Politics Anonymous 54699
anything you want to say you can say here regarding politics.
None of you cowards have the guts to say it so I wiil:
Build more affordable mid-rise flats.
Police brutality and systemic racism is a very real issue that can only be resolved through serious police reform/cutting funding.
>identifying with ideologies against your own interests and controlled opposition movements
Not having an ideology is itself an ideology.
The ideal state would be one with a benevolent dictator.
No, because ideology is the system of ideas that provokes an individual to do something for the good of (non-existant) future, basically. It's like a different kind of worldview, that circles around something one in the future that "can give us our freedom or ect." And in contrary to this there's like scientific(or gnostic) worldwiew, that circles around cognition about the world. There's like a fundamental difference between these worldviews, and this difference is that ideology based around some theory, and ideology is going toward some point in the non-existant future, while scientific worldview has a world to research, lol.
If I could eliminate one thing from this world, it would be commies. It would eliminate so many other undesirables. It's like a filter for human beings.
yeah sis woo. take us back to before the modern centralised state. we need to filter out affordable/public housing and universal healthcare
capitalism led to the victorian workhouses, the slums, very widespread opiate addiction, child labour and an explosion in prostitution. the increase in human welfare was were achieved by western europe/FDR copying elements that were invented by the soviet revolution.
come back and at me with the absurdities of muh 100 million and the little black book of communism all you want, but accomplishments of communism in pure human metrics speak for themselves. the communist revolutions saved vastly more lives than they took.
Not that anon, but you mean there's another living person who actually knows what a victorian workhouse is?
I thought I was the only one…
You won't be getting either of those in a communist shithole. But you're a privileged 1st worlder so you wouldn't know. Killing commies would filter idiots like you who believes in fantasies and that's exactly what I want.
>>54757>communism is bad because it leads to undesirable outcomes like starvation and loss of life>kill all the communists
please, you have no experience to flex here. you're either a diaspora baby or an under-30 eastern european. nothing wrong with that, but don't embarrass yourself talking about privilege lol. "communism lifted the standard of living" is not an uncommon opinion in whichever former socialist country you call your own
The issue with that is normative values, culture, economics, ethics, etc, are non-empirical fields and therefore outside the scope of science.
Communism is nothing without capitalism.
Capitalism is perfectly fine without communism
I live in socialist hellhole.>>54760
For me it's not about loss of life. It's about maintain the ability to live in a normal country, and not one destroyed by commies. If commies have to die for the greater good, I would happily exterminate them. >>54764
Sorry I couldn't hear your over the sound of living in a country socially and economically destroyed by commies.
>communism lifted the standard of living" is not an uncommon opinion
This is cope. Because things are better now, they are less critical of the past. You think those people would actually choose to live under communist regimes in the present? Those countries have their own socialist parties, and yet they don't win any elections. It's because the majority doesn't actually want communism in their current lives.
I love politics, but I don't come to Crystal to post about it and I think it attracts moids.
That's all I have to say about it for now.
Ironically you've encapsulated an important point from Karl Marx. Communism can only be born from capitalist societies in the first place, you can't just skip capitalism and go straight to communism, else you could just set up a communist countries in places like Africa.
Eastern Europe has mostly (or entirely?) banned communist parties outright. Leaving that aside: I'm not going to proselytise a retreat back into the past, or that you or I should personally become commies. It's just replying to what you're saying.
You said that "You know what, since capitalism exists nothing but improvement, well being and prosperity has occured to the world economy," but that's not historically true of capitalism. Capitalism led to a great explosion of misery, the collapse of society as it existed to that point, and an overall drastic worsening of conditions, as seen throughout the 19th century. (& still seen in the third world today.)
Ironically, "improvement and well being" is true of historical socialism, which is responsible for being the catalyst for the overall drastic improvement of human life in the 20th century.
You say "maintain the ability to live in a normal country, and not one destroyed by commies," but socialist revolution has never occurred anywhere that wasn't, fundamentally, already a godawful place to live. Eastern Europe prior to the advent of socialist revolution was a profoundly destitute India-tier place, and it was the socialist era that took it and remodeled it into a basically decent place to live. Pre-communist China was as bad as or worse than Sub-Saharan Africa by every metric we have from that time.
The Soviet, Chinese & the various third world revolutions led to immediate, dramatic and permanent alleviation of material human suffering. Whereas before revolution, capitalism/imperialism played the big initial role by making them so exceptionally godawful to begin with.
Based. We need more Pinochets.
Those idiots advocting for socialist never lived in a socialist "paradise" otherwise they would't be saying all this garbage, though some history and economic books might answer their questions as well.
Oh, yeah, but studying is "opressive" and "elitist".
Are you trying to argue that feudalism gave everyone a better standard of living then the capitalist societies that followed?
Ironically, "improvement and well being" is true of historical socialism, which is responsible for being the catalyst for the overall drastic improvement of human life in the 20th century.
Uh, no? In fact most of the socialist countries grew more before socialism and the less socialist the area in their economy (socialism wasn't uniform) the more this area experimented growth.
Not that economic growth would legitimate totalitarianism, of course.
Living standards were deplorable and
did not start to improve until the labour movements and resultant workplace reforms of the late 19th century.
I think some guys even wrote a bunch of books about it!>>54781
Name them? I don't have any trouble naming specifics and posting graphs, you should give it a try.
You didn't answer the question. I knew living standards were deplorable(from a modern perspectice), were living standards not deplorable under Feudalism?
>>54782>I think some guys even wrote a bunch of books about it!
How about mentioning a book that is still relevant in 2020 that uses scientific method? You know, those written (and read) by Ivy league authors and LSE/Oxbridge scholars.
Want a good one? There are many others.http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=ACD2B4D97350EF462667B5E3CC5F0D24
Yeah. This is not controversial. Even anti-Marxist historians like Harold Perkin held the position that the industrial revolution led to an immediate decline in the wellbeing of the working class.
Want a few others? No problem.http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=5845DC6BE20C8210C3CC64B6CEF39376http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=E3F096277A659048C34B0FD8ABC29E43http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=77AE1985DF7BA15063B36A690B552C7Chttp://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=0B2527A020EAA927BCEF755509FC1D22http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=9641684FE05C765F4BD7ABE7EC76957Chttp://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=9EDC385DA7EEEE8A2453D938AFA1D2DF
I'm not asking you to read Ayn Rand, these are all Nobel prize winners except for Mankiw (ironically, the most important of them).>>54786>like Harold Perkin held the position that the industrial revolution led to an immediate decline in the wellbeing of the working class.
That's also wrong. I don't know what anti-marxist writers are you reading but the academic consensus is that the quality of life got better to everyone, especially the poor, after the Industrial Revolution. The problem, as Tocqueville said, was the poverty become more visible.
Alright, it's not controversial. Are you making the assertion that standards of living were better during feudalism?
Fully aware of what the mainstream IMF/NGO ideology is, thanks.
The anti-Marxist would be Harold Perkin, specifically, but it's also just the sort of take you'd read in a British GSCE textbook. EP Thompson, Eric Hobsbawm and the labour historians also expand on that idea. I'm a history major and we don't talk in history of "academic consensus" so that assertion is neither here nor there. >>54788
Yeah. See:>the industrial revolution led to an immediate decline in the wellbeing of the working class.
Alright then, I didn't realize I lived a worse life than a peasent. This is quite eye opening.
>>54789>Fully aware of what the mainstream IMF/NGO ideology is, thanks.
Wow, great argument, huh? Did you read any books on the subject? Do you know how they work with evidence? Do you actually believe it's just "ideology"? Lmao, what a brainlet. No, sis, you're the one being ideological here id you don't want accept evidence.
> I'm a history major and we don't talk in history of "academic consensus" so that assertion is neither here nor there.
Are you getting pretentious here because you have a major in history? Because, well, I started by postgraduation (in history) and you're wrong.
Read Service, Conquest, Pipes, Johnson, Ferguson, Gellately, Applebaum and many others and then have an opinion on what is not controversial.
Forgot to mention Gertrude Himmelfarb and John Lukaks on my namedrop. Not that you're going to read them anyway lol
The position of contradiction in history as far as I can tell isn't if industrialization improved living standards, but when they did specifically. It should be self-evident that eventually living standards rose, but did it occur in the late 1800s or whenever.
Even Marx on the first three or four pages of the Communist Manifesto says that the world got better with Capitalism.
Is this some kind of gotcha? It doesn't work if you can just scroll up and read the post you were initially replying to. Living standards>did not start to improve until the labour movements and resultant workplace reforms of the late 19th century. >>54791>Did you read any books on the subject?
Yes. I actually was obsessed with libertarianism when I was 16.
>Do you know how they work with evidence?
No, Conquest did not work with evidence. He worked with rumours and guesswork, and by his own admission preferred to treat the Soviet Union as a sci-fi entity populated by martians. It was utterly contradicted by the glasnost archive material, which led to a vast downscale of numbers being thrown around in the field.
(Not that anyone cared about how much fictionalising went on in Sovietology, better to just say he was totally vindicated and move on to boosting the Iraq War.)
The others just worked based off of Conquest's inflated numbers, so that's more whatever.
I did predict the muh 100 million Little Black Book of Communism btw.>>54794
He talks about improvement of technology and of production. >>54795
Greater wealth production does not and did not automatically translate to improved conditions for workers.
Your graph shows that standards started rising in the early 1800s, problem being that cost if living must have also changed during that time.
>>54796>Yes. I actually was obsessed with libertarianism when I was 16.
I hope your "libertarianism" isn't based on Atlas Shrugged or Neomisesian "Austrian" Economics. Those are almost as bad as Marx, and for the same reason: they don't do their research with evidence. No one is asking for laissez–faire here, sis! Even F.A. Hayek knew it was wrong and advocated for government services.
If you were 16 you didn't read the actual academic consensus so I assume no, you didn't read anything more complex than Road to Sefdom. >No, Conquest did not work with evidence
That's quite wrong, but in any case I've mentioned many other authors. >I did predict the muh 100 million Little Black Book of Communism btw.
I didn't mention Courois or Rummel because they're also wrong. >Greater wealth production does not and did not automatically translate to improved conditions for workers.
Actually it does. You can check the social standards, they all went up according to available date too. Or, as Alex Tabarrok said, income per capita might not be everything, but in the long term is the most important thing.
Watch this video if you don't agree. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0qHA93oOSc
Actually it depends. On average goods got less expensive in the long term. Just check how much a PC costed 30 years ago and now, for instance. Same with food, clothing and other things on that time.
If you can understand how Qatar is the richest country in the world but has a workforce comprised of indentured servants, you understand how wealth does not translate to the wellbeing of the working class.
1 If you are actually a history major you know that anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all. Use evidence!
2. On the other hand, Qatar has the best life expectancy, child mortality and literacy rate in the Islam World. Far from a shithole when it comes to social standards.
NTA>1 If you are actually a history major you know that anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all. Use evidence!
Observing Qatar has one of the highest GDP but the majority of it's (migrant) working class have low standards of living isn't anecdotal evidence. What do you think anecdotal evidence is?
2. On the other hand, Qatar has the best life expectancy, child mortality and literacy rate in the Islam World. Far from a shithole when it comes to social standards.
As far as it's citizens, but 90~% of Qatars working class are migrant workers who don't get counted in such statistics. Their access to medical care and other luxuries are starkly in contrast to the rest of the population.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5609361/
Qatar is a terrible place to be a member of the working class.
It is because you're mentioning only one country. The video I posted explains it well, but if you want a worldwide know paper on the subject, I recomend this one:http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/419351468782165950/pdf/multi0page.pdf
As for the dreary conditions on Qatar, your argument has two problems. 1 Where did you get this information that most of the population don't get counted? I'm not saying they aren't but most surveys seem to use them so I doubt it's as bad as you say. 2 as for the dreary conditions of the working class, do you have evidence on how these immigrants lived before going to Qatar? Because their life standards might have also rose.>>54806>the state of affairs of a country>of a country>a country>a
Yes, it is anecdotal evidence when there are 200 countries in the world and you need to give one extreme exemple that doesn't even seem right.
Read the paper I posted and you'll see how people do researches today. Quantitative, cross-sectional data is the way to go, and it shows how income growth even when inequality is high means higher standards of living.
What you're doing is, simply put, pseudoscience.
>>54808>Yes, it is anecdotal evidence when there are 200 countries in the world and you need to give one extreme exemple that doesn't even seem right.
You never defined what you believe anecdotal evidence is. I believe however, you're just using the wrong term. The phenomena of picking extreme outliers is "cherry picking" not anecdotal evidence. Did you mean cherry picking?
No, I meant anecdotal evidence because how you wrote the case of Qatar, it was like saying "hey, I know this place, you're wrong even if data shows their conditions aren't that bad because I know Qatar! It was more of a form than a substance thing, so you can say that cherry picking might be correct in this case too.
First, I am not the anon that brought up Qatar.
Second, I highly doubt that other anon has been to Qatar. We're on an anonymous imageboard, no one gives a shit if you confused the terms in the long run, but you're making yourself look stupid by not backing down on a simple term. It's okay.
Already answered here why I used Anecdotal evidence >>54812>Greater wealth production does not and did not automatically translate to improved conditions for workers.>greater wealth production did not result in improved conditions for workers in this country
And I explained why she's wrong, and the reasons why only one country, that heavy relies on a single commoditie, doesn't have inclusive institutions and still have the best living standards of the region is a shit exemple when there are dozens of others that prove my point.>The argument is logically sound, there are no fallacies here
Yes, there are. Again, one country doesn't prove anything. In fact, Qatar is a good exemple for '''my''' point of view, not her.> Argue that the working conditions in Qatar would've been much worse if they were a poorer country. That's an actual response to her argument.
That's just obvious, and supposing you're not her (and pretending you're more than one person is against the rules of this board) that would be useless because her argument is already poisoned by her/your epistemological illiteracy. I didn't need to go that far.
But why should I admit a mistake I didn't make?
>>54817>I literally explained in that post you replied to why it's logically sound.
Lmao, do you think just because you "explained" something that makes something logically sound? Wtf, anon, that might be the most moronic post ITT so far, and thats a lot.>"all x are y" claim
Maybe you assumed I said that because on >>54798
I said " it does" when "it did" would be more correct (I was only talking about UK, as the sentense after this one shows). Sorry I'm an ESL, that was indeed my mistake. But in any case I showed that, yes, on Qatar case it did meant better conditions.
What the actual heck, anon, aren't you ashamed of being so dumb? This was bad even for a strawman's fallacy standards.
Nah, you're idiot. That was a mistake and I assumed, but all my comments before, during and after that typo made my point clear you're judging everything because of a single word. If you missed eveything else because of it I'm honestly sorry for you, your mental retardation is worse than I thought.
Not true in the slightest, all your other comments make it clear that you meant what you said. Whether you said "did" or "does" doesnt even matter, her point was clearly that "greater wealth production doesnt always translate to better conditions for the workers" and you contradicted her.
Anyways, at this point youre just replying with nonsense because youre malding so its becoming a pissing contest of who has more free time, I guess I can just let you stew now that I annoyed you enough. Or idk, if someone else wants to take the piss on you too, have fun, it seems like I wasnt the only one amused by how dumb and annoyed you got.
>>54826>all your other comments make it clear that you meant what you said
Exactly! It was clear since the beginning. I still find hard to believe you didn't understand. My point was that there's a strong correlation with income and life quality, I didn't deny ther was exceptions. Even the paper I posted talk about exceptions.
The rest of your post is just cope and projection, I had to close my room to laugh at your mistakes in privacy. Don't believe that the others got angry just because you got, anon.
>spending your time arguing with complete strangers over the living conditions in qatar
>Education in school
This is a favorite topic of mine, though I will mostly focus on the US education system since it is the one I am familiar with. I would favor a gender-segregated school system until High School. The amount of children that have to be doped up by psychiatrists to sit still all day should be evidence that something is wrong with the school system, not the children themselves. I choose gender specifically because there's strong evidence (that I lack the citation for right now, sorry) then when teachers are given the option of choosing a boy or a girl to answer a question, they choose the boy more often. By removing a gender differential, you should be able to see more equality in treatment of students, at least in this one aspect.
I would also state that there should be classes that explain how to file taxes, how and where to register to vote where you live, and the paperwork and process involved in starting your own business. Most of these things just aren't taught, and it's expected your parents teach you about them, but that appears to not be a successful strategy.
well, maybe a type of school that segregates dorms and classes but the students can still interact during recess/lunch/whatever. Or build the segregated schools close together so the students can still interact with the opposite sex.
Does cc believe in rehabilitation or restoration concerning legal punishments?
I think rehabilitation should be the only metric for whether someone should be released from prison. Completely remove the idea of time as punishment; if someone serves their time but is unrepentant and likely to reoffend, they shouldn't be let out. Second offense should be a life sentence, because the offender has proven they cannot be fixed.
I guess it depends on the country. kind of crimes usually committed, type of people, etc..
Personally, I think my fellow countrymen are, most of the time, very nice people. Not as educated as Europeans or Americans, but I wouldn't want them to be treated like animals just because they committed a crime once. I think that it will just turn them into worse people. I don't know the prison conditions here at the moment, probably not good, but if they are awful, a perfectly good/salvageable young man could go in for something he can repent, but if he gets treated terribly whatever chance he gets at rehab is now gone.
Prison would start becoming more of a "rebel badge" and ex-cons would flaunt it. "Yeah bro, I did time," kind of thing.
When you create gangster prisoners, it has effects on people who haven't committed crimes yet, as well. A kid (14) with negligent parents hit a grocer over the head because of some debt. My mother (criminal psychologist) said that "this kid should be sent to a ward to rehab, not prison, if he goes to jail he will be ruined more and start bragging." and I agree with that.
People go to prison for all kinds of things. Sometimes just something like debt. For repeat offenders, it's different, of course. Still, humans all have unique circumstances that can't be ignored. This is why prison should be a decent place. Civilized, proper things to eat, most importantly clean
and sanitary, no gestapo type guards, cons need things to keep their brain and bodies busy, conditions to meet family, etc.
In my old school district, there were 2 sex-segregated public high schools: one for boys, one for girls. They had separate school campuses, but they shared school functions like dances, so there was a lot of inter-school mingling encouraged. There were a few other pairs like that through the city, including two of the best schools in the state. I think that's a really good way of handling it.
Definitely rehabilitative. We know way more about how the brain works than we did even a few decades ago, certainly than we did when the concept of justice under the law was codified.
The reality is that a lot of people that commit atrocious acts often times have some kind of mental deficiencies in parts of their brain. For example, an absurdly high amount of people on death row (something like 40% iirc?) either have or had a prior history of frontal brain trauma (the prefrontal cortex, of course, playing a big role in the suppression of impulse). These are people that can't control their impulses, in the same way a blind person can't see, and is directly equivalent to executing them for their blindness.
What does justice look like, with this knowledge? Really hard to say. But it doesn't look like how we currently handle it.
Justice as a concept doesnt make sense, unless you believe in souls or something like that. Everything we do is determined by our genes and our circumstances, there is no magical free will so in essence youre only punishing people for being born in the wrong shoes.
However, punishment is necessary as it is the best way of deterring people from comitting crimes and whatnot.
Justice is almost the only thing that makes sense.
People definitely have free choice. I would even argue that they have souls, although that is hard to prove.
All crimes are commited between victim and criminal.There is no such thing as paying your dues to society but there definitely is such a thing as paying your dues to the victim.
If a victim doesn't want you to go to jail then that is justice, if a victim wants you to rot in a cell then it should be up to abritation or a judge to tell you how long you should rot.
Raping a minor should go unpunished?
>>54905>there is no magical free will
This actually isn't true, and you can prove it phenomenologically and ontologically in an entirely secular way, no magic required. All it takes is a little bit of mathematical chaos (aka or genuine unpredictability). That is outside the scope of this thread, however.
>>54901>What does justice look like, with this knowledge?
Justice looks like whatever the society running the system says it looks like. To believe otherwise fundamentally misunderstands how legal systems came to be and what they are supposed to do. Assuming there was a standard for objective justice, there wouldn't be distinctions between legal systems.>>54908>All crimes are commited between victim and criminal.
Victimless crimes would like a word with you.>>54909>She solved the P=NP problem
Glad we can throw deterministic physics out the window.
Restorative, otherwise there's no justice for the victim. When someone commits a crime against you, or someone you love, there's no justice in knowing they are just being pampered in prison.
>If child rapists are thrown in jail where they're raped by other inmates then fewer people are going to rape children as they don't want to be thrown in jail and raped.
I'm trying to understand the mindset of someone who acknowledges rape is bad, but turns around and uses prison rape almost as a positive for crime prevention. Is the rape okay if it happens to a criminal?
Let me make myself clearer, is the rape part of the prison sentence established formally on how to punish such prisoners? If it isn't, and therefore, it's not a punishment, but another form of crime inflicted on another person. Why is that crime "good" but the original crime "bad"?
Limiting someone's freedom against their will is a crime, yet that's exactly what prison is. Why is limiting freedom a crime and "bad" but "good" in prison? Is is okay to commit crimes if it's against a criminal?
A person who has committed a crime has broken the social contract and they are to be excluded from society. If they don't abide by the rules of living in the society they can't get the benefits either, so they have to be excluded; imprisoning them is just the easiest way to do so (they could be deported from their country but that's just a bigger chore)
You are mixing terms here. A "crime" is defined as an action or activity that is not legal under a judicial system. What you are describing as a crime here>Limiting someone's freedom against their will is a crime
Would be more properly referred to as an "act of violence". It is a well established concept that in order for the current models of society to function, power to commit acts of violence are, predominately, held by the state. Yes, it is true that if you specifically were to restrain another adult's freedom in captivity, you would be committing an act of violence and almost certainly a "crime". Meanwhile, if the government does the same, while it is most certainly committing an act of violence, but, it is not committing a crime (unless there is some internal law regulating imprisonment protocols and what the government is allowed to perform as a punishment, and said government starts violating it's own laws concerning how it administrates punishment).
>>54918>Is the rape okay if it happens to a prisoner?
Yes. Fuck child rapists. They deserve far worse.
>>54927>Is is okay to commit crimes if it's against a criminal?
Forget to address this, this statement gets resolved if we properly define and use our terms, when adjusted, under the current model of most countries today the following statement.>Is is okay to commit [acts of violence] if it's against a criminal?
Would be predominately yes in legal terms. If you want to start defining in moral terms, I would need some premise you want to operate from as far as how interactions should occur between individuals.>>54932
Then why is it not included in the formal legal sentence? Why is it "Life in jail, no parole" instead of "Life in jail, no parole, weekly shower rape"?
>>54934>>Is is okay to commit [acts of violence] if it's against a criminal?
Fug, should have posted>Is is okay to commit [acts of violence from the state] if it's against a criminal?
>I never said prison rape specifically is good or bad, all I did was use it as an example on how punishing criminals decreases crime. I guess it is desirable if it reduces the overall level of crime.
>Whether the prison rape happens as a result of the will of the criminals or as a result of the will of the institution is irrelevant on how good or bad prison rape is imo. All that matters is the result.
In that case, if acts of violence from anyone is acceptable as long as it produces "more happiness" is acceptable, does that mean vigilante justice is permissible as well? In the case of the prison rape, the one committing the act of violence is not doing so in accordance to a formal legal system, he is committing an act of violence outside it, predominately this is a crime. In the case where committing crimes against criminals is preferable as long as it encourages good behavior, what stops anyone from committing violence against those never formally charged? When does the cycle of retribution end if certain criminal behaviors are acceptable if it produces "good behavior"?
Furthermore, how does this work in relation to the "increased happiness" some individuals would feel upon killing someone who raped their child? That some bystanders would feel as well? In order to make that judgement, you need a quantitative metric to determine how much happiness is "gained" by the individuals killing the child rapist, and how much happiness is "lost" by the child rapist in this scenario? What metric does one use to determine whether or not there's a net happiness increase in the short or long term in regards to certain behaviors and punishments?
If you start getting into what people "deserve", you're going to spend a lot of effort going in circles. The point of prison is the removal of people who are a threat to society in any way. It makes much more sense to execute a child rapist immediately.
>>54938>If you mean to ask if they are desirable from my perspective then yes, if they produce more happiness of course they are desirable.
The post was in response to you and directed at you, I apologize if it was unclear it was directed at you.>The first part of that phrase is irrelevant to the second one. If someone is not formally charged then he's not a criminal.
I apologize if I needed to be more explicit to get across the point, judicial systems are, by definition, the source of what determines what is criminal behavior, who is guilty of criminal behavior, what is the appropriate punishment for criminal behavior and how the appropriate punishment shall be inflicted. In that case where you endorse extralegal punishments for crimes (i.e. jail rape) as long as it produces "good behavior", two of the previously mentioned functions of the judicial system breaks down (what is appropriate punishment, how shall it be administered). Now that the judicial system, under this assumption, no longer controls these aspects, what becomes the meaningful differentiation between criminals and non-criminals in regards to how punishment is administered? The judicial system no longer has a monopoly on violence if these extralegal actions are endorsed, so where ends the line of what is "good" extralegal behavior? Heck, why even need it in the first place?>What stops anyone from committing violence against those never formally charged is the fear of punishment.
I actually didn't address this in the last post, so I'll expand. You have asserted that>I think it shouldn't go unpunished because punishing criminals is the best way to prevent crime from happening. If child rapists are thrown in jail where they're raped by other inmates then fewer people are going to rape children as they don't want to be thrown in jail and raped.
Boiled down, this argument is>if punishments are severe enough, individuals will choose not to commit crimes, as individuals want to avoid negative consequences from those crimes, and crimes will be prevented.
If I am wrong, and this is not your assertion, please correct me. This premise assumes that, individuals are rational actors, and given the knowledge, say "if I am convicted of raping and killing a child, I will end up in jail with a life sentence." the hopeful view is that individuals will make the decision "I do not want to end up in jail with a life sentence, therefore, I will not rape and kill a child." However, if you start introducing extralegal measures, such as jail rape, it will no longer be possible to make a rational decision, because the "punishment" for the same action at different times will not be predictable. One child rapist could possibly only get life in sentence jail, no prison, and another could get life sentence and jail rape. Of course, if you assume human's are not rational actors, you run into the problem of how they could even make the connection between crimes and punishments in the first place. Since, obviously, that individual would lack the ability to analyze cause and effect through reason, and would only be able to learn as a dog would, via negative reinforcement after already committing the crime. Since we are trying to 'prevent' crime (and produce more happiness) this is a bad spot to be in, since all punishments would not result in prevented crimes, only rectified past wrongs.
>There is no cycle of retribution, I wasn't talking about retribution at all.
I suppose you were not talking about it specifically, but rather, myself attempting explain it as the result of a system that endorses extralegal punishments (i.e. jail rape). I should also clarify what we have been referring to as "criminals", I have been meaning to say "convicts". i.e. individuals who have been 'convicted' of criminal behavior.
It is okay to rape child rapists as long as it produces "good behavior", yes? Then say, if you kill a child rapist after he has been released from prison alahttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/father-pardon-jay-manor-shot-dead-daughter-sex-attacker-raymond-earl-brooks-release-alabama-jailed-a7517576.html
then is it okay to kill him as long as it produced "good behavior" in others? He's served his appropriate sentence as per the court, he is an ex-convict. Is this okay as long as it produces "good behavior"? Well now, in this example, the Father is a murderer, a criminal and I believe convict. What is your reasoning why it would not be appropriate for, say, the child rapist's family killing the Father? Extralegal punishments are acceptable after all, if they produce "good behavior.">IF the actions produce good behavior then these actions create a better society right? What's even your point here? That actions that produce good behaviors are bad? That good behaviors are not good behaviors? What are you trying to say?
I am trying to expand on your logic to see it's end. I am starting to realize though, that reading your previous posts, you actually failed to take a formal stance on which system is best. The closest I could find was this.>To make it simple, I think what increases the happiness in the world in an utilitarian sense is desirable. Punishing criminals lowers their happiness, but it leads to less crime happening, therefore increased happiness in many more people. If punishing criminals wouldn't lead to less crime it would only lower the criminals happiness, therefore its undesirable.
Which is just stating "the best system is whatever system promotes the most happiness the best." Instead of a proper assertion, which would have been "X system is the best system to promote happiness." The closest you made to this assertion was endorsing deterrence (appropriate punishments prevent more crime).
>I don't know, what metric do we use for justice or suffering or whatever other concepts we use in our current legal system?
I don't know which legal system you're referring to, I'll assume it's the US though. In that case, I don't believe we follow a formal restorative philosophy in all cases. I am aware of criminals guilty of theft, arson, or property damages paying the appropriate loses they incurred to the victim, but it gets murky as soon as you learn that 30% of murderers are ordered to pay restitution for damages. This, of course, varies on a court by court basis. The only source I can find states that restitution generally covers funeral costs, medical costs, lost wages and the previously mentioned property damage, with some others being applicable depending on specific situations.> If someone punches you do you have a "quantitative metric" to determine how much pain you experienced and how much justice is necessary?
I don't, which is why I don't pretend you can maximize for an unknowable quantity.>Literally all I said was "the morality of an action should be judged by how much happiness it creates or destroys".
Exactly, which barely helps since it's a moral assertion and not legal one. You didn't make an assertion for any particular system. If restorative was the best, you would say that is. If deterrence was the best, you would say that is. A mix of all 5 of the best know, if it's the best it's the best. I don't disagree that the best is the best, I'm wondering what particular one 'you specifically' think is the best, if you're saying "I don't know which one is the best" then why join a legal discussion?>If you disagree with that say that you disagree with it and why, there are certainly a lot of different views of morality out there
See I think you actually confused a discussion about morality with a discussion about legal systems. I was here to talk legal, you started talking moral, we missed each other until now. If we're having a formal moral discussion now, then fine, I just didn't realize until now you were attempting to have a completely different discussion.>You don't even have the candor to say what you believe.
I suppose you are correct, I haven't made an assertion so far, so I will do so now. I am also going to make a legal assertion, as opposed to a moral one. I also believe in a certain degree that the best legal system should vary by culture and country, in that case, I will need to specify that this applies to the current US. "Restitution" fundamentally fails as a system, as it misunderstands that a majority of criminals will almost never actually be able to properly pay said restitution. You can't pay what you don't have. A system that relies on a punishment that doesn't really effect the convicted, and doesn't actually compensate the victim is fundamentally flawed on a basic level. This applies to a majority of cases in the US, the only times it would even work is if you were able to charge companies and the individuals inside those companies of particular crimes. In the US, corporations are people to, so this fails. I firmly believe in "incapacitation", I believe that a very large part of criminals either lack the ability to make the choice to do good, or if they do and willingly chose to perform the illegal action anyway, that is evidence of sociopathic and manipulative behavior. In both cases, the individuals must and should be removed from situations where they can perpetuate more crime. "Retribution" as a component is basically meaningless, the idea that there should be a punishment is inane when there's already decided to 'be' a punishment. If I'm misunderstanding the definition, then, please correct me. The only other mention of this I can find is that people want to see punishment of crimes to feel better, in that case, it's also meaningless to me. Pandering to feelings leads to very murky results. I don't believe that should be a factor in the equation. As far as "rehabilitation", I can't conceive many particular situations where someone who would commit a criminal act would be dissuaded from the mindset that it is permissible to do. The only type I could think of would be a rational actor who was on the absolute edge of desperation as far as… keeping themselves alive maybe? Think "person in poverty stealing food to feed his family", I believe that shouldn't even occur if your country is set up properly. Predominate criminals being just that, criminal, I believe in most cases rehabilitation has no effect, and when it does, it's benefits do not outweigh it's costs. "Deterrence" is the trickiest one, as it relies on people being rational actors that can make rational decisions, or learn from those that did not. I fundamentally believe at this time this system doesn't actually work in the US, nor will it in the foreseeable future. Too large a country with too many variations in it's culture and it's values. In a better, more homogeneous country, like Japan, "Deterrence" is the most ideal system.>>54954>It makes much more sense to execute a child rapist immediately.
I would have to agree. Though it really depends on what you mean by "child rapist". My mental image is a 35 year old raping a 12 yearold, but technically, some areas of the US an 18 year old fucking a 16 year old is a child rapist.
Fug, should have split that post, for the tl:dr of the last paragraph.>Restoration is fundamentally flawed, Deterrence doesn't work if people aren't rational, Rehabilitation doesn't work the majority of the time, Incapacitation is absolutely necessary, and Retribution isn't particularly useful
> and kept talking as if I said that "prison rape is good"
You literally said this, albeit with a qualifier.
>I guess it is desirable if it reduces the overall level of crime.
This is labeling it as a good thing, if it does what you want it to do. I suppose you also stated it would be bad if it was bad, so, I guess you didn't really say anything in the end.
>This isn't labeling x as a good thing lmao, it's labeling y as a good thing.
As far as linguistics is concerned, that is labeling X is a good thing with Y qualifier.
>Yes there you go, you finally get it. I said absolutely nothing about the inherent morality of prison rape.
Oh, so it's not bad? Or are you going to say more "nothing" again?
Also I thought you were leaving as per your post.
>The point of a qualifier is that it adds an quality to a word that it otherwise doesn't have. So no, that phrase isn't labeling prison rape as good.
By default it isn't good, the qualifier added the trait of goodness to the prison rape given that it fulfills Y function.
>That's what all of this was.
If that is true why did it take you this long to utter a simple sentence then? To me it looks like you tried to defend your previous statement, or at the very least expand on it, and then as soon as you got called out on it you're now giving up and saying "I actually didn't say anything at all."
Yes, the most powerful of debate tactics, throw an ad hominem at me, that'll show me.
>So you admit you were wrong and don't understand basic english? Good.
I think I just got you to admit you were calling prison rape good if you're agreeing with me, so I guess I'm doing fine.
> You failed to show me a something I said that could even be interpreted as "prison rape is bad
Oh are we going in the direction of determining whether or not something can or can not be "interpreted" a certain way? Are you the arbitrator on that? I'm pretty sure an important part of communication is how other people receive the message.
> God, you're so stupid, stubborn and annoying.
Again, so much name calling when I haven't accused you of anything in return. Why attempt to be so hurtful? Does attempting to inflict emotional produce a greater amount of happiness for you then it causes the other person sadness? I think you could produce greater happiness by following your own advice and leaving.
>>54981>Does attempting to inflict emotional produce
Physics isn't deterministic (for example, look at quantum field theory). Or, perhaps it's more accurate to say that physics isn't deterministic to agents living in the universe (so effectively indeterministic). We've known this since the early 20th century, so this is hardly a new idea.
Yes, by "mathematical chaos" I mean "chaos" as used in such fields as chaos theory.
Free-will's ontological characteristic is the introduction of inherent uncertainty into otherwise deterministic systems. (This idea might seem counter-intuitive as a definition, but it will seem clear if you think it through). The output of a chaotic function is also inherently uncertain to any agent, the sole characteristic of free will, making the output of such a function substantively equivalent to the output of a function that has free-will. (You can argue that "ok, so it's inherently uncertain to an agent, but what about the universe outside of agency?", to which I would reply that if you're talking about something no agent can possibly observe, then you're moving towards religious-metaphysics). This doesn't break causality, nor does it imply anything about the deterministic nature of our universe. It's free-will out of determinism. And indeed, it actually turns out that you can't study biological systems in a typically-deterministic fashion, precisely becuase the systems are chaotic (Dr. Robert Sapolsky has a wonderful lecture on this exact topic, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_njf8jwEGRo
>Are you to the point where you're straight up claiming things that never happened?
>Also nice job ignoring that part where I showed you that I said from the very start
Oh I'm sorry, left me rectify that.
>sounds like it is in contradiction with
>>This is labeling it as a good thing
I'm drawing conclusions from your post. You're stated a qualifier adds a quality to a previously mentioned subject, in this case "prison rape". What quality was added to "prison rape" in that original sentence? "it's good if it deters crime". Now I am of the firm belief the prison rape does deter crime to a certain extent, so we can remove the "if" clause. This makes it so you said the subject, "prison rape" has the quality added to it of "goodness". If you don't believe that, why did you say that? Unless you were saying nothing. And if you were saying nothing, why say anything at all?
>Show me where I said something that can be interpreted as me saying "prison rape is good".
I already did, but it's not you I'm trying to convince.
>Oh no, you completely changed my worldview, we're all about punitive justice baby. Your existence is proof that striving for overall happiness is a silly and naive ideal and instead we should disregard the feelings of stupid and malevolent people.
Wow, that is a very strange stance to take. Did it really only take that much to remove your belief in utilitarian philosophy? I would say I'm flattered, but I really don't think I've disproved the entirety of utilitarianism. Please don't exaggerate.
>So I'll keep calling you a stupid, stubborn idiot.
Again slinging insults, why do you try to be so hurtful? I feel like I'm the one being trolled here.
Most of our issues stem from living in a corrupt bureaucratic nightmare. Spend less of our tax money on stupid bullshit, spend more of it on things that improve quality of life for the people who actually pay taxes here. Take all the bandits with their hands in the cookie jar and chop the hands off. ??? Not difficult, people. >>54700
Yes. I care far more about /n/ and urban planning than any other political issue. >>54709
based and /lit/pilled.
but muh reparations. what are you, some kind of racist?
Unironic three-striker. On the third serious (felonies, violence, etc) crime just put them against a wall. Rudy Guiliani's approach vs the incompetent retard DeBlasio is a great illustration on the vivid impact of hard versus soft on crime approaches. >>54903
Well you ivory tower limousine liberal, go take a walk around Camden or Oakland and then tell me how you feel. You sit in your little white suburb and tell people who have to live in the inner city about your lofty idealistic notions of the causes of crime. Put down your stupid books and go outside, and you will see what causes crime. Go ahead, put your money where your mouth is. Oh, they're just poor misunderstood creatures? Then go for a walk in south side Chicago. Go stroll around Detroit after dark. Go on. Oh, that's right, you won't, you will drive in a little car from your little suburb to your little overpriced Whole Foods and tell other people about your ideas.
I shouldn't have to be in fear for my life just trying to walk to work in the morning.
Excuse me but I'll be god damned. Just because my skin is pale, I get blamed for something the british, dutch, and portugese did? Not a single ancestor of mine had anything to do with slavery and I will be damned before my tax money is stolen for "reparations".
The whole prison rape discussion here is not informed by reality.
The United States Department of Justice conducts routine, detailed analyses of crimes which occur inside of prison, including both rape and non-sexual assaults, and staff sexual misconduct.
Men in prison are more likely to be "victims" of staff misconduct (which includes everything between "got kissed on the cheek by a prison therapist once" to "a male guard sold Jimmy some cigarettes in exchange for a hard screw"), but as for the inmate-on-inmate rape, that is far, far, FAR more likely to occur in women's prisons.
So, there are three things to take away here:
1. The rape which actually occurs in prisons is not a deterrent, since nobody can be deterred by something they don't know is real, and nobody realizes the staggering amount of lesbian rape which occurs in women's prisons (most, upon hearing that women get raped in prison, assume it is being done by male guards);
2. The rape which does not occur–and in most prisons, cannot occur, since it is not possible to rape a convicted child molester when at-risk prisoners are separated from rapers by 2 foot concrete walls, Epstein memes aside–is possibly an effective deterrent. If it weren't, District Attorneys wouldn't spend time threatening men with prison rape if they do not confess to various crimes, since that would open them up to liability without reward. So, no-one needs actual prison rape to occur in real life to get any of the alleged, hypothetical social benefits of prison rape.
3. The person most likely to get gay raped by a burly cellmate on a weekly basis isn't the child rapist, it's the woman who turned to addictive drugs and crime after incomplete recovery from being raped as a child and who ended up sentenced to prison for a victimless crime with a disproportionately heavy penalty, such as heroin abuse.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_of_women_in_the_United_States#Sexual_Abuse_in_Correctional_Facilities
There are various Bureau of Justice statistics and studies on sexual violence in American prison, and not only do they all report higher rates of lesbian rape in women's prisons than gay rape in men's prisons, the expectation of higher rates of rape in women's prisons are actually baked into their models. They expect that women will be 2 to 3 times as likely to be raped by a fellow inmate as compared with a man, this has been a known thing for a very long time.https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/svpjri0809.pdf
Another important item this brings to light is you should never, ever trust anything that depicts men in a position of sexual victimhood, even if it indicates that other men were the victimizers. Don't waste sympathy. I wasn't exaggerating earlier about men in prison having an alarm raised over "getting kissed on the cheek by a prison therapist.">Most victims of staff sexual misconduct were males; most perpetrators were females. Among male victims of staff sexual misconduct, 69% of those in prison and 64% of those in jails reported sexual activity with female staff. An additional 16% of prison inmates and 18% of jail inmates reported sexual activity with both female and male staff.
And the rape rate is actually lowballing the difference in sexual assault, if this is to be believed:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2438589/>There were no statistically significant differences between males and females in rates of experiencing staff-on-inmate sexual violence. While female inmates were more likely to be sexually victimized by other inmates than by staff (21.2 vs. 7.6%), male inmates were more likely to report an incident of sexual victimization perpetrated by staff (7.6 vs. 4.3%).>On average, rates of sexual victimization were lowest for males, inmate-on-inmate victimizations, and nonconsensual sexual acts. Thus, studies focusing solely on inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sexual acts (particularly, rape) in male prisons will provide very conservative estimates of sexual victimization overall.
Now we can have a nice realistic view of prison rape and can talk about how excellent it is and how everyone wins when Gertha Dieselsnatch acts as a champion of justice when she forces a former rape survivor to orally service her in the filthy public shower floor, and is cheered on and applauded for putting on a show by any male staff who happen to be nearby.
mio as a nazi offi…
>my political opinions have become so extreme that people who meet me can tell with one conversation that I'm an unironic Nazi adorer even while hiding my powerlevel to the best of my ability
>I'm not even joking
Hitler did do something wrong–he was too kind. One always regrets being too kind. Anyway I'm not sure where to go from here. Tucker Carlson is a centrist imo and everyone acts like he's a walking clansman and tries to deplatform him. And here I am, living in a very liberal city just trying to keep silent. Even my most mild opinion causes an asspain holocaust with the people here. Somehow I triggered a liberal into shrieking hysterically just having a conversation about wine.
Do you know how you can just look at someone and go, "Yep, they're definitely a liberal." Physiognomy theory must be real. If I get a blond white boyfriend I'm going to get the cops called on me just for going to coffee.
The Nazis weren't just against the Jews, they wanted white women to be restricted in what they do as well.
So, unless you're fully into the white guy ubermensch head of the house who you follow without question fantasy, it would be pretty bad.
>>55061>The rape which actually occurs in prisons is not a deterrent, since nobody can be deterred by something they don't know is real,
You say this as if most major religions don't exist.
Whether or not prison rape actually exists, and whether or not extra-judicial acts of violence on prisoners and felons (which is what Prison Rape was an illustrative point for) is moral or ethical are two different questions.
The parallel in this case would be more like people spontaneously organizing church services without ever having heard of God.
Not really. Your analogy is false.
Idk fam I like the sound of a country where I can walk around my own city without being assaulted, raped, shot, stabbed, or harassed. And the jews deserved it, read up on the weimar republic. but I'm not going to go into it here. blows my mind how many lies they composed about Hitler. >>59868
I agree with all those things, but like that other anon said, Nazism (and all other far-right) ideologies have heavy element of male supremacy too. The only role women had in Nazi Germany was as submissive housewife, they were discouraged/prevent from working, had no role in politics beyond passive support, and existed purely to cook, clean and birth more canon fodder for the war. You could get same experience by turning muslim and hooking up with some conservative saudi guy.
It sucks, but women have to choose between liberals who want us all to be reduced to public sex objects and raped by immigrants, and conservatives who want us to be private property. There is no good political option for women and never will be, even modern feminism is pure anti-woman cancer.
I still kink hard on nazis and think fascism is mostly a good ideology, just a shame that you can't ever have it without the misogyny.
Even anprims probably have some uga buga caveman rape as part of their ideology.
>>60058>just a shame that you can't ever have it without the misogyny
Maybe we can, if we have a fascist feminism that puts women first. Of course it can't be called that because those terms have a bad history, but a feminism that's anti-degeneracy and explicitly for women's interests and well-being and against anything that threatens those goals. Some social institutions like religion and public life would have to become more woman-centric for it to work too though. Maybe Christianity is due another reformation but in line with women's interests.
Before someone brings up the radfem meme, lesbianism is pretty degenerate, and they seem to want all their peversions normalized in society too like male gays do.
Just settle for an Amazonian society then.
My highschool required all students to take a class on personal finance and a class in health. It also brought people into the senior classrooms to register us to vote, but the majority of kids I graduated with are still fat broke retards that don't vote. I do agree about segregating by gender. Boys get babied by teachers which lowers the girls quality of education plus boys and girls tend to have different learning styles.>>54866
Rehab for nonviolent crimes and minors, harsh punishment for murderers, rapists, and batterers.>>60039
That sounds really great in theory, but social conservatives tend to see any woman who breathes in public a slut (see muslim countries where showing your hair means you're just asking to be raped). Men won't stop feeling entitled to sex just because they're all white. And don't forget that with nazis in charge there won't be any punishment for wifebeaters or any way out of your life as a broodmare/bangmaid.
>>60058>You could get same experience by turning muslim and hooking up with some conservative saudi guy.
The quran specifically states women are souless breeding cattle whether as in nazi ideology women were home makers and responsible for raising children, and honored for doing so with the: "Cross of Honour of the German Mother to Reichsdeutsche mothers who exhibited probity, exemplary motherhood, and who conceived and raised at least four or more children in the role of a parent."
You weren't forced to marry either so you could actually have a career, and in some cases even in male oriented professions like Leni Riefenstahl (film maker) or Hanna Reitsch (aviator). I mean yeah, they weren't allowed to teach in universities and such but it's a hell of a difference from how islam does it.
Honestly it sounds cozy as hell, too bad hitler massively fucked it up by going to war instead of moving the rest of the 200k jews to israel in accordance to the Haavara Agreement he signed. Like, out of the 500k jews living in germany/austria at the time, 60k were resettled by the agreement, 250k escaped on their own accord.
Still, people give nazi ideology so much shit when it was nothing like islam, they don't say history is written by the winners for nothing.
femfash? female-equality fascism? it can be done.
It can't. Most women are too into submission to be true feminists and too soft to be fascists.
Why not just be national socialist for your race then, add the sexism that is most benign for your race.
Nazism is moid-supremacist and therefore trash.
Look, if your numbers are right and I say that because I really don't care.
Then that would indicate a strong racial bias.
Almost an endemic or systemic issue with hispomoids
We were promised a Boomercide that kills mostly moids.