Don't blame me, I voted for the other guy. (Politics General)

@Cyborg_pony  
Ok first off, you gotta stop with the “telling others what they mean and then arguing against what they didn’t say” because it’s really annoying. In no fucking way did I say or even mean that white People had it made just because they were white. I pointed out accurately that in 1700s America, blacks were not treated equally on paper. That’s it, nothing more nothing less, it’s a historical fact. None of this, “White People had it made” Crap that you made up.
 
Also, again I don’t know where this came from “Also, if all people were racist, then Why was there even reform to emancipate slaves?” because again you’re trying to argue against something I didn’t say. So I’m just going to say this once for the record. I did not say that everyone was racist back then. Got it?

@neutralgrey
 
Whoa guys easy there. Have some tea.
 

I remember when even Google protested the end of Net Neutrality. They went so far as to black bar their own logo.
 
Could use that kind of coverage again.

@ArkyNoid  
I only drink tea with a lot of sugar, I mean like a lot.

@Mike  
To put you somewhat at ease, many anarcho-capitalists at least (the kind of anarchism I subscribe to) do abide by something called the non-aggression principle.

@Dustcan  
Google is a good ally to have in this. Same with Comcast, of all companies, which is speaking out against it.

@SonGokuMonkey  
Even if anarchism were a better solution, it would be impossible to overthrow the government in this day and age as I am certain they have ways of containing an attempted overthrow.  
And I wouldn’t want to subscribe to any anarchism because a lack of laws means lack of order and there are too many nutcases in this country that I’m sure would take advantage of that.

@neutralgrey  
Then maybe you should clarify, because you’re the one that said:  
@neutralgrey  

 
Because that’s an absurd assumption. No one says that. There’s racism today. just some like to ignore some of it, because it doesn’t fit a narrative, but I digress.
 
You also mad the absurd claim that with:  
@neutralgrey  

 
Witch again if very incorrect. Many men has zero choice back then if they weren’t land owners. Since they could be drafted into wars they didn’t care about, on both sides. Some people didn’t even have the choice which side they fought for because of where they lived at the time.
 
It’s also to note in many 1st world countries, white are discriminated against, whether people like to believe it or not, because people in just have to prove how not racist they are. It is funny, how I’ve seen some say thing that would be akin to saying the agencies of minorities shouldn’t be taken into account with their actions.
 
It’s like they’re white supremacists with a guilty conscious. It’s even going as far as reinstituting segregation, but this time to “protect” them. Isn’t it odd if everyone should be treated equal today if someone says “I don’t want any white roommates” they looked at differently then someone saying “I don’t want a black any roommates”
 
I ask why, but usually the “Systematic” line comes into play which again I find odd. If you lived to be 100 and whites start talking about how they were “Systematically” oppressed and therefore they have ever right to discriminate, would that be okay? Since there’d be proof they were.
 
I also, find it weird people brag about whites becoming the minorities. Wouldn’t that just mean, all the laws that benefit minorities would then just apply to white exclusively? Does anyone else see how moronic that is?

@Cyborg_pony  

 
So you’re triggered by word choice? I’ll admit I could have said “Or are you going to say nobody was racist back then during the 1700s” instead of “Or are you going to say everyone wasn’t racist back then during the 1700s?” But you’re just splitting hairs because they both mean the same damn thing, and none of them mean that everyone was racist back then. So stop trying to accuse me of saying everyone was racist.
 
Also, as for your rant at the end at a joke, all I did was point out the hypocrisy of the founding fathers when they agreed that “All men should be created equal” line should be in the Declaration of Independence. It was a simple and accurate joke, so stop acting so triggered.
 
Tell you what, if I include in my joke that they only meant Non-Catholic Protestant religious straight white men with property were equal, will you be happy? I didn’t add it before because I wanted to keep the joke short, but for your sake I’ll add it if it’ll make you happy

@Mike  
Personally, I’ll take a few lunatics over an over-bearing nanny state any day. I’m sick of bureaucrats, I’m sick of cops writing tickets for stupid small things while murders, rapes and thefts go unsolved (especially in places like Chicago, Detroit and even New York.) I’m sick of all the state-sanctioned kidnappings over a certain plant. I’m disgusted that we’re over $20 trillion in debt, mostly spent on war while many problems at home go unsolved.
 
Anarchy is starting to look better and better, at least for me it is.

@SonGokuMonkey  
Those lunatics would be calling the shots soon enough. Anarchy can’t defend itself from organized violence, as evidenced by the entire history of history.

What if The Purge was real? Like one day a year of true anarchy or whatever it is?

@Background Human  

 
This^  
@SonGokuMonkey  
Also, there are a lot of cops who are just trying to do their part to protect society, it’s just that it’s a lot more interesting to some to do a news article on something a bad cop did, that doesn’t mean all cops are like that. Stop making the government out to be some really bad thing, because while it has corruption, there are countries that fare, far far worse.

@ArkyNoid  
It wouldn’t end with one day, there’d be mass riots, looting of small businesses, and it’ll basically be like the Nika Riots only with no one to stop them for the whole night

@neutralgrey  

 
Also this. Thinking anarachy would be any better is foolish, because humans aren’t ethical by nature and will do anything to survive. Survival of the fittest doesn’t sound like a good option, sorry to say.

@Cyborg_pony  

 
You are taking word choice too seriously and the topic isn’t about the racism of today.  

 
This is beside the point: By being slaves, blacks were more disadvantaged than whites. With whites, the disadvantages weren’t permanent nor prescribed, but with blacks, the disadvantages were passed on and prescribed because of the hereditary nature of U.S. slavery, which is systematic racism by its guaranteed, immediate disadvantages for blacks.  

 
You are shoehorning in an entirely different topic.

@Cyborg_pony  
Hey, you’re the one who got triggered over my non-inclusion of white people in my joke. So is this not what you want?

+*How is human cooperation different?
 
ABSTRACT  
Although cooperation is a widespread phenomenon in nature, human cooperation exceeds that of all other species with regard to the scale and range of cooperative activities. Here we review and discuss differences between humans and non-humans in the strategies employed to maintain cooperation and control free-riders. We distinguish forms of cooperative behaviour based on their influence on the immediate payoffs of actor and recipient. If the actor has immediate costs and only the recipient obtains immediate benefits, we term this investment. If the behaviour has immediate positive effects for both actor and recipient, we call this a self-serving mutually beneficial behaviour or mutual cooperation. We argue that humans, in contrast to all other species, employ a wider range of enforcement mechanisms, which allow higher levels of cooperation to evolve and stabilize among unrelated individuals and in large groups. We also discuss proximate mechanisms underlying cooperative behaviour and focus on our experimental work with humans and our closest primate relatives. Differences in the proximate mechanisms also seem to contribute to explaining humans’ greater ability to cooperate and enforce cooperation.

@Background Human  

 
It depends on the flavor of anarchy. An anarchy that melts down the power of a state for the benefit of private corporations under the guise of individual freedom, so long as that freedom has money to back it will always be vulnerable from within. Early Anarcho-Communist experiments were vulnerable from the outside, but in those given cases - Revolutionary Catalonia - it was part of a much larger theater and of course: the Soviet dick.
 
There are more recent anarchist movements that have done pretty well. The Zapatistas of Mexico made successful resistance efforts against the Mexican military, and while today hold them and what’s basically a Mexican stand off in Chiapas; Mexico won’t try to hit the EZLN, as the EZLN makes a lot of noise with public demonstrations against the federal government. And in some ways the Rojava Kurds in northern Syria are anarchists in the same vein as Spain’s CNT-FIA alliance in the 30’s and so far they’ve been the most successful not-Assad force in the region.
 
The success of the movements generally come down to some level of organization and Federalization; which is ironic given the name. But the father of modern radical Anarchism today, Mikhail Bakunin even recognized the importance of formalizing the anarchist model post-insurrection as a means to defend itself. He and Marx were in agreement in that regard post Paris Commune, though the two disagreed with what level it should be at (Bakunin said federalization in as far as to formalize the process should be organized in order to defend the spirit of the Revolution, and for that spirit to be continued out. Marx’s advocacy by some observers resulted in the later USSR with insistence the Commune should have dealt more stringently with enemies, performed mass conscription, and some other reforms as I heard it).
 
Though now a days most Anarchist’s idea of getting things done is to build interpersonal networks outside of existing systems. But push comes to shove they have, ironically, thrown together what might be called a formal military.

Gillibrand Cannibalizes Bill Clinton, Refuses to Defend Al Franken
 
Odd how she railed on Bill for the Monica Lewinsky thing, which is before we know of his others thanks to you-know-who. Gonna keep an eye on her. As we know the DNC is in ruins, the top 5 have scandals on their head. Take that in with corruption, bribes, deals.
 
It’s ain’t looking good for them and they’re in denial. They also take slim wins in blue states as a “Republicans better watch out!” moment, which just feels like ego out of control. Then they complain when people are moving “far-right” when if anything, It’s just right of crazy.

I like anarchist communism. :3
 
The Place of Anarchism in Socialistic Evolution by Peter Kropotkin
 
PART I.  
You must often have asked yourselves what is the cause of Anarchism, and why, since there are already so many Socialist schools, it is necessary to found an additional one—that of Anarchism. In order to answer this question I will go back to the close of last century.
 
You all know the characteristics which marked that epoch: there was an expansion of intelligence, a prodigious development of the natural sciences, a pitiless examination of accepted prejudices, the formation of a theory of Nature based on a truly scientific foundation, observation and reasoning. In addition to these there was criticism of the political institutions bequeathed to Humanity by preceding ages, and a movement towards that ideal of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity which has in all times been the ideal of the popular masses. Fettered in its free development by despotism and by the narrow selfishness of the privileged classes, this movement, being at the same time favoured by an explosion of popular indignation, engendered the Great Revolution which had to force its way through the midst of a thousand obstacles both without and within.
 
The Revolution was vanquished, but its ideas remained. Though at first persecuted and derided, they became the watchword for a whole century of slow evolution. The history of the nineteenth century is summed up in an effort to put in practice the principles elaborated at the end of last century: this is the lot of revolutions: though vanquished they establish the course of the evolution which follows them. In the domain of politics these ideas are abolition of aristocratic privileges, abolition of personal government, and equality before the law. In the economic order the Revolution proclaimed freedom of business transactions; it said—“Sell and buy freely. Sell, all of you, your products, if you can produce, and if you do not possess the implements necessary for that purpose but have only your arms to sell, sell them, sell your labour to the highest bidder, the State will not interfere! Compete among yourselves, contractors! No favour shall be shown, the law of natural selection will take upon itself the function of killing off those who do not keep pace with the progress of industry, and will reward those who take the lead.”
 
The above is at least the theory of the Revolution of 1789, and if the State intervenes in the struggle to favour some to the detriment of others, as we have lately seen when the monopolies of mining and railway companies have been under discussion, such action is regarded by the liberal school as a lamentable deviation from the grand principles of the Revolution.
 
What has been the result? You know only too well, both women and men, idle opulence for a few and uncertainty for the morrow and misery for the greater number; crisis and wars for the conquest of markets, and a lavish expenditure of public money to find openings for industrial speculators. All this is because in proclaiming liberty of contract an essential point was neglected by our fathers. Not but what some of them caught sight of it, the best of them earnestly desired but did not dare to realise it. While liberty of transactions, that is to say a conflict between the members of society, was proclaimed, the contending parties were not equally matched, and the powerful, armed for the contest by the means inherited from their fathers, have gained the upper hand over the weak. Under such conditions the millions of poor ranged against a few rich could not do otherwise than give in.
 
Comrades! you have often asked yourselves—“Whence comes the wealth of the rich? Is it from their labour?” It would be a mockery to say that it was so. Let us suppose that M. Rothschild has worked all his life: well, you also, every one of you working men have also laboured: then why should the fortune of M. Rothschild be measured by hundreds of millions while your possessions are so small? The reason is simple: you have exerted yourselves to produce by your own labour, while M. Rothschild has devoted himself to accumulating the product of the labour of others—the whole matter lies in that.
 
But some one may say to me;—“How comes it that millions of men thus allow the Rothschilds and the Mackays to appropriate the fruit of their labour?” Alas, they cannot help themselves under the existing social system! But let us picture to our minds a city all of whose inhabitants find their lodging, clothing, food and occupation secured to them, on condition of producing things useful to the community, and let us suppose a Rothschild to enter this city bringing with him a cask full of gold. If he spends his gold it will diminish rapidly; if he locks it up it will not increase, because gold does not grow like seed, and after the lapse of a twelvemonth he will not find £110 in his drawer if he only put £100 into it. If he sets up a factory and proposes to the inhabitants of the town that they should work in it for four shillings a day while producing to the value of eight shillings a day they reply—“Among us you’ll find no one willing to work on those terms. Go elsewhere and settle in some town where the unfortunate people have neither clothing, bread, nor work assured to them, and where they will consent to give up to you the lion’s share of the result of their labour in return for the barest necessaries of life. Go where men starve! there you will make your fortune!”
 
The origin of the wealth of the rich is your misery. Let there be no poor, then we shall have no millionaires.
 
The facts I have just stated were such as the Revolution of last century did not comprehend or else could not act upon. That Revolution placed face to face two opposing ranks, the one consisting of a hungry, ill-clad army of former serfs, the other of men well provided with means. It then said to these two arrays—“Fight out your battle.” The unfortunate were vanquished. They possessed no fortunes, but they had something more precious than all the gold in the world—their arms; and these arms, the source of all wealth, were monopolised by the wealthy. Thus we have seen those immense fortunes which are the characteristic feature of our age spring up on all sides. A king of the last century, “the great Louis the Fourteenth” of mercenary historians, would never have dreamed of possessing a fortune such as are held by those kings of the nineteenth century, the Vanderbilts and the Mackays.
 
On the other hand we have seen the poor reduced still more and more to toil for others, and while those who produced on their own account have rapidly disappeared, we find ourselves compelled under an ever increasing pressure to labour more and more to enrich the rich. Attempts have been made to remove these evils. Some have said—“Let us give equal instruction to all,” and forthwith education has been spread abroad. Better human machines have been turned out, but these educated machines still labour to enrich others. This illustrious scientist, that renowned novelist, despite their education are still beasts of burden to the capitalist. Instruction improves the cattle to be exploited but the exploitation remains. Next, there was great talk about association, but the workers soon learned that they could not get the better of capital by associating their miseries, and those who cherished this illusion most earnestly were compelled to turn to Socialism.
 
Timid, at the outset, Socialism spoke at first in the name of Christian sentiment and morality: men profoundly imbued with the moral principles of Christianity—principles which it possesses in common with all other religions—came forward and said—“A Christian has no right to exploit his brethren!” But the ruling classes laughed in their faces with the reply—“Teach the people Christian resignation, tell them in the name of Christ that they should offer their left cheek to whosoever smites them on the right, then you will be welcome; as for the dreams of equality which you find in Christianity, go and meditate on your discoveries in prison.”
 
Later on Socialism spoke in the name of Governmentalism; it said—“Since it is the special mission of the State to protect the weak against the strong, it is its duty to aid working men’s associations; the State alone can enable working men to fight against capital and to oppose to capitalistic exploitation the free workshop of workers pocketing the entire value of the produce of their labour.” To this the Bourgeoisie replied with grapeshot in 1848.
 
It was not until between twenty to thirty years later, at a time when the popular masses were invited to express their mind in the International Working Men’s Association, that Socialism spoke in the name of the people, and formulating itself little by little in the Congresses of the great Association and later on among its successors, arrived at some such conclusion as the following:
 
All accumulated wealth is the product of the labour of all—of the present and of all preceding generations. This hall in which we are now assembled derives its value from the fact that it is situated in Paris—this magnificent city built by the labours of twenty successive generations. If this same hall were conveyed amid the snows of Siberia its value would be next to nothing. The machinery which you have invented and patented bears within itself the intelligence of five or six generations and is only possessed of value because it forms part of that immense whole that we call the progress of the nineteenth century. If you send your lace-making machine among the natives of New Guinea it will become valueless. We defy any man of genius of our times to tell us what share his intellect has had in the magnificent deductions of the book, the work of talent which he has produced! Generations have toiled to accumulate facts for him, his ideas have perhaps been suggested to him by a locomotive crossing the plains, as for elegance of design he has grasped it while admiring the Venus of Milo or the work of Murillo, and finally, if his book exercises any influence over us, it does so, thanks to all the circumstances of our civilisation.
 
Everything belongs to all! We defy anyone soever to tell us what share of the general wealth is due to each individual. See the enormous mass of appliances which the nineteenth century has created; behold those millions of iron slaves which we call machines, and which plane and saw, weave and spin for us, separate and combine the raw materials, and work the miracles of our times. No one has the right to monopolise any one of these machines and to say to others—“This is mine, if you wish to make use of it you must pay me a tax on each article you produce,” any more than the feudal lord of the middle ages had the right to say to the cultivator—“This hill and this meadow are mine and you must pay me tribute for every sheaf of barley you bind, and on each haycock you heap up.”
 
All belongs to everyone! And provided each man and woman contributes his and her share of labour for the production of necessary objects, they have a right to share in all that is produced by everybody.

I find this pretty accurate: