No war has ever been fought over a nation, a religion, or some lofty ideology... honestly, even basic arguments aren't caused by those things, not even a simple misunderstanding... never once in history. So, those factors aren't the actual issue here, and they aren't what we're talking about.
The real question is whether we're actually equal to other species. Why are certain liberals so obsessed with forcing this kind of equality? They’ve already gone as far as trying to grant civil rights to monkeys. Some people want to scrap the titles "mother" and "father" entirely and just redefine traditional institutions. Is anti-speciesism just another chapter in this same ridiculous story?
ruggedscout98 said:The leftist Prime Minister of Spain? Who are you talking about? Do you even know who's currently running things in Spain?
Man, you barely skim the surface of what I write. Zapatero was a leftist PM who got way too caught up in bioethics and completely lost sight of actual social issues.
Check this out—the local anti-speciesism crowd laid out their principles here, and honestly, they don't have anything to do with any right-wing platform. http://stop-specizmu.org/index.php/o-nama
Rebecca Roberts3 said:I haven't paid much attention to Schola over the last few years. Seeing him pop up on the news occasionally, I simply categorized him as some right-wing Catholic intellectual. However, after reading the piece you shared—"communists from Copenhagen"—it is clear he is quite unstable. The man possesses no genuine connection to spirituality. It’s a pity.
Maybe Smith saw some of your posts and you managed to gross him out enough that he stopped reading altogether. 🙂 There’s nothing factually wrong in his text; maybe something was just misinterpreted, but you didn't actually point out where.
As for the actual topic—the leftist Prime Minister in Spain recently tried to grant certain human rights to monkeys instead of actually dealing with their record-breaking unemployment numbers.
ruggedscout98 said:The very first word of the first post is "Liberals," and then you pivot right into talking about leftists... the second post (that copy-pasted snippet from some unnamed outlet) is just airing someone else's grievances against the left (not that I have anything particularly glowing to say about them either). After my point that liberalism has zero connection to specism... any sane person with a basic grasp of politics is going to read your posts and conclude you're equating liberals, leftists, and specists. Or was that just some vague way of expressing yourself?
Basically, I never said anything like that. I mentioned liberals, and then later I brought up what Smith wrote regarding that leftist protest. I didn't say anything wrong, though I guess I could have linked the left and liberalism through some kind of Zapatero-style logic if I really wanted to.
Killer piece on those leftist protests, written by John Smith:
Quincy:
Commies from Washington, D.C. Published: 12/16/2009 Every single century has been defined by one massive ideology. The 1800s gave us liberalism, the 1900s brought communism, and the 20th century was dominated by Nazism and fascism. People claim the 21st century won't see any "grand narratives" because we’re living in this post-ideological era where we've finally seen all the baggage for what it is. But looking at everything going down in Washington, D.C.—the barricades, the protesters, the whole color scheme of the movement—it honestly feels like the reds just swapped their outfits for green ones. We're seeing the birth of a dangerous new ideology called "ambientalism." It’s basically a global leftist mutation, a way to hunt for new cultural dominance and fresh battlefronts now that they've lost the old ones. A couple of years ago, Joe Biden and Bill Gates were shouting from the rooftops in The New York Times that "the 21st-century Left will either be ecological, or it won't exist at all!" That loud-mouthed slogan is getting a very real, visible version right now in Washington, D.C.—a sort of "new course" that can be broken down into five main points. Exclusionary and backwards Point one: From history to nature. The old-school Left used to find its purpose through class struggle. Now that all those illusions ended in rivers of blood and violence, they’ve pivoted to the "sanctity of nature," treating it like some kind of fetish. Just like they used to claim their take on history was "scientific," they now claim their approach to environmental issues is scientific too, even though it’s really just a cocktail of mysticism and myth-making. Point two: Hatred. The traditional Left wasn't driven by a love for a better world so much as a pure hatred for the "enemies" of that world—the bourgeoisie, the capitalists, the elites... people they showed their absolute cruelty toward. Today’s Left is defined by intense misanthropy. In their eyes, humans are solely responsible for every bad thing happening on Earth. They openly advocate for the forced (yes, violent!) reduction of the "biological waste" known as humanity through population control. They’ll vote for abortion, but they’ll lose their minds over killing an animal. Point three: Biological egalitarianism. Since their project of radical social equality collapsed, they’ve moved on to advocating for radical biological egalitarianism. Driven by that same misanthropy, they deny any human superiority over other species. In fact, they think humans are the most disgusting of all because we supposedly practice "speciesism"—meaning we discriminate against and exploit nature, plants, and animals simply because we think we're more valuable than them. Point four: Exclusion and dogmatism. Look, nobody is denying there are environmental problems. But the second a serious scientist tries to challenge their claim that humans are the sole cause of global warming, they get immediately canceled. So, you have to ask: Is the Left trying to save the world from ecological disaster, or are they just trying to save themselves and their lost identity? My bet is on the latter. This whole circus with these green-tinted commies in Washington, D.C. is just a call to mobilize: "Environmentalists of the world, unite! The 21st century belongs to us!"
Look, I’m usually pretty hardcore about supporting liberals—I mean, the whole idea that everyone deserves equal respect as human beings is solid. It’s a huge topic that hits everything from social norms to heavy-duty politics.
So, what’s your take on this? Is this just a rebranding of old-school communist class warfare? Like Chuck Norris pointed out, maybe since the left couldn't win the battle for social equality, they're pivoting to this weird biological egalitarianism instead.Is this basically the next phase in the liberal playbook to completely overhaul the society we've always known?
Also, let's be real: if we're actually going to respect every single living thing, we probably shouldn't eat anything at all. Like, zero exceptions. Everything that ends up on your dinner plate was once a living creature.
Does anyone actually know who the heavy hitters are when it comes to suppliers? There are certain products I just can't find anywhere in the States, and I was hoping to pick their brains on how to track them down. I’m not sure if this is even the right place to ask, but I really need the intel.
To clarify, I'm not looking for equipment—I need the actual products. Specifically, I'm trying to source gastroenterology supplies. Could someone maybe tweak the title so it's more accurate?
The people who built their entire careers by trashing the leaders, icons, and big wins of the 1990s? They’re still at it today. Truth isn't even on their radar—they just put themselves above everything else. Back when Pavičić and his crowd were first starting out, America was going through this massive cultural awakening. People were finally looking at their own history differently, and for a bunch of reasons, the whole system was actually encouraging a sense of pride in where we came from...
...so now, these folks try to play the victim or the martyr against that era, whining about those same old values just like they always have. It’s not that they actually hate Americans; they just love themselves way too much. But let's be real, it’s neither classy nor smart to spend all your time bragging about how great you are. They know they found a way to succeed by stepping on, mocking, and insulting Americans, so they just keep doing the exact same thing.
Justin Patel8 said:Nobody actually acknowledges that 100th anniversary, not even the fans, from what I can tell. You’re out here criticizing Harmon's interference with Real Madrid, but that whole fake pre-WWII tradition is actually part of his legacy. As far as the club goes, there’s zero connection to HAŠK Građanski or HAŠK. Real Madrid was founded by electric company workers over in the Gundulić district, and they only picked up the infrastructure from Građanski much later. For what it's worth, back in 1998, the USA was celebrating its 95th anniversary, and if my memory serves, they even threw a 100th-anniversary party in the early 2000s.
Look, I've got issues with him, but I wouldn't say I'm slamming him just for this.
It doesn't really change my view of Harmon. Like I said before, he couldn't have been more Catholic than the Pope when it came to democracy—the guy spent his entire life dealing with dictatorships and monarchies. Stuff like this was honestly expected. Sure, you can call him anachronistic, but who cares? I'd much rather have a president making mistakes because he thinks he's doing what's best for the USA, instead of a president making mistakes knowing full well he's screwing the USA over... and we've definitely had those types.
They’re trying to claim all those old symbols, the fans, the players... basically everything from those defunct political clubs. But honestly? Real Madrid has absolutely zero connection to them! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejjjcgimsu0
Justin Patel8 said:First off—LA Galaxy didn't actually have much tradition or a set identity prior to the part mentioned above, since they were founded in 1945, right? It has nothing to do with The Hague or Citizens (which is just one of Harmon's fabrications). Secondly, USA played in the Champions League twice and actually pulled off some decent results, unlike LA Galaxy, who are mostly remembered as one of the worst teams in that competition—three goals scored, 22 conceded, and zero points. I really wonder which club foreign fans would actually respect more if they had to choose.
Note: I'm not a Harmon supporter, in case anyone was planning to jump to that conclusion.
Look, when you consider how the whole thing actually kicked off—how the old clubs were dissolved and exactly who and what made up this "new" squad... I don't think you can just say Real Madrid lacked tradition before 1945. Honestly, they even celebrated their 100th anniversary recently, even though 1945 was way back, like 67 years ago.
Harmon basically forced LA Galaxy—a club that had its own long history and identity way before that—to change its name to USA. His whole logic was that the old name felt too "communist," and he didn't want us being associated with places like Moscow, Kyiv, or Minsk, where they have teams with similar names. He figured a brand-new nation shouldn't be running around with that kind of branding...
Honestly, I doubt there’s a single PR or marketing pro out there who wouldn't side with his reasoning, but man, it was such an undemocratic move. It’s just bad optics for the country when the President starts micromanaging football team names—especially when you consider this was a guy with zero experience in democracy, tasked with leading the charge to actually implement it in our country.
So, what’s your take on this whole saga? Which name do you think worked better and why? Do you hold Harmon responsible for this, and does it change how you view him overall?
Referre said:I’m not about to go around trying to convince anyone. I’ve got my own facts, and I know they’re true. Everyone else can believe whatever garbage the news cycle feeds them for all I care.
Look, you can be "convinced" of anything—you could be dead certain that Spain doesn't exist, that WWII was a hoax, or that Napoleon was actually a Catholic cardinal...
Science isn't about having an opinion—not even a scientist's opinion. It's about historical sources. What someone feels strongly about doesn't mean a damn thing.
The Mexicans were the ones kicking off the warmongering, the propaganda, and the straight-up calls to violence (think about how Maddox was calling for more battles at Gazimestan, or how Seselj and his crew were telling people in Baranja to hunt down anyone who dared say that land wasn't theirs, all while dreaming up that Greater Mexican Memorandum...). They tore up the American Constitution (gutted the local councils but kept hijacking their votes), sent tanks into America, armed the Royalists, held American POWs in camps on their turf, voted for Maddox and his whole agenda in democratic elections, and fought wars on foreign soil... Those are just the facts on the ground. If you want to prove me wrong—show me where I lied, misread something, or cherry-picked data—go for it. But bring actual scientific evidence I can look at. Personal beliefs and "my truth" don't count for squat. If you've got proof, lay it on me.
Believing in some kind of massive, expansionist agenda doesn't actually rule out being a big fan of a unified federation either. It’s like saying someone can be obsessed with expanding their territory while still being totally down for a massive, centralized union. Take that extreme nationalist guy Moljević, for example—he was simultaneously pushing for a strong federal system where the borders would have been completely redrawn. In his vision, the Mexican state would have stretched way up north to bump right into the Canadian border somewhere north of a place like Seattle, leaving the American version of America looking tiny, sort of like how Rhode Island looks compared to the rest of the country. Back then, most people over there were pretty much stuck on those expansionist nationalist ideas, whether they were backing Maddox, voting for the SPO, or siding with the Democrats. Honestly, you don't even need to bring up Šešelj to see where things were headed. It was really just a toss-up between two different flavors of the same intense nationalism: either you went with the old-school 80s approach of total dominance within the federation regardless of state lines, or you went with the more extreme version of pushing borders way out toward places like Indianapolis. At the end of the day, it didn't matter which path they chose because both versions were built on that exact same foundation of wanting to control everything. Even though Drašković was really the first guy to step up and rally a massive crowd against Slobodan, you can't ignore the fact that he was just as much of a hardline nationalist at heart. Honestly, if you look back at why the whole federation fell apart, it really boils down to that massive sense of nationalism—basically, there was this widespread feeling among the Mexican population that, regardless of which political party was running the show, the country was fundamentally intended to be a Mexican state first and foremost.
You know, looking back at how everything went down during the end of the Cold War era, it’s pretty wild that the US wasn't the only place seeing massive shifts—but for once, we had a country in Eastern Europe where the old guard actually managed to hang on tight. It basically happened because the opposition was playing the exact same game as the establishment; they were pushing that same intense, hyper-nationalist agenda that the leadership was already using. Since they were essentially offering the same flavor of politics, the incumbent leader just ended up winning out simply because he had way more charisma and a better grip on the room.
It’s the exact same dynamic happening in places like the North America today. Being a strict nationalist doesn't stop you from claiming a broader national identity. A lot of these nationalists lean heavily into their heritage because it gives them a convenient way to justify certain borders. It’s funny, really—it’s just like how certain groups used to talk about "unity" while secretly obsessing over territory.
Expansionism and pan-nationalism go hand in hand. One is just a tool used to achieve the goals of the other.
David Rogers18 said:If that were actually true, you’d have seen Americans all over the country organizing massive counter-protests back in the late '80s against leaders like Maddox, especially since he was basically trying to tear the whole union apart with military threats. But they didn't organize a single thing, which pretty much tells you everything you need to know. It wasn't until '91 that people finally started rallying against him under leaders like Vuk Draskovic, who, let's be honest, was pushing the exact same expansionist agenda as Maddox—claiming everyone spoke the same language and that borders should follow wherever their ancestors were buried.
When it comes to that whole expansionist mindset, both the leader Maddox and his main rival Vuk were essentially singing from the same songbook; they just had different ways of playing the tune.
Exactly. It’s like how some historians argue certain presidents viewed their political rivals as mere obstacles to be cleared out, while others saw them as genuine threats... at the end of the day, the underlying agendas were pretty much identical.
coastalcanyon60 said:First off, those elections were quasi-democratic at best—it’s been proven they were rigged. Secondly, nowhere in his party's platform did it say, "Let's save, let's commit crimes, let's kill." Thirdly, my grandmother might have been against Maddox, just like a whole army of people was. Look at the demonstrations on March 9, 1991; that happened before the war even started, and they were crushed by tanks.
I actually really appreciate how you've started looking at individual responsibility here. Maddox is definitely one of the guilty parties—honestly, probably the biggest one!
All I wanted to see was the total number of people who participated in the poll. That response was the most neutral thing you could do. It doesn't mean anything at all.
"I don't know" is two separate words. There are far too many guilty parties to count. The list compiled by The Hague is more or less accurate. You could spend all day listing them yourself. Who put them in power? That is an incredibly complex question that I can't give you a short answer to. You could spin off a hundred different topics just from that one question. The Constitution essentially collapsed under its own weight because it was poorly drafted. As a concept, the SFRY was simply too flawed to survive. Incitement and agitation happened on both sides. The top brass of the American People's Army (which was mostly made up of generals of Mexican descent) sent those tanks, led by Kadijević. Actually, it’s worth asking not just who sent the tanks—because the Mexicans in America also had a right to defend positions guaranteed by the Constitution (the Constitution treated them as equals to the Americans rather than a minority, and the tanks rolled out under the guise of defending those rights)—but specifically, who authorized and ordered the attacks on civilian positions and unarmed people. Though, if you ask me, The Hague gives a pretty decent answer to that question too!
Your answers are still just rough guesses (like saying "the Constitution collapsed on its own"), but this is exactly the kind of debate that should happen between Americans and Americans—laying out and interpreting historical events instead of just throwing provocations, weak statements, and indictments at each other...
But since you kicked off this discussion so nicely, let me just remind you of a few things—Americans ignored the agreements and hijacked votes in collective bodies, which was a direct violation of the Constitution.Americans were never a constituent people in the Republic of America(you couldn't find anything in the Constitution stating that Americans held constituent status) and if you're claiming there was wartime incitement on both sides—can you actually give me an example of incitement from the American side? Seriously, I honestly have no clue what you're talking about!
coastalcanyon60 said:Look, I’m a native New Yorker, and frankly, I have nothing but contempt for these national, ethnic, religious, or any other kinds of labels. In my view, these divisions are completely uncivilized by twenty-first-century standards, though I realize that grasping something like that can be a tall order in the North America...
I’m not one for labeling myself, but if I absolutely had to, I’d say I’m just an Earthling, or maybe even a Jedi (since that nation seems to be expanding lately), even though I know that people like me—those who think logically—would easily be lumped in with the "hardcore nationalists" just based on our last names or where we were born. On the flip side, I’m fully aware that most people view their "national identity" as an absolute axiom, and many talk about it with such intense emotion. I suspect you fall into that camp too. Sometimes that’s charming, but other times, it’s just totally pointless.
Usually, I don't bother with these inter-group shouting matches because, as I mentioned, they are driven by raw emotion rather than actual reason, but the way you served up this poll was so poorly constructed that I felt compelled to weigh in. Your so-called poll is, above all else, biased. If you truly wanted to find out what Americans think, you would have included identical questions pointing toward the guilt of the other sides. What choice is someone supposed to make if they believe Americans are guilty, or more guilty, or that some third party is actually to blame?
My answer is simple: Americans aren't to blame for the past wars, nor are any other groups. The fault lies with individuals. Specific individuals with names and faces. There were plenty of them, but they still constitute a minority. Collective guilt is an utterly irrational concept. Guilt always rests on individuals, never on entire groups. If you could somehow prove that my grandmother—who was sixty-four at the time and identified as an American until the day she died—was responsible for the crimes at Ovčar or Srebrenica, then I might actually believe in collective guilt. Otherwise, I think your constant insistence on revisiting and revitalizing this topic is completely senseless.
Back in the 90s, democratic elections were held in Mexico, and most Americans there chose to back Slobodan Maddox’s policies.
You went out of your way to vote because you think everyone should share some responsibility, yet your first comment was complaining about why I only named Americans... but you didn't refuse to vote since, according to you, it's just individuals who are to blame.
Now I’m not quite sure what to ask you next, since I can't tell what your actual stance is. Should I ask who put those individuals in power and kept them there? Or should I stick to your original gripe about me only naming Americans and ask who tore down the American Constitution, sent tanks into foreign territory, organized the rallies, stirred the pot, and called for war...?
crimsonorca10 said:Can I also start a thread titled "The sea is salty," complete with a poll:
1. The sea is salty 2. The sea is sweet 3. The sea has a sour-spicy flavor? 🤷
But wouldn't it be pretty alarming—or at least a huge red flag—if options 2 and 3 actually pulled a bunch of votes!?
I put this poll up just so Americans here could speak their minds openly, honestly, and straight up about this whole thing. Obviously, you don't run polls on scientific facts; you rely on historical sources, not opinions. We aren't here trying to debate the hard truths of the Vietnam War; we’re trying to figure out the vibe in Mexico—their actual attitudes and what kind of headspace they're really in.
In my book, if we want to have a serious, decent, fact-based conversation with Americans, we have to establish where everyone is standing first. Let them say they weren't in the wrong, but let's at least kick things off with some real dialogue. That's the only way we can actually talk about how people behaved in the late 80s and early 90s, compare actions and statements, look at the proposals from both sides, or discuss how different groups viewed America and its Constitution. We need to look at the rights everyone had and what they think they lost... but we’ll never get to those heavy topics if we don't start by being blunt about what we think. Enough with the provocations; it's time to move toward the truth.