• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

So what form does the resistance take?

The amount of land is finite. Every acre of land that is owned by one person is an acre of land that cannot be owned by another. Once the good land is taken, the whole "concentration of wealth" cycle starts up, just as it does with money. Not any real way to fix it except with some kind of redistribution of wealth system.
Not sure what the solution is, but the problem exists.
Perhaps we should redistribute China's land to citizens of Chad then? They got all the good land, after all.

It's a very pre-industrial view that thinks ownership of land is the basis of wealth these days.
 
...and participants. Don't forget all those "fine people" on both sides. And yes, you have defended them, by pretending they were something other than white supremacists themselves.
You are wrong. Acknowledging that not every person at the event was a white supremacist is not at all defending the organizers.
Otherwise, your attempted comparisons to BLM and pro-Palestinian protests make no sense.
The topic was having a group of people organize a protest in an area that is populated by the people who will be intimidated and frightened by them, and whether or not that is sufficient to deny them the right to both free assembly and free speech.
 
You are wrong. Acknowledging that not every person at the event was a white supremacist is not at all defending the organizers.

The topic was having a group of people organize a protest in an area that is populated by the people who will be intimidated and frightened by them, and whether or not that is sufficient to deny them the right to both free assembly and free speech.
That was neither the topic, nor the conversation that we had. We can continue this conversation in the other thread if you like, where we can refer in detail to the discussion we've already had without derailing this thread even more. Or better yet, start a completely new thread. I won't engage with your gaslighting and revisionism any further in this one.
 
Last edited:
Yes, that's their stated aim. Now... why do they think that they should have the right to take money away from some people and give it to others? What's the underlying principle involved with the entire notion that wealth should be redistributed in the first place?
You do know that we do it now right? Medicare is one way (no its not its not self funded). Food stamps are another. The aca is... or was? Another. Some people want way more, some less. Without it virtually all wealth will become hereditary.

It'd be in my own personal interest to do away with all of it btw. I'll be a deca millionaire by the time I'm 60.
 
Last edited:
I see the closet Marxist are coming out of the closet.
Still surprised they are so blatent about how nobody has the right to own their own home, which is what denial of right to property implies.
That their system has failed so miserably whenever tried they ignore.
as for the land is finate argument, almost everything is finite.
The right to own property is basic to human rights.
Yo want to take about system where no one starves, fine, but I contend the abolition of property in land is a ridiculous idea.
And collectivized agricuture worked so damn well in Russia and China.
 
Last edited:
I see the closet Marxist are coming out of the closet.
Still surprised they are so blatent about how nobody has the right to own their own home, which is what denial of right to property implies.
That their system has failed so miserably whenever tried they ignore.
Im a long ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ways from being a Marxist if thats what you're implying.
 
Still surprised they are so blatent about how nobody has the right to own their own home
What do you call it when someone thinks everybody should own their own home, but nobody should own more than one home? Or at least limit it to five.

I think we as a nation would be better off if everybody owned at least one home, even if it meant nobody owned more than five homes.

Is that unreasonable? Is it evil?
 
Not "too far to the left", only the actually far left. I'm quite happy with the majority of the left - I simply oppose the majority of what gets considered "progressive" these days. Most of the activism that falls under the umbrella of progressive causes has marxist underpinnings. And marxism is a dumb, authoritarian, oppressive view that can only be made policy by extreme force and the rescission of personal liberties.

Can you provide a list of these progressive ideas that have Marxist underpinnings?
 
Last edited:
An interesting conclusion. Certainly the idea that more people than just the elites should enjoy the fruits of the overall weatth and labour of a country were penned by Marx. Where the difference lies is Marx called for a revolutionary overthrow of the elites to force the change, while modern DEI practice seeks to work within the capitalistic framework to help even out the playing field for people who are not white and male.

“I have nothing against diversity, equity, and inclusion. But as Voltaire said about the Holy Roman Empire: it was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.” pic.twitter.com/BDq5zp7fts

— Steven Pinker (@sapinker) August 20, 2025
Pinker's comment does not mean he is opposed to the ideas behind DEI—in fact, he strongly supports them. His barb is aimed at corporations that merely pay lip service to the idea or use it as just another talking point.
 
No, which is why I strongly oppose islam and extreme fundamentalist christianity.

No, which is why I strongly oppose islam.

No, which is why I consider myself a classical feminist.

No, which is why I consider myself a classical feminist.

No, which is why I consider myself a classical feminist.

No, which is why I consider myself a classical feminist.

No, which is why I consider myself a classical feminist.

No, which is why I consider myself a classical feminist.

Islamic subjugation of females as property is a progressive policy?

You're also committing a pretty fundamental fallacy here, of assuming that what the term meant in the past is what it means today. Classical feminism was progressive for its time, but it was also rational and well thought out, and didn't sacrifice the well being of the whole in order to privilege a small cohort.
I think you are confusing 'fundamentalist' islam with Islam. Hezbollah for instance boast about their recognition of women's rights and women in leadership positions. Many 'Islamic' countries have much higher rates of women in STEM than 'Christian' countries. 'Islamic' countries have had elected women leaders.

There are many in Islam with traditional views, who you may call 'fundamentalists'. But this does not reflect the views of many if not most who practice Islam.
 
I think you are confusing 'fundamentalist' islam with Islam. Hezbollah for instance boast about their recognition of women's rights and women in leadership positions. Many 'Islamic' countries have much higher rates of women in STEM than 'Christian' countries. 'Islamic' countries have had elected women leaders.

There are many in Islam with traditional views, who you may call 'fundamentalists'. But this does not reflect the views of many if not most who practice Islam.

Exactly like Christianity then.
 
I think you are confusing 'fundamentalist' islam with Islam. Hezbollah for instance boast about their recognition of women's rights and women in leadership positions. Many 'Islamic' countries have much higher rates of women in STEM than 'Christian' countries. 'Islamic' countries have had elected women leaders.

There are many in Islam with traditional views, who you may call 'fundamentalists'. But this does not reflect the views of many if not most who practice Islam.
I won't pretend to be able to read Emily's Cat's mind, but on a more general basis -- ask an islamophobe why they dislike Islam, and they give you a list of grievances that lines up more or less perfectly with far-right movements like MAGA. Oppression of women, political opponents, and rival faiths, promotion of violence and terror, disdain for democracy and human rights, what does the far-right bitch and moan about wrt Islam that they are not doing themselves?

It's not about Islam oppressing women to them, it's about them needing a scapegoat and an enemy, and pearl clutching about violence, oppression, and authoritarianism to try to sanitize their views to moderates.

Yup, based on my colleagues who are Muslims, including quite a few woman engineers
D-D-DEI hires?! But, but white cishet men are superior at everything! Hire anyone else and quality goes down! :reaches for smelling salts:
 

Back
Top Bottom