Share Political Videos

Post Reply New Topic

I think MLK proved that non-violence works better to instigate social change.

I agree. MLK was a very respectful person that understood violence only escalates violence, it touches peoples hearts when you go to extremes to prevent violence, his method allowed many to understand how devastating racism is which caused the majority to fight for the right causes and evaluate themselves. When people are responding with violence on both sides, it simply escalates to war and millions die. That's why I say it's much better for people to try to come together rather than further divide.

Also, Daryl Davis took the same approach. A black man attending KKK meetings just trying to talk to them and convinced over 200 klansmen to denounce their membership.

This white guy is homeless. Some woman claims he has white privilege, His reply "I live on the f****** street woman!".




...yea, real noble crowd.

Antifa's thought pattern...

Anyone who disagrees are against us, are Nazis and fascists.(Despite the persons or peoples actual views)

Any ideology, even anti-fascism, which is a moral position, can be misused and misunderstood. The true fight is at the ballot box, and the true enemies are those who don't want you to vote and do everything in their power to prevent it.

Agree

Trump's a yayhoo, more of an entertainer and buffoon than anything. Where does the idea come from that he endorses fascism?

I really think - if there's any silver-lining to the Trump-hatred, it's that people are seeing crony-capitalism / corporatism properly for the first time and even though it's gone on for more than five different presidents it's finally getting understood because a guy is in office people hate.


Republicans like gulags, Siberian death camps, and mass starvations of farmers?


Whose afraid of European style Social Democracies? The alt-right? Rural Christians? Or are you claiming a broader swath than that?

Everything he says and does.



They like Guantanamo and concentration camps for immigrants. It doesn't have to be that extreme to be really bad.


Republicans. They are on this forum calling universal health care and green initiatives the same as Stalinism. I know the smart ones don't believe it, but they know such fear sells their grifting to the yokels.

He's not even a proper Republican really, more like a rogue centrist without most of the better traits one would want in that area.



I get that some people would like to see more illegals deported than kept or given amnesty, I don't think it's that well thought out (too many people kicked the can down the road for decades for that to even be practical) but I'm not sure whose for concentration camps for immigrants. That's like wanting to keep them, force them to do far less useful things, and pour vindictiveness and malice out at your own loss.


As far as I can tell we probably are headed for single payer and I think most of the people complaining about this sort of thing would be better served actually focusing on figuring out how to make it the most effective or least wasteful single-payer they could rather than worry about whether it's Stalinist. Technically if it comes to it, in the next ten or fifteen years, we may need UBI not for desires for socialism but because the availability of jobs and the notion of justifying your existence by what you do for work will be so gutted that UBI will be needed to stave off all-out civil war and revolution.

This is part of why I really prefer people like Bret and Eric Weinstein as well as Sam Harris on these issues, ie. they can think outside both liberal and conservative boxes and even from the center-left give a good amount of circumspection about what the risks are and just how different the environment may become as our innovation changes the landscape. Bret Weinstein has spoken often about the idea that there can be cultural adaptations that work really well in one environment but as the environment that made it work well dries up, changes, or transforms into a new kind of environment that previously advantageous adaptation is no longer advantageous. Capitalism as our welfare system was kind of like this in the 20th century and as a welfare system it's veracity as such is sagging under the weight of it's own innovative success.

I can worry about the Republican Party's autocratic tendencies and universal health care at the same time. Trump's tax cuts for the wealthy prove he's a con man, not a populist.

You may not appreciate her (she identifies as a trans woman now) satirical sense of humour, but you asked for political videos and I love introducing new people to Contrapoints.

I think you completely misunderstand me, I watched half of this video, just like I read half of that article. What this trans-woman is suggesting, just like the article, is a narrow minded individual which thinks they know everything and draw radical conclusions. I do not claim left or right because I remain open to view points on both sides. The thing is it's very tricky to decide where we need to go from here. Both sides make good arguments, the left wants to attempt to help everyone, which is a very noble cause. They want to supply things like free education, very reasonable and helpful. While the right understands that yes, that is very noble of you, the problem comes when the education offered is almost useless in a lot of cases(not all). Private schools offer way better education. So the right makes the suggestion that everything the government sticks its hands in is a complete disaster and costs a lot of money(which for the most part is very accurate). The left wishes to expand government to restrict more and more things, I understand why(few individuals containing the majority of wealth is obviously bad). The counter to that is if you hand too much power to the government you get the exact same result yet it's more difficult for someone to rise from poor to rich. I don't pretend to have to correct solutions. I'm very skeptical of anyone who insists 'they know what to do'. It's very tricky because of the corruption factor, people are corrupt. There is no way that I know of to rid a system from corruption, the right is aware of this and that is what they mostly fear(Hence the smaller government argument). In a really small system, meaning a low population, it is easier to spot and deal with corruption. The bigger the governed population, the harder it is for the average person to even know what is going on(that is factual).

Me personally, I would love for us to have shared wealth(equal stakes in wealth). The very important thing is to ensure that actually occurs, seems any attempt to do that within a huge population results in corruption and wealth ends up in the hands of a minority ruling over a majority(The corruption factor).

This trans-women is narrow minded because she only recognizes one side of the argument and draws radical conclusions like anyone who may be conservative is either a fascist or is too stupid to realize the ideas they have are drawn from fascists. The problem with that is someone can come to these understandings on their own. People who only see one side of all arguments are narrow minded. Like that article, anyone who uses the words logic, rational, fact & reason are conservatives. She(assumption by reading the angle), obviously had a bad relationship and felt she was much smarter than her conservative boy friend/or husband, and he apparently felt he was smarter than her, two narrow minded people with conflicting views spells trouble.

I actually did read the first half of that extremely long opinion piece, it was hard because right off the bat I saw radical conclusions being drawn, but I pressed on anyway. The reason I objected to the philosophical meaning of such 'conservative' words is because I prefer definition over philosophy of a word and what it means. Take for example, reasoning. What it means to reason or use logic is...

A very simple example. One can use logic to conclude that if I were to grab a razor to trim a candle, I could think it out, what risks could there be in pulling the blade towards me? Well, if the blade slips, I could quickly pull the blade towards my arm potentially severely cutting myself. Now that I have thought about this potential risk I can conclude that it would be a much safer bet to cut the candle by pushing the blade away from my body so if it manages to slip I will not risk getting cut. Reasoning is a way to try to predict outcomes rather than tossing caution to the wind and learning strictly from experience. (Think things out).

* and yes, you are more than welcome to post videos here, it doesn't bother me, your sarcasm wasn't justified, I'm not trans-phobic, In fact on page one you will notice that I have already posted a video of an interview with a trans-woman in which I agree with, the same video is also on the first page of the topic where you shared that article. And I agree with a lot of points she made.

Last edited by Crimadella on 19 Feb 2019, 10:31 am, edited 2 times in total.

I think we can have the best of both worlds. Government should do things where a profit motive would be bad, like health care and Social Security, and corporations can do what they do best, rewarding hard work and innovation, and raising capital from people who want to assume the risk- as long as they are regulated to prevent economic collapse.

I've often wondered what kind of results we could get if we got a huge group of our top scientists to hash it out in an attempt to design a system which benefits all and has low corruption risk, if that is even possible? Scientists most definitely are more capable of producing a better system versus politicians and you average person voting for the side they prefer. Has that ever been attempted(by our top scientists)?

That trans woman that you think isn't open minded is far more educated than you--she was going for her PhD in philosophy when she left academia. And she is way more open-minded than you are giving her credit for. She treats the subjects she talks about with as little bias as possible, and tries to present both sides of an issue with research and with care and fairness. That you only watched half the video and then stopped because you disagree, once again, shows who is really not open-minded here. You will only truly consider material from people you already agree with, and if you disagree you stop listening and don't take in any new information. Your mind is closed and you think you are without bias, just like every other close-minded person on this forum. Your lack of education and your unwillingness to consider facts that don't support your world view shows when you make threads like this.