Couldn’t put in any better myself. Honestly I couldn’t.
I’m not happy about Brexit, and I’m not happy about the Conservative party having the majority, but unfortunately that’s how the UK works.
The people spoke and that’s what we got. Then again it can always be worse!
Spoke wisely in less then three fucking words…i don’t know what those words were. But you sound wise…but fuck you and your wisdom!
Thank you Mass, that means a lot coming for you! x
i came allover your momma’s mother tongue.
I think you need to be put back on the dugar
Damn!!! Now I feel like I must come clean.
I almost suffocated your dad the other night when I was sitting on his face.
I’m glad this thread took a healthy turn
Alrighty, you’re obviously mixing LSD and alcohol.
Last thing im gonna bother saying to your monkey-brained ass.
It’s a bad reflection on you that your logic is worse than that of a man who gets hypnotised by staring at cake beaters.
Don’t do drugs, hate 'em. Wouldn’t be opposed to them being legal since I’m all for freedom above all else, but I’d never touch 'em myself. They personally disgust me. Same with tattoos & piercings, could never partake in stuff like that. Haven’t had a drink in roughly 5 months either. Made myself a promise to not touch alcohol so as to not end up like certain other members of my family. Same with smoking, mother was a HEAVY smoker, hated that shit.
Its all all grains and multivitamin supplment fucs!
It’s the best system we got tho, right? Does it fail this this respect everywhere? Sweden, Finland, Norway? (I really don’t know, but supposedly those countries are more politically pure).
I wonder if things were better at any point in existence for a democracy. For example, when USA won it’s independence form England, were democratic/republican ideas less oppressive then as compared to how they are now?
I have some bad news about USA’s oppression of minorities when it first won independence
Slavery, correct. That’s was going on during British rule as well. And I’m sure women had less rights. All of that changed eventually, but i mean it terms of democracy, elections, representation of population otherwise. Was it worse than the system we have now with gerrymandering, money in politics, conflicts of interest, career politicians, how congress workers (as opposed to being at each other’s necks nowadays and hardly cooperating)?
Well no because without democracy we wouldn’t have overturned slavery, had the civil rights movement, and so on. Giving the people the ability to make their voice heard is the best path towards to social advancement… next to bloodshed. But ya know, best to have that as a last resort. Violence is the language of the unheard & all that.
Maybe, it’s not like those things happened peacefully and in a democratic manner tho. There were countries with monarchy who had no slavery or got rid of it (Russia; i may be wrong but I’m sure there were no slaves there before the Revolution). Also, some monarchies may have had a weaker version of civil rights; i got no example, but perhaps monarchy could be progressive/benevolent dictators.
See this is tricky to word because I hate the way it sorta has to be worded in the first place. Before we go further, I’ll make it clear that I am not a Progressive, I’m an Egalitarian & believe in meritocracy. So, with that established…
The existence of a Monarchy is inherently anti-progressive. You can’t have a progressive society with a Monarchy because a Monarchy necessitates that certain people are inherently made to be better than everybody else through the family they are born or marry in to. Meaningful social advancement cannot happen in such a society because there is a group of people who are at the top and have not been Elected into that position nor have they worked to get & maintain said position.
They are not perfect societies and there is a metric ton of flaws, but the most progressive & socially advanced form of society known to man is that of a Democratic Capitalist society. Democracy ensures, in theory, that the masses get a say in what their society does. Capitalism ensures, in theory, that anybody can attain power & status through hard work & effort. It’s turbulent & not always pretty, but such societies are where you see the most rapid social advancement.
Again, not pretty, not perfect. But compared to Feudalism, Communism & Fascism: such a society makes others look like savages.
I’ve had this exact convo several times and there is one point in my defence of Capitalism, and by extension Democracy, I make time & time again because I find it to be the most structurally sound & speaking from personal experience: most re-occuring benefit of such societies. I’mma go find it because I have it saved on a personal server somewhere & copy & paste it here for you to read @Anyt1m3
I do agree that change and some sense of equity and equality will happen faster in a democratic society.
@Anyt1m3 So here’s one of the bigger arguments I have in favor of why Capitalist, Democratic societies are the best for social advancement & progression: especially when it comes down to the subject of poverty & lifting people out of it.
I don’t look at it in a way that portrays Capitalism as good, even though on the grand scale of things I do believe it to be so. I look at it more how the alternatives to Capitalism are inferior to it or outright bad. i.e. Socialism. I also think that a lot of the issues that people who fall into Socialism have a narrower view of history than is ideal when talking about such important issues.
Most of the time, having the latest they look back on be the turn-of-the-century from 1800s to the 1900s. but I think if you’re going to appropriately adjust what is poverty and or slavery amongst humanity it’s more present to use the time of Pax Romana as your latest era to look at and compare to now. I think because of this lack of scale we are seeing a deep lack of gratitude, not to anyone in particular but to society and progress as a whole.
Gratitude that the earth as a whole has gone from 82% of its entire population being in what we would consider now extreme poverty 200 years ago in 1820, to between 50 and 60% of the world’s population living in poverty in 1920 (only 100 years ago). To now, when estimated only 36% of the world’s population live in poverty. And of course, combine that data with the ever-increasing total global population. An estimated 1 billion in the year 1820, to 1,791,496,000* in 1920, to around 7.8 billion in 2020
82% of 1Billion (1,000,000,000) = 82Million (82,000,000)
55% of 1Billion791Million (1,791,000,000) = 985Million50Thousand (985,050,000)
36% of 7Billion800Million (7,800,000,000) = 2Billion808Million (2,808,000,000)
No one should look at those numbers and consider the job of eradicating poverty to the best of our abilities finished, but when you take the 1820s the 1920s and the 2020s and look at what countries were around during all three areas as well as new countries that have been formed and solidified in the time being examined: it’s very easy to see a correlation between economic growth, lessening poverty and the embracement of capitalist ideals and free trade agreements, in comparison to isolationist policies and insular nations.
You can even look at it if they’re from a smaller time capsule. The splitting of Korea. The Korean war all intents and purposes ended on the 27th of July 1953. Since then you have seen the development of two societies. And to starkly contrasting economies, and I highly doubt even our most staunchly socialist of friends if being forced to move to either of the two nations would choose the North.
