Political Spergatory or How I Learned To Love /pol

My experience, living in Trump state ground zero AZ, nothing. I am more inclined to agree with your Thai friend.

I think I can remember 2 times when someone said something racist to me. Both times while I was walking or biking, with them driving by. Also when I was high school aged.

These attacks have mostly happened to old asian folk, cheap shots against folks who are not aware and cannot defend themselves. Mostly in places with a heavy asian population. Even a small percent seems a lot if the proportion of asians in state is higher.

I have a 'dad bod', and I am always aware of looking behind me. Not something recent but common sense. Some other stories I think are just asians not letting things slide. If your asian and you see a group that looks hostile, or they try to start shit with you, common sense dictates letting it go or de escalate. Fighting for me is always a last resort. In the current climate, defending yourself against certain protected groups, gets you labelled a racist.

Something off the side

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/07/ente...-appropriation-breakfast-club-trnd/index.html

The reasons asians seem less hostile is that most of us are pretty mellow and let shit slide, at least the asians I know (Korean, Chinese and Japanese). When a cop pulls me over, I don't act aggressive or like those sovereign citizen stupid fucks. I never feel I need to 'front' or prove myself.
 
Last edited:
DarkCorp said:
That ia my point. Germany cannot handle unlimited refugees/illegals/whatever. The same with America
Click to expand...
Who ever said it has to? Let us not act here like there's every day 20+ million people crossing the border or something. Yes nations have >hard< limits. But when it really comes to treating the current number of refugees that we see in either Europe or the United States? We're not even close to that scenario. So again I am not sure what the point is. I get what you're saying. But it's a non issue for now. And it shouldn't prevent us from actually doing the duties we (as nations) have committed our self to. Don't want refugees? Get out of the international treaties like human rights or the geneva convention. But you would have to also change a few core principles the United States was actually build on - remember what's on the Statue of Liberty? A lot of people in the US actually take this serious.

DarkCorp said:
Mexico is second only to Brazil in economy and how long has it been filled with corruption and violence? Brazil? Guatemala?
Click to expand...
Here is the thing. You don't have to aim for perfect solutions. But actually trying to get more stability in neighbouring countries? That's a very good thing. It's in the self interest of your nation. Besides we should also not act like there is no responsibility here. While I do not want to throw blame around because foreign policy is always a complex matter of different interest groups there can be no dennying of historical events about certain involvements by US intelligence agencies in the one or other military coup in south america which has lead to the situations we're seeing today. You can not say "Oh look those countries will never improve!" when your own government has activelly worked in the past to destabilise their governments and socities. There is quite some debth to that. Besides helping those countries to fight corruption is possible even though it's difficult no question about that but it's needed. Particularly as we're not only talking about refugees here you know we're also talking about illegal weapon and drug trade and economic issues. If you don't want to tackle those things because of some altruistic motive then there is a good message here. Do it out of self interest.
 
It may not be as some outrageous number like in the millions but it does add up. Couple hundred thousand here some there.

In response to our SA adventures, millions of dollars of remittances are sent back to these countries each year. We also provides millions of dollars to these regimes ti combat drugs and poverty. I think we are doing enough already. And lastly America in 1907 has 87 million. We have almost 4 times that today. Different times.

We can and do take a certain amount of refugees yearly. My issue with the caravans is most illegals here are migrants, here for economic reasons rather than a credible fear of persecution. An example is drugs and gang violence, something that happens everywhere and should not qualify for refugee status. When I hear refugee, I think of war.

As in stable countries, most of these countries ARE stable, especially in a sense they are not wracked by warfare unlike Syria for example.
 
Would just like to point out that US intel agencies are partly responsible for drug issues in SA and by association the US as well. Some of this was done to procure funds.
 
DarkCorp said:
It may not be as some outrageous number like in the millions but it does add up. Couple hundred thousand here some there.
Click to expand...
To a nation of 328.000 million people with a birthrate that is at it's lowest in 32 years ...

So unless you have some fear that one of your neighbours has now the name Carlos or Miguel instead of Carl or Michael then I don't think that it will bring the US to a breaking point in the near future - or ever. The United States has always been a melting pot of cultures and ethnicities by the way. I am not in favour of unregulated immigration and I know there are some serious issues which can not be ignored. But there is way to much fear mongering here and way to much hostility and vitriol in debates about immigration in general. And I am simply tired of it after hearing the same a arguments and rhetoric for 20+ years. Which also prevents any sensible foreign and immigration policy to ever take place.
 
Morgan_ said:
Would just like to point out that US intel agencies are partly responsible for drug issues in SA and by association the US as well. Some of this was done to procure funds.
Click to expand...
Yeah...US Intelligence agencies.
Hava Nagila plays quietly in the background.
 
Yeah republicans don't realize that either way they usually win despite who gets office.

upload_2021-3-8_13-54-23.png
 
Crni Vuk said:
He should simply give it to the Pentagon and since he's the Commander in Chief (I know it's inaccurate) just order the troops to "build the infrastructure".

How can Republicans say no to the military?
Click to expand...
I remember when it was illegal to even think of using the military when Trump wanted to send them to the border since... it's apparently illegal for the military to enforce US laws.

Morgan_ said:
Yeah republicans don't realize that either way they usually win despite who gets office.
Click to expand...
The center establishment democrat and republican politicians win.

Anyway thought this was a little quirky:

​
 
Aurelius Of Phoenix said:
Anyway thought this was a little quirky:

​
Click to expand...

"Aztec God of human sacrifice", lmao what?

Like Huītzilōpōchtli was the patron god of the Mexica, and was prayed to because he was believed to win wars.

Like, does Cristopher here think that Poseidon was the Greek God of Human Sacrifice? After all, I can point to reported incidents of that happening, therefore he must literally be a god of human sacrifice.

The answer is obviously no to that, just because people sometimes gave human sacrifices to Poseidon to appease him doesn't mean that he's literally the Greek God of human sacrifice. The reason people sometimes did that, was because he represented other things like Oceans and Earthquakes, and either when they needed the aid of the Oceans somehow, or when natural disasters were occuring, people believed they needed to engage in some kind of rituals to appease him. The same is true of Aztec Gods, and any kind of polytheism really.

Let me put this another way for you: imagine if the Aztecs had a "God of prayer", and that was the God that whenever they prayed to all the prayers would go up to that god. What dominions does this God control?, Prayer. What happens if you stop praying to him? he stops recieving those prayers. Like, that would be fucking stupid, no?

The whole point of Polytheism is you have Gods which represent different dominions and can eithr be beneficial or harmful to you based on what they represent, and through various rituals you appease those gods and their respective dominions. There's no such thing as a "God of human sacrifice" because that's the method of appeasement not the point of the God.

This is unbelievably obvious, and I don't believe I have to point this out.
 
Jogre said:
"Aztec God of human sacrifice", lmao what?
Click to expand...
I think it's just him fucking up on twitter, here's what his article says.
This religious concept is fleshed out in the model curriculum’s official “ethnic studies community chant.” The curriculum recommends that teachers lead their students in a series of indigenous songs, chants, and affirmations, including the “In Lak Ech Affirmation,” which appeals directly to the Aztec gods. Students first clap and chant to the god Tezkatlipoka—whom the Aztecs traditionally worshipped with human sacrifice and cannibalism—asking him for the power to be “warriors” for “social justice.” Next, the students chant to the gods Quetzalcoatl, Huitzilopochtli, and Xipe Totek, seeking “healing epistemologies” and “a revolutionary spirit.” Huitzilopochtli, in particular, is the Aztec deity of war and inspired hundreds of thousands of human sacrifices during Aztec rule. Finally, the chant comes to a climax with a request for “liberation, transformation, [and] decolonization,” after which students shout “Panche beh! Panche beh!” in pursuit of ultimate “critical consciousness.”
Click to expand...
https://www.city-journal.org/calif-ethnic-studies-curriculum-accuses-christianity-of-theocide
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top