debt down now, but if they're in a dead end job because the market is shit, they're going to get right back there as interest over time occurs.
So therefore it's not meaningful change.

So let's look at roe v wade, specifically the removal.

What does removing roe v wade effectively allow?
It allow's states (European version) to regulate a person's body.
Sure they didn't say outright abortions are banned.
BUT THAT'S THE ONLY GAINNED RESULT
That's the ONLY change, practical result that occurs with it's ability to be removed or applied. That the state government can now regulate people's bodies.

This is not a decentralizing. This is centralizing power and trying to hide it with a paint job.

tabzer · Sep 30, 2022

Nothereed said:
That's like saying
"We at crypto inc love decentraling so much, that instead of having 1 center. We moved to another center. Truly revolutionary work has enabled this to happen. We are the most decentralized system into eh world"
If it was TRULY decentralized, it would be handled by many many MANY different entities of incredibly small scale, talking nehbiourhoods. Which the state (USA version) government, does not meet that bar at all.

It appears to be a very small step, but it is a step in that direction. If you want to talk about crypto, I'd be happy to entertain your misconceptions and the existential implication of different cryptos continuously being entertained.

Nothereed said:
Also a secondary requirement for something to remain decentralized is a form of decentralized power structure. Aka a power structure that does not defer power to the top, and inheritly attempts to maintain or at least doesn't push for top to bottom. Which surprise. The United States governments (federal,and state) fail that requirement. Rich people still have a say in elections, the people elected have almost zero accountability for their actions. And the poor have practically zero chance to represent themselves.

It never was decentralized, so there is nothing to "remain" decentralized.

Deleted member 586536 · Sep 30, 2022

@tabzer your seriously clowning again. I'm out. If you don't think empowering states to choose if it's a right or not is somehow decentralizing, when it blantly leads to centralized power.then I honestly don't want to hear your other bs.

tabzer · Sep 30, 2022

Nothereed said:
That's the ONLY change that occurs with it's removal. That the state government can now regulate people's bodies.

This is not a decentralizing. This is centralizing power and trying to hide it with a paint job.

That is decentralizing. Again, you agree that abortions should have freedom of access. There are many people who do not. You are choosing your way over theirs, preferring a centralized authority just because the outcome is in your preference. It's a case where you prefer a centralized power because "the choice is right". That's not even about decentralization.

Deleted member 586536 · Sep 30, 2022

tabzer said:
There are many people who do not. You are choosing your way over theirs, preferring a centralized authority just because the outcome is in your preference.

Yes because 40% of people wanted slaves still. And then that cursed 60% said.
"No we don't want that"
Oh I'm sorry. Right. That's abortion. Over 60% of the country has said " we want a right to choose"
The only effective result is silencing those people. Which the Republican party has demonstrated with trying to prevent people voting on fucking ANYTHING to stop their bs.

Deleted member 586536 · Sep 30, 2022

Here I can make anything sound good with the sound of decentralizing. (According to the logic of tabzer)
If right now the supreme court ruled that ruling on people's political beliefs is a bad idea, and it's a right. And then that precedent set for almost 50 years. And then it gets overturned and said that it can be by states. According to tabzer's logic this would be perfectly fine for states to ban Jews (because the state called it a political stance)
Because it's "decentralized" it would be considered a good thing. It's decentralizing the federal governments power. (While ignoring that it dispportinatly gave substantial power to the states, and therefore effectively centralizing power for a group of people who would favor such a stance. Since the only possible outcome is loosing that right. And ignoring the already existing problematic power structure)
If it sounds fucking stupid, that's because it absolutely should.

The right to choose on a per indvidual basis is better than saying yes or no entirely.

MadonnaProject · Sep 30, 2022

Its not that simple. Hitler didn't simply read a newspaper and form his opinion. At the time in germany, loans were rampant, people were suffering in economic crises created by banks and lenders very many of whom were "a certain kind of" individual if you know what I mean.

Society was riddled with corruption in every sense of the word, moral and otherwise. The nazi movement as actually a very left-wing movement.

Look into history. When americans read history they do so through the bias of their political aflication, and I think this is an inherent quality which they cannot escape from. As such they glean the most convenient message out of it. This is because americans are innately and inherently incapable of stepping out of their incredibly limited bubble. Mostly.

tabzer · Sep 30, 2022

Nothereed said:
Yes because 40% of people wanted slaves still. And then that cursed 60% said.
"No we don't want that"
Oh I'm sorry. Right. That's abortion. Over 60% of the country has said " we want a right to choose"
The only effective result is silencing those people. Which the Republican party has demonstrated with trying to prevent people voting on fucking ANYTHING to stop their bs.

Of the eligible voters in America, roughly over half of them make it to the vote. When every election cycle is somehow, predictably half and half, that means you have about %25 of eligible voters (ignore the disenfranchised--aka not even of the whole population) dictating the rule of all 50 states. With RvW appealed, 100% of the people who want abortion to be accessibly free can live somewhere in the country where it is supported. 100% of the people who want it locked down can also have the freedom to live somewhere in the country where that is supported. That is what that decentralizing allows.

Nothereed said:
Here I can make anything sound good with the sound of decentralizing. (According to the logic of tabzer)
If right now the supreme court ruled that ruling on people's political beliefs is a bad idea, and it's a right. And then that precedent set for almost 50 years. And then it gets overturned and said that it can be by states. According to tabzer's logic this would be perfectly fine for states to ban Jews (because the state called it a political stance)

That would be more decentralized, yes. Whether or not that states would do that is another story. In my opinion, it would be better for the choice to be allowed to the states (as opposed to being governed by a nationally encompassing entity) and all states deciding not to do so. That would be more of a "consensus", which I think is already there--but there isn't enough freedom to express that.

Nothereed said:
Because it's "decentralized" it would be considered a good thing. It's decentralizing the federal governments power. (While ignoring that it gave substantial power to the states)
If it sounds fucking stupid, that's because it absolutely should.

Decentralizing power is good because it moves power closer to the individual. If you think individuals, at their core, want slavery (and that's bad), then you think authoritarian measures are necessary.

You still haven't convinced me that we have transcended slavery. I believe the definition has been obscured, and more people are more like slaves, more than ever.

smf · Sep 30, 2022

lolcatzuru said:
why would you want to do that? they took power AWAY from the government.

No, they ONLY took power away from the people and gave it to the government.

smf · Sep 30, 2022

MadonnaProject said:
Society was riddled with corruption in every sense of the word, moral and otherwise. The nazi movement as actually a very left-wing movement.

No, Germany was crippled due to reparations from the first world war. The nazi movement was very right wing.

smf · Sep 30, 2022

tabzer said:
Repealing RvW put the ball into into the states' courts. It decentralized authority on the issue. The outcome will be for states to rise up for or against the issue. It gives people the choice to live in a place that allows it or a place that does not, within the country

Hopefully, there will be an exodus from those backward states but not everyone has the resources to do it. I think federal government should provide grants for women to move from states that hate them.

It turns out that these people aren't against government setting rules for people, as long as it's the rules they agree with.

Which makes that whole argument disingenuous.

So let's go back to what punishment should we dish out to those traitors responsible for overturning RvW?

smf · Sep 30, 2022

tabzer said:
but not everyone wants to live in communities like that.

Imagine someone so messed up they don't want to live in a community where other people do things with their bodies that they don't approve of.

Maybe we should vote on whether you're allowed to live? Some people won't want to live in a community with you.

As you say, the can of worms was opened with monarchs (or kings). Off with your head.

MadonnaProject · Sep 30, 2022

smf said:
No, Germany was crippled due to reparations from the first world war. The nazi movement was very right wing.

It is the hallmark of the left to automatically denounce and eradicate anything they disagree with. Right wing usually stands for a certain level of shared values whilst saying if you wish to live a certain way, you can but don't impose it on me.

smf said:
Imagine someone so messed up they don't want to live in a community where other people do things with their bodies that they don't approve of.

Maybe we should vote on whether you're allowed to live? Some people won't want to live in a community with you.

As you say, the can of worms was opened with monarchs (or kings). Off with your head.

Bit extreme. Which shows my point. No one has an issue with people living their lives and doing with their bodies as they please. What people take issue with is being roped into ascribing to the said ideology. An example is the trans movement. Most people will accept it and even use the "they" terminology even if they don't believe men can be women etc etc. However, the simple acknowledgement of this fact will invite extreme prejudice from the trans and supporting communities.

Also, the very notion of society is that of heirarchy. You can't have society without it. y very nature this means you'll have people at the top of the rung or "kings". I understand what you mean, but its pure fantasy. No society in history has or ever will have complete and utter equality. This is the very definition of society, it wouldn't be one otherwise.

smf · Sep 30, 2022

MadonnaProject said:
It is the hallmark of the left to automatically denounce and eradicate anything they disagree with. Right wing usually stands for a certain level of shared values whilst saying if you wish to live a certain way, you can but don't impose it on me.

You have that completely the opposite way round.

Another hall mark of the right wing is gaslighting.

MadonnaProject said:
Bit extreme. Which shows my point.

You understand I'm using his arguments against him, which shows my point? Right?

MadonnaProject · Sep 30, 2022

smf said:
You have that completely the opposite way round.

Another hall mark of the right wing is gaslighting.

You understand I'm using his arguments against him, which shows my point? Right?

You know, every few years your kind finds buzzwords. Then you use them so completely out of context they lose meaning. This is one of those instances.

Using his arguments against him in an extreme blithering way only serves to make you come out a bit silly.

It makes people think "gosh, why am I wasting my time with this person?". This is one of those instances.

Let's talk about suppression

This place is a meme.

This place is a meme.

Returned shipping and mailing

This place is a meme.

Returned shipping and mailing

Returned shipping and mailing

This place is a meme.

Returned shipping and mailing

This place is a meme.

Returned shipping and mailing

Returned shipping and mailing

Well-Known Member

This place is a meme.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum