Posts by goldenpuma84

Ryan Carter3 said:They didn't add anything to the burden. There was no eviction because a massive crowd of citizens stepped in to prevent it. If there is no eviction, there are no eviction costs. This family reached out to Living Wall for help because they have two small children—practically infants—and nowhere else to go this winter. They've exhausted every single option available to them. People traveled from all over the United States, organizing themselves and arriving by bus just to stand with them.

And once again, the riot police will show up.

And once again, the people will gather.

And once again, the riot police will show up.

And once again, the people will gather.

No matter how many times it takes.

But where will you go?
Where exactly are you going to hide from your own conscience?
There is nowhere to run!

So why don't any of you self-proclaimed humanitarians just offer up your own place for a bit? Just until the family gets back on their feet. Surely someone here would step up...

You talk about conscience? Doesn't it bother you to protect a group that illegally seized someone's property? Who's going to protect their rights, you hypocrites?

Sophia Moore52 said:In America, over 90% of people own their own home. There is a tiny group—less than 10%—who were either unable to secure housing or didn't qualify for affordable loans under the previous regime.

The catch is that a chunk of those properties were actually seized from people... and those folks didn't get much back, if anything at all.

It was basically the biggest heist in modern American history, pulled off by the Republican Party, yet you won't find a single thing about it in the mainstream media. It's like it never even happened.

And honestly, it doesn't even weigh on the national conscience anymore...

Heh, this smells like that Latin American Model approach to fixing social and economic issues. Kind of feels like we're stuck in the 70s...

Laura Wells2 said:As far as I'm concerned, this is a dealbreaker when I'm deciding how to vote. I will never cast my ballot for any candidate who claims Marshall was a positive figure.
How can I trust someone to build a better future if they refuse to deal honestly with the past?

Then did you ever actually vote for the Republican Party? Because the late leader always showed them nothing but blatant admiration, which makes Karamarkov's little story feel more like a return to... Marshall.

Megan Wilson2 said:Karl Marx wasn't an essentialist—not by a long shot. His whole pivot from idealism to materialism basically flips the script on the Hegelian logical relationship between being and becoming. To me, essentialism assumes that "being" is the bedrock of existence, which is really just a textbook idealist postulate. Marx, on the other hand, argued that existence has to come before being—meaning history itself had to exist before we could even come up with the concept of historicity. That makes him a totally different kind of historicist than Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. It’s simple: if the actual empirical evidence doesn't match our preconceived notions of what historicity looks like, then we don't actually understand the essence of history at all. This tendency to ignore empirical data? That's a leftover from Hegel, not Marx. The core distinction here is really just the gap between idealism and materialism—or, if you want to get technical, the divide between nominalism and essentialism.

I honestly feel like we're suffering from a massive surplus of Popperian errors here.

You're saying essentialism inherently treats being as the basis of existence, making it a total idealistic postulate.

Being is, if I'm reading you right, that thing that makes something what it is and prevents it from being anything else—the part that resists change and stays constant.

You claim Marx isn't an essentialist. Sure, you could argue that since practice isn't predetermined and humans shape it themselves—thereby molding their own nature and consciousness—it leaves no room for essentialism.

But isn't Marx's idea of "practice" just an empty vessel waiting to be filled with different content? And isn't the core idea that labor defines a human being deeply essentialist? Doesn't that imply existence is already steered toward a specific being that predetermines it? If so, can't a person not change that direction? Doesn't that mean being still precedes existence after all... making him an essentialist?

I bet Karl Marx would argue that anyone who tried to turn his philosophical works into a blueprint got it all wrong. To him, his ideas aren't tools you apply; they just eventually manifest themselves... sooner or later.

He’d probably also think he nailed the reality of the situation. Since he was such a historicist and an essentialist, he wasn't one to budge on his theories—if the data didn't match his predictions, then the data was clearly the problem.

In my view, he’d say it’s just a matter of waiting for his prophecy about the end of history to actually play out. He’d insist the core logic remains untouched and totally monolithic, maybe just admitting he was a little off on the timeline...

But hey, that’s just me speculating based on what we know about how those totalizing minds work.

Robin Hernandez4 said:If you actually want to learn how this stuff works, head over to the economics subforum where some of the sharper folks can point you toward the real deal. Don't just come in here dumping your total nonsense about some global conspiracy involving Masons or the Illuminati.

In theory, capitalism runs on free market principles where the price of goods—and money itself, via interest rates—is set by supply and demand...

If that were true, why do central banks exist to intervene and mess with those principles, even though maintaining their independence is basically the holy grail of neoliberal theory? Why isn't money lent based on the aggregate expectations of all potential investors regarding yield and risk, but rather based on the "wisdom" of credit rating agencies, as if they hold some divine Knowledge?...

Why didn't those same agencies warn anyone about the risks of subprime mortgages when they kept handing out top-tier ratings? How is it possible for a country to fake having 300 billion euros in debt without the experts at the rating agency noticing, while that same country keeps getting rated as perfectly stable?...

To me, this doesn't look like a world running on liberal capitalism, but one ruled by "independent regulators"...

Commenters are just competing to see who can talk most about the crisis of liberal capitalism. What a spin. In reality, we’re seeing a crisis of managed capitalism, driven by subtle methods of controlling the money supply and its market price, guided by forecasts from those expected to "know better" through labels like AAA or BB+...

gentlebison72 said:Ajde, why don't you explain exactly how the European Banking Union is going to fix that specific issue? 😁 😁 And why on earth would they care about fixing it in the first place?

With this disastrous decision, we’ve effectively surrendered our voting rights. We've downgraded our Congressional elections to the level of picking a local neighborhood council. We’ve stepped into an institution run purely by the interests of big capital, banks, and massive corporations—the same entities that have already gutted several countries within the European Union, including our own economy. That "golden toilet" you mentioned is a joke compared to the fire sale of our banks, telecom companies, and other prime assets being handed over to the masters of the European Union at a fraction of their actual value, likely with plenty of grease applied under the table. And then, our "brilliant" leaders, out of pure gratitude, vote to pay a yearly tribute of 600 million euros. They're basically signing up to fund those very same banks by paying off debts that were created using the exact same shady tactics. On top of that, those same leaders gave away the power to regulate our laws, tax policy, and economic "growth" on our own soil—a move that has already proven painful for both ourselves and others. This is just the tip of the iceberg; we've walked straight into a black hole.

After dealing with this brainwashing, the censorship, and the very likely possibility that everything is rigged, I'm done. I'm officially stepping away from participating in any elections here.

You see how this goes when a bank is locally owned—we saw it recently with Citibank and even back with Wells Fargo. These places operate like family rackets, where local power players and organized crime shake hands to treat deposits like a personal piggy bank... It’s not even real banking; it's just a way to launder money and dodge the law...

The current ones, the ones with foreign ownership, lean a bit green, but at least they’re stable and actually run like a business...

So, I'm curious—how many actual decisions have you been part of? How many legislative committees have you sat on? How many amendments have you actually drafted or opinions written... Can someone finally point out exactly when, where, and how "the people" get a say in this? The chance for an average person to debate a decision within the European Union isn't any higher or lower than it is back home in the USA. It’s always the political elites calling the shots, whether we're talking about national policy or things happening in Brussels. I just don't get this whole "loss of sovereignty" argument...

Can someone break this down for me? Just so I can explain back to him how he’s basically chasing a ghost...

Rebecca Chase5 said:1. A worldview is merely a byproduct of one's environment, society, and upbringing.
2. While a hierarchy of values should ideally be universal, it remains shaped by what we are taught.
3. This varies from person to person.
4. There is no difference here.
5. It depends on the individual and their specific character.
6. Again, this depends on the individual and their character.
7. Empathy is not innate; it must be cultivated, which brings us back to learned behavior.
8. Either social standing or physical strength.
9. It is entirely dependent on the individual.

Is man a natural being?

Does nature dictate human behavior in any way at all?

Could that distinction happen to be gendered?

Why do two sexes even exist?

Does the material base—the body—impact the spiritual superstructure?

Are there differences between men and women at the material level?

If they exist, could they cause specific differences in the superstructure, even regarding sex?

Is it possible for different material bases to coincide with certain biochemical differentiations between genders?

And honestly, where does this stubborn denial of facts come from?

Look, I haven't argued against the role society plays in installing expected gender roles in a single post. I also stand by my view that biological differences between the sexes predate society.

Let me repeat the question. If humans aren't divine creations nor natural beings—if we set aside idealism and materialism as the two main ways to interpret reality—what's left? Just "sociality" as the only category? Doesn't that degrade humanity by denying its inherent connection to nature? Isn't that just totalitarianism masquerading as humanity? Why this obsession with leveling differences and forcing uniformity, killing off the theoretical possibility of being different?

I’ve debated communists on this forum before, and I noticed some terrifying similarities with feminists. Both groups want to engineer a "new man," regardless of the facts, despite the facts (it all seems to come out of that Hegelian basket). Both are collectivist, even if they claim to strive for individual fulfillment. Both are totalitarian because they try to explain away the subject in its entirety. Both are Enlightenment-minded, believing they can reshape the world through socialization. Both are exclusionary because they deny others the right to the truth. Both are absolutist, thinking they've grasped the undeniable truth beneath a false facade, even when starting from flawed premises.

Both are anti-humanistic. Humans are clever beasts, really... underneath the glamour of this fake civilizational veneer, we retain that primal hunter-predator instinct that a few millennia of civilization hasn't quite managed to tame...

Rachel Stewart36 said:It’s not about denying anything—I’m just sharing a perspective that happens to clash with yours. Why does one view have to be "denial" just because it isn't identical to another? Honestly, if the other users here aren't too busy, maybe someone could actually define what they mean by "natural differences"—just so we're all on the same page. Are we talking basic biology, or some supposed inherent psychological traits? I’m not saying differences don't exist, I'm just questioning how much they actually matter.

There are differences in anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Medicine handles the first, biochemistry the second, and psychology deals with the third. Because if everything were just a product of social conditioning, psychology wouldn't even need to exist as a field. It would just be sociology...

The differences show up in:

- worldviews,
- core life values,
- criteria for choosing a partner,
- risk tolerance,
- conflict resolution styles,
- tendencies toward aggression,
- levels of empathy,
- natural inclinations toward certain types of work,
- the drive to follow a leader

and plenty of other things.

There are tons of them. To reiterate—since we are all offspring of both men and women, nobody hits every single marker perfectly. You'll find guys with feminine traits and vice versa, but on average, most men tend to behave differently than most women.

http://www.najreklame.com/najbolje-r...00c62728b.html

This ad captures just one of those differences pretty well...

Keith Lee2 said:So, you've got people in prison who already have a set gender identity—just a heads up.
So, we can't really pull them into the experiment to see how things actually take shape—just a heads up.
gender identity—it's a lot to wrap your head around, honestly.

Plus, we can't have any other animal species hanging around during the experiment—it’d just mess everything up.
Maybe our guys could take a page out of their book—learn how it's actually done.😁

If gender identity starts popping up under those kinds of conditions, then I guess we can basically conclude that...
Gender identity is its own thing—it exists even without all the social pressure around it.🤷

I've already reached that conclusion...

And animals live in social groups too. So we could probably argue there's a distinction between biological sex and gender identity even in the animal kingdom.

Rachel Stewart36 said:I don't really get this whole "masculine vs. feminine" thing—is it even real? From what I can see, most differences in how men and women act just come down to how society expects them to react in any given moment. It feels like we’re all just picking up habits from our surroundings—basically performing whatever role we're "suggested" should fit our gender, right?

Look at it this way—watching football is basically just a tool for guys to find themselves. It’s how we learn to value people based on pure grit, whether that’s physical or mental. Players become these avatars of strength and speed—they crush the opposition, which is exactly what little boys are taught "manhood" looks like. And I'm not talking about someone sitting you down for a lecture; it's that subtle, ambient messaging that hits way harder than actual words. You see it everywhere, too—like how differently we raise boys versus girls. I have a little girl at home right now, and the shift in how my parents treat her compared to me is wild. Already, they’re pushing the whole "girls should be pretty, quiet, and well-behaved" trope. Meanwhile, when I was a kid, I just got told I was being too sensitive and needed to toughen up. Sure, parents are only part of the equation—peers, school, and society all chip away at you through these incredibly subtle, almost invisible ways of programming us.

I wouldn't say I'm driven by anything but my own traits—I'm super emotional, intuitive, and a total introvert. I live for those deep, one-on-one conversations about big ideas or feelings (anything else is just noise). For me, life is all about harmony with the people around me and finding some sense of "purpose"—whatever that actually means. Honestly? I’m not assertive at all; if anything, I’m pretty timid and easily overwhelmed. Not exactly the "masculine" archetype, right? And yet... my word still carries weight. People respect my opinion—often more than my female colleagues—simply because I'm a man and have hit a certain social status through my career.

People obsess way too much over terminology—all this dissecting and "mechanical" defining of terms like they’re just playing with Lego bricks. To me, gender is just one slice of the whole self-awareness pie—it's just a piece of who I am. It's one of countless constructs within my own identity. At the end of the day, it only ties back to sex when you're actually accepting your own physiology.

Spot on—that’s exactly how it should be. This whole thing just brings back my old gripe about this "mechanical LEGO stacking" nonsense—you know, that obsession with over-defining everything and obsessing over terminology? Since most people can't wrap their heads around the idea that a biological male might perceive himself differently than what was assigned at birth, they use "gender" as this catch-all term for self-perception. Then, because certain people think they’re the ultimate authorities on what "real" masculine traits look like, they take those different perceptions and label them as feminine. So, we end up with "masculine" and "feminine" gender labels just because certain behaviors are being tagged with specific qualities. It’s all pretty absurd, really—but I guess it’s the only way to try and sidestep biological reality when you're trying to define who you are.

I’ve gotta disagree with that. We’re all basically hunting for "high-value" partners—it's just that we're conditioned to define "value" differently based on gender. Guys tend to hunt for aesthetics, while women look for strength—think power, success, or social standing. Honestly, it’s just how we're socialized to weigh those specific traits.

P.S. Random thought: male communication is usually blunt, direct, and almost clinical, whereas female speech tends to be more emotional, indirect, and "collaborative." There’s actually a tribe out in Africa where it’s flipped entirely—where that "indirect" style is considered the masculine norm and a sign of true manhood.

Why is there such a drive to deny the natural differences between men and women? We are a biological species, after all. We're part of a nature that's currently at a stage where science still can't fully grasp how we developed the ability to view ourselves as morally autonomous beings capable of symbolic language.

We live in societies as political creatures, learning patterns of behavior that are often gendered through socialization. But doesn't a huge chunk of human psychology deal with those unconscious, unconditioned behaviors inherited from our ancestors? Even those biologically rooted impulses that modern society tries to suppress through upbringing? Doesn't modern psychology point to a clash between the subconscious—that genetically determined stuff that exists before social conditioning—and the societal expectations designed to stifle those deep-seated drives just to create a "civilized" person? Isn't that subconscious drive exactly what exists prior to any social environment?

Reducing a human being to a mere social automaton that can't even receive genetic instructions from the distant past is a bit much. It treats everything as a reaction to a socially stimulated stimulus. The "fix" offered is almost like sociological alchemy (kind of like the attempt to engineer a "new man" under communism): identify the broken social institutions imposing these differences, and the problem is solved. But it just doesn't work like that...

If someone claims "gender" represents socially imposed differences beyond negligible biological ones, then if the goal is a theory of universal humanity, the answer isn't creating a theory of gender centered on social constructs. Instead, the way out is embracing biological differences, which, aside from anatomy, shouldn't cause real differences in social interaction or how we perceive one another. But is that true? Or is this just a way for a certain kind of totalitarianism to hide behind a mask of false humanism (again, reminiscent of communism)?

Theologians say humans are divine creations. Materialists say we're raw natural matter. So, according to gender theory, what is a human? It seems to me they aren't either of those. They're just a social construct. Is that even possible?...

Rachel Stewart36 said:I wouldn't be so quick to make sweeping claims like that. Looking at people and the world around me, I haven't really seen massive variations in those "facts" based on gender. It feels more like certain groups just have different "modes." Let me complicate things a bit—I'm male (biologically speaking), identify as a man, and I'm straight, yet my default mode is pretty "feminine"—non-aggressive, passive, indirect, and super focused on emotional harmony. That said, I switch to the "male" mode whenever it makes sense—you know, situational awareness. So, how do you explain my passivity given my testosterone levels (which are pretty obvious from my physique)? I think things are a little more nuanced than what you're suggesting. But hey, just my two cents. 😉

We’re all just descendants of male and female traits, varying in how much of each shows up... Most women lean more feminine, most men lean more masculine. I wasn't trying to say it's black and white or strip away the complexity, and I certainly wasn't trying to present my view as the absolute Truth. It's just an opinion...

Let's be real, most football fans are guys, even if plenty of women are into it too. Then you've got figure skating, where it's mostly women, though some guys get into that as well... Is this stuff actually taught in school, or is it just how we're wired...

We all have traits that people usually label as the opposite gender. There’s a clear distinction between men and women—anatomical, biochemical, hormonal—which ultimately shapes our psychology. Every individual carries a mix of both masculine and feminine qualities, but I'd bet my life that when you add it all up, your "masculine" traits still take the lead. Am I hitting the mark...

Sure, some guys definitely lean more toward feminine traits. That’s why using "gender" makes sense from a scientific standpoint—it lets us differentiate between social identity and biological sex, which is just a fact we don't get to choose...

But look, here's the catch... By introducing the whole concept of "gender," they're actually admitting there are inherent differences between what we consider masculine and feminine traits. If we follow that logic, it’s totally plausible for someone born female to have masculine qualities. There’s really no reason—as mentioned in the opening post—why a biological woman couldn't just be seen as one variation of femininity, rather than forcing this weird split between sex and gender. As strange as it sounds, labeling it "gender" under the guise of social constructs actually implies that these male and female traits exist independently... otherwise, the term would be redundant...

Basically, there wouldn't even be a need to make these distinctions if we just accepted that a guy who's "gentle, emotional, passive, or gay" is just a man with a different personality type... it doesn't make him any less male, just a less common version of it. But instead, people keep obsessing over trans identities, and that whole mindset really just relies on the idea that "gender differences" actually exist in the first place...

Maybe I'm wrong, but the most fundamental thing in life is just finding a partner to reproduce with and pool resources... There are some pretty huge differences in how men and women actually behave in that regard. That doesn't mean anyone can't choose to find purpose elsewhere—that's their right—but the biological reality is there, whether people want to react to it or not...

I personally just identify as male because I don't really get this whole gender concept...

Interesting thread. Humans are just transient organic beings with an expiration date. Reproduction is part of the deal. We evolved as complex multicellular organisms with long development periods to ensure genetic diversity, which led to the emergence of males way before vertebrates or mammals even existed... The ultimate game is fighting extinction through offspring. In a sense, that’s every human's primary directive. It's how we survive even after we're gone. That’s why picking a partner is everything. So much depends on who you choose...

How do women actually pick their guys? They need someone bold, confident, ambitious, funny, and just the right amount of cocky... To put it another way, my coworker—who’s incredibly smart and driven—told me her man has to be an active force, someone who actually knows what he wants out of life. He needs to be like a massive oak tree; she wants to be the one being swept off her feet, so he provides that steady shade while drawing strength from deep roots...

How do guys actually pick their partners? Sure, personality matters, but let's be real—it usually starts with looks. It’s simple biology; they can fertilize a lot of women in a short window, so they take their chances... Plus, there's that constant drive to compete, to test themselves against other men, and that innate respect for a hierarchy with one guy at the top...

For most women, marriage usually takes precedence over their career, mostly because they expect their partner to be the one providing the resources for the family...

For a guy, his career carries just as much weight as his marriage... a major setback at work is hard to make up for with "satisfaction" at home...

This stuff isn't taught in school. It’s not even about culture... it’s just baked into who we are...

At the end of the day, we're all descendants of both sexes, so everyone carries a mix of traits to some degree. But usually, most women lean into those traditional feminine roles in public, and most men stick to the masculine ones. It makes you think that the whole concept of "gender" is mostly built around a small minority... since the vast majority of people are pretty settled in an identity that aligns with social expectations and their own basic instincts—it's not like they just fell from Venus or Mars or anything... which basically means the majority ends up trying to fit themselves into the criteria set by the minority.

Sure, a lot of stuff is just cultural conditioning. Like, why is pink even considered a girl's color? But the truth is, plenty of things aren't—especially the fundamental stuff that actually defines us, like how aggressive or competitive we are, or our core values...

A few years back, there was this story about a boy in Canada born with some physical complications. They ended up surgically removing his penis and "constructing" a vagina instead. Since he was so young, they raised him strictly as a girl—all the usual stereotypes, playing with dolls, wearing pink dresses, being told not to fight because "girls don't do that"... You'd think there would be resistance, right? Even though he felt something was deeply wrong during puberty, he still went along with the identity forced on him... Fast forward to today, and that young man is a broken shell of a person, struggling with severe mental health issues because he feels he was robbed of ever being able to live out his true nature...

Sex as a biological factor and gender as a social construct usually line up. Honestly, it feels like "gender" is just a term cooked up to be politically correct about people who have traits from the other sex. I'm not talking about little kids playing with trucks, but more about the roles played during the actual mating process, which leads to real differences later on when it comes to things like raising kids...

Feminists can deny it all they want, but they’re basically just trying to override biology with social trends. At the end of the day, beneath all our modern civilization, the human brain is still wired like some ancient hunter-gatherer... Seeing how many young, college-educated women I run into daily, it's pretty clear I'm not the one who's out of touch...

Henry Adams5 said:Rather than simply sitting at home and complaining about the lack of fresh faces in our political landscape, I have decided to take the initiative and dive into the fray myself.

My first and only serious consideration was the Democratic Party. The other major players—the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the Liberal Party, the Republican Party, and even the Libertarian Party—were completely off the table due to their endless cycle of scandals. To put it bluntly, those corrupt organizations, which function more like organized crime syndicates than political parties, were never an option for me.

The Democratic Party, on the other hand, seemed relatively free of such controversies—at least from what I could gather. However, after sending them an email containing some fundamental inquiries, I sat waiting, only to be met with total silence for over two weeks. That lack of responsiveness was enough to prompt a second follow-up, and when that too went unanswered, I realized I had to move on from them as well.

So, where does that leave me? Should I consider joining the Democratic Party instead?

And please, spare me the advice telling me to just give up; I am not backing down. Period.

Well, ideally, before you pick a party, you should figure out your own worldview and values. Once you realize you're, say, more right-leaning, you find the party whose platform fits best. Then you narrow it down and, if you still have the drive, sign up. Unless, of course, you have other motives for jumping into politics.

Jumping from a center-right Democratic Party to a hyper-local Democratic Party seems a bit pointless to me. Besides, the Democratic Party doesn't have national scandals because they've only held power symbolically once, so they haven't had the chance to mess up on a big scale yet.

Grace Bennett8 said:Even if that Jewish woman is married to a rich banker, she isn't magically exempt from how society treats her. Her status doesn't change the fact that she might still face discrimination based on her faith or gender.
The whole conversation started about balance. If a white guy is part of a minority subgroup, he could always find work elsewhere if certain companies are actively favoring women or specific religious groups. But if a white man is being marginalized simply because of his race—and he's also broke—while a Jewish woman is doing fine financially... isn't that just the same reality we'd see if you swapped the labels around? At that point, does any of the "identity politics" stuff even matter anymore?

How can you be sure she’ll face discrimination? Maybe she will, maybe she won't. And even if she does deal with it in other parts of life, that doesn't mean someone else should be discriminated against in a different situation.

Affirmative action always starts by trying to label who is privileged and who isn't, which is incredibly hard to do accurately. It usually stems from a specific ideological standpoint where people are judged by abstract traits that might not even apply to them, but are instead assigned by whoever is making the claim.

Look, from my own experience: I live in a world where everyone says women are the underprivileged group. Maybe they are, but as a woman, I haven't felt it. In fact, I've felt discriminated against at work more than once precisely because I'm a man—part of the group that's supposedly oppressing the other side.

My own run-ins with these abstractions showed me a much different side of reality.

Then there's the minority thing. Because they're small groups afraid of being swallowed up by the majority, they tend to stick together. It's often easier to get things done within their own circles. A Muslim business owner will likely take on a Muslim apprentice; a Mexican lawyer will probably hire a Mexican intern... most of the time, anyway. In a way, because of that sense of solidarity, minority groups often have more fluidity than the majority, which tends to get stuck in its own sense of superiority.

Sandra King4 said:Look, I’m a huge advocate for affirmative action... I mean, isn't taxation just another form of positive discrimination? At its core, the entire social welfare state is built on that exact principle. You could have Donald Trump complaining that his corporate tax rate is stuck at 20% while some guy like John Doe running a flower shop in Sioux Falls only pays 10%. But hey, that’s just the price the privileged pay for their privilege.

Anyway, like I said, I support positive discrimination—to varying degrees, depending on how many marginalized groups an individual belongs to.
So, to answer your question, here’s a hypothetical:
If you have three applicants for the same job, all with identical qualifications—a white guy in his mid-thirties, a Black man in his late forties, and a Jewish woman in her fifties—and they are all equally capable of doing the work, I’m giving the edge to the Jewish woman. She hits three different marks: she’s a woman, she’s part of a minority, and she’s older. That’s three layers of intersectional oppression right there. Of course, the very fact that, in a vacuum, the thirty-five-year-old white guy would be the one hired is exactly why this kind of action is necessary.

The idea is to qualify people based on their collective traits. But tell me, what if that Jewish woman happens to be married to some wealthy banker, while that white guy in his thirties is struggling just to make ends meet? Specifically, even though he belongs to the "privileged" group on paper, in reality, he’s the one who's deprived. What happens then? As a man, I've felt that discrimination firsthand... out of maybe thirty applications, I think I only landed two jobs as a guy. And I've had people tell me straight to my face that if I don't start pushing harder in the private sector, I should just aim for a judgeship instead...

dustynomad50 said:Another friend of mine, an 80-year-old from New York City, shared a similar experience. It was 1941, and Nazi Germany had taken over. People were initially excited. But suddenly, by 1945, New York City found itself part of America. He was in grade school at the time. Instead of English, the instruction was in Serbo-American. He and his buddies would get hit constantly if they used "American" phrasing or messed up a word deemed to be of "superior Mexican culture."

Clearly, this scenario hits a little too close to home for you. 🙂

My folks lived through that Nazi Germany era right there in Washington, D.C. They were hyped at first, sure. But eventually, they grew to loathe those racial laws and the general atmosphere of terror under Pavelić's rule. And honestly, they were terrified of the rebels hiding out in the woods, too...

Looking at it from Miami back in May 1941, it didn't look any different. All anyone saw was that Mussolini was the new boss in town, and Pavelić had already signed all the paperwork...

Personally, I'm no nationalist. To me, the total existential apathy everyone seems to have these days is a million times worse than feeling like your identity is under threat. That's just how I am...

velvetmaker3 said:So, it wasn't Nazi Germany that bothered him—it was just the fact that Miami became part of Italy. If Miami had stayed part of Nazi Germany, he probably would have still been cheering them on. That's just the fake anti-fascism being pushed around today.
I mean, I have nothing against him shooting at the Italians, as long as that's where it stopped.

Not quite. The Nazis didn't start the massacres right away. They waited a month. Waited for Clayton and those racial laws. Then the militias step in. And only after that do the resistance fighters move...

An old friend of mine, an 80-year-old Splitter, was telling me about 1941. That's when Nazi Germany took over. At first, people were actually pretty hyped. Then, out of nowhere, San Francisco ended up under Italian control. He was just a kid in elementary school back then. Instead of English, everything was taught in Italian. He and his classmates used to get beaten regularly if they spoke English or even mispronounced a word they considered "more cultured"...

What choice did he really have? Half his family joined the resistance. Back then, that was basically the only move. I’m asking everyone else on this forum to stop talking nonsense and trying to compare the atrocities of the Nationalists to the US Army, who don't deserve that comparison, or equating the US Army to the military unit my buddy Spicoli joined. You guys just don't get it at all...