Barothmuk

The beneficiaries of centuries of slavery, genocide, colonialism and imperialism are able to placate their civilians with enough material incentive so they won't rebel. Who'd have thunk it. Why not? All these Western value nations both participated in, and still benefit from colonialism and on-going imperialism; as well as repeatedly invading foreign countries, toppling foreign regimes and installing puppet dictatorships. Going off history this all seems very "Western". Where you choose between rich representative who serves the interests of the rich A and rich representative who serves the interests of the rich B. The system that was built on slavery, genocide and mass exploitation; the system that continually funnels wealth into the hands of the few directly at the expense of the many; the system whose exploitation has been becoming more and more concentrated for decades; the system that has the richest country in the world have half its population living in poverty or near poverty; the system that in times of economic turmoil continues to attack the poor and serve the rich Bloomberg, "Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened" Wall Street Journal, "The 1% Captures Most Growth From Recovery" Think Progress, "The Richest 1 Percent Captured 93 Percent Of Income Gains In 2010" Washington Post, "In 2010, 93 percent of income gains went to the top 1 percent" Business Insider, "New Study Shows How The 1% Got 93% Of The Income Gains During The Great Recovery" The system who’s top economic work of the year had today’s court charlatan astrologer desperately trying to reconcile the contradictions of capitalism and fearing even worse wealth inequality without severe (and completely unrealistic) worldwide intervention; the system whose own scientists (NASA) fear societal collapse due to the ever expanding wealth gap and the never ending pursuit of profit at the expense of our natural resources; the system that ****ing exists in Africa and has only served widen the wealth gap in the continent. That is owned by the rich, controlled by the rich and serves the interests of the rich. Haha. Even if I were to ignore literally every point I've already made this is simply not possible. The conditions that allowed "the West" to achieve its post-war prosperity were a result of very specific circumstances that we are unlikely to repeat and which have been waning for decades anyway.

Someone who's "effectively destroyed their country's economy and has been implicated in several cases of gross abuse of human rights" but supports America. B/c "Western values".

I look forward to "gamers" comparing this to a pogrom or something.

Edgey bro.

Obola? That barely works at all. Trust conservatives to throw away the one clever (albeit still incredibly stupid) pun of "Obamao".

I'm not one to value Wikipedia by any means but "anarchism is generally considered a left-wing ideology" is basic political science 101. Indeed, anti-authoritarianism is another tenet they like to throw around however seeing that itself is spread across the spectrum one must look towards their other core tenants to determine their political orientation. As noted there are exceptions to the rule (e.g. dumb**** ideologies like anarcho-capitalism) but generally speaking anarchism falls onthe left. Pfffttt, haha.

Wikipedia disagrees. Worth noting is that the left/right divide is obviously an artificial division that was crafted in the specific circumstances of the French Revolution (progressives on the left, reactionaries on the right) which has expanded itself more broadly to represent a division between support for the lower class (left) versus support for the ruling class (right) or even more broadly support for equality versus support for inequality. In the words of the leftist they generally support working-class politics and policies that seek to reduce and/or abolish social and economic inequality. E.g. The moderate leftist will support welfare policies that alleviate the symptoms of poverty and the far-leftist will seek to abolish the causes of inequality. In their eyes the rightist, in contrast, defends the interests of the existing ruling class at the expense of the working majority. The rightist however supports social inequality seeing it as desirable or inevitable. E.g. economically the rightist will seek the preservation of private property and will seek to limit the power and/or influence of groups that threaten its existence (unionists, far-left parties and so on). In their eyes the protecting the rights of the individual and accuse the leftist of “collectivism”. Anarchism (generally) being an ideology that supports the abolition hierarchy and social inequality obviously falls on the left side of this spectrum as it opposes the hierarchy of both state power and private property. Hence why your popular “anarchist movements” (Makhnovia, Catalonia) and anarchist philosophers (Bakunin, Kropotkin etc) are all identified as “leftist”. Of course one can reject the existing criteria for the left/right divide and create your own but that’s about as politically useful as me arguing everything that I don’t support is actually fascism.

The only "noteworthy" right-wing anarchism is anarcho-catpitalism and that's basically just a joke.

Oh please. The left/right divide is a pretty crude division of political ideologies but to say Chomsky's politics somehow transcend the binary by virtue of him criticising both sides is ridiculous. There's basically nothing in Chomsky's politics I'd call "right-wing", he's just your standard leftist who points out societal faults all the while providing no praxis as to how we can change these problems. He's more or less baby's first radical left politics. Anarchism is widely considered left-wing.

Bruce: Always willing to stand up for the oppressed and unheard.

Ugh, don't tell me I'm going to have to put up with another decade of this "clash of civilizations" b.s.

Codex is ****. Was fine years ago when it was just basement dwelling neckbeards hating Bioware and wanking over the same few I.E games. Nowadays they're just closet Bioware fans who are more invested in whining about the SJ boogeyman and trying to emulate the /v/ subculture. Most probably haven't even played more than the first few hours of Planescape or Fallout.

Welcome to the internet.

We've done this song and dance before.

In my experience its just a cynical expression. "Oil" usually representing a variable material interest. Hahaha.

Wait so Yanks invade/bomb/topple country X for economic interest Y falls under the banner of "conspiracy theory"?

Great film. Probably best of 2014.

They are a tiny minority of middle to upper class college educated women who have the luxury of not being dependant on the job and a greater capacity to leave.

Well to quote you again: What I gathered from this is that you assumed that the "sex-negative" feminists opposed sex in of itself. Regarding pornography and prostitution; although sex-positive feminists (and more commonly pimps, porn-producers and johns) love to conceptualize some ideal world where women have complete sexual autonomy over the bodies and freely choose to sell themselves as sexual commodities the reality is that the majority of these women do not wish to be part of these industries and almost entirely come from the poorest sectors of society and are subjected to rape, abuse and forced drug addiction and (if they're lucky enough to survive) will often come out of it with severe PTSD.

Sex-negative feminism doesn't oppose "sex" they oppose the exploitive industries of pornography and prostitution. I always find it a tad disturbing when people treat this as one in the same.

What parts of second-wave and (so-called) "sex-positive" feminism do you agree with and why do you have such a disdain for the third-wave? I ask because "sex-positivity" is primarily associated with the third wave.

They look like they're wearing swim clothes so I don't see a problem with it. I do recall watching an episode of that show and hearing one of the 15 y/o girls implying she likes to be tied up and beaten. That's ****ed up.

And evidently that is very little. If I recall correctly you were unaware of basic pop-culture knowledge like the differences between second-wave and third wave feminsm, "sex-positive" and "sex-negative" feminism and so on. How can you expect to critque something if you refuse to investigate it. Amusingly, I went to a Christian school and thought everything I was being told sounded like a load of hogwash so I made an effort to sit down and read the Bible cover to cover and then used the knowledge I gained from that back at the people who complained about "my lack of faith". That said, I would disagree this is comparable. The Bible is not an intellectual treatise with the purpose of "proving god exists". Perhaps a better example would be dismissing all of Christian theology without having engaged with it in any capacity. I would advise people read Mein Kampf before critiquing Mein Kampf. Are you under the impression feminist works are locked away somewhere only to be read by some secret feminist elite or written in some vaginal ooze only legible to women? The works are out there, you just refuse to engage with them. The tendency to unthinkingly follow the party line so you can earn internet cred is common to both the "SJW" and "anti-SJW" camps.

It should be expected you've actually done some proper investigation of the subject in order to properly critique it or question its legitimacy. They have in the aforementioned hundreds of thousands of woks of feminist literature. Your wilful ignorance is not their fault.