American right-wingers are the stupidest people on earth!
The USA was only created because rebels rebelled against the monarchies of Europe and wanted to become independent…
American right-wingers are the stupidest people on earth!
American right-wingers are the stupidest people on earth!
Is this supposed to be some profound statement?
what does that even mean?
this is like me saying russian left wingers are the stupidest people on earth because the tsars were bad leaders….how are you even relating the first and second part of your sentence ?
They rebelled because they were in debt and wanted to enlsave people and exploit the new frontier (oh and also kill all the natives who inhabited it). The crown was holding them back. The wrong side won.
I love it when communists forget that america is not a foil for "everything I dont like"
how can you exploit soil? Is soil sentient ?
I require sauce, gif related
Slavery was legal in the British Empire until the nineteenth century, dumbass
Exploiting a resource is a valid concept. It's pretty obvious Christcom wasn't referring to exploitation in the Marxist sense. The fact that the North American continent was basically virgin land (after the Injuns were removed) is profoundly important to the way the US developed and a major factor in why they became the global hegemon.
It's not that it was deliberate. The fact that the monarchy was exploiting the colonies by siphoning off resources prevented expansionism in a pragmatic sense. They were taking too much and not giving enough back. That was a major motivation for the land owners in the colonies - the opportunity to expand enterprise. The nobility was just taking too much off the top of what they were taking off the top of the workers for that to be feasible.
Hello fellow leftist
At least calling them Injuns is a monument to the white man's stupidity. There never was and never will be an autonym for people who don't form a collective.
Ah yes, let’s blame people 500 years ago for making mistakes about the planet’s geography. What dummies!
Injun is a term literally no one uses besides reactionary hicks. Hello, fellow leftist
bud hicks have not used the term "injuns" in your lifetime or your parents lifetime and most likely not even in your parents lifetime, its passed into the history books
exploitation as a concept requires some transfer of goods or labor or value from one deserving , sentient being to another. you cannot "exploit" land anymore than you can "exploit" a rug, a rock or a rag.
as to the second part of that statement, I more or less agree, I just dont see how what OP said makes any fing sense at all. It sounded very deliberate based on "the wrong side won!!"
who claimed I was a leftie, leftie?
I'm pretty sure you've forgotten who's on your side. At least we try. You guys just dived 6ft deep into the shit pool.
The only reason "Native Americans" form a cohesive group is because they were targeted as such by European colonists. If you're going to refer to them as a single group the least you can do is shit on the genocideers who created that particular distinction.
Exploitation is a word with multiple definitions. The Marxist sense of exploitation is not the only one.
What a fucking pointless thread, this is like the third or fourth thread in the last few days dedicated to childish pouting about burger right-wingers. At this point I'm pretty sure this board's userbase is just teenagers. This thread is a fucking train wreck.
I'm convinced there's a slow migration of reddit onto this board.
explain how you can exploit an inanimate object
Exploit can just mean "to benefit from", so you can absolutely exploit inanimate things. I more commonly refers to benefiting from things, not just people, in a way that is immoral or otherwise destructive. Your attempt at linguistic pedantry is idiotic, and exploitation can be used to describe what America did duringits westward expansion.
This is almost entirely false. The first point is only true of some of them, is an oversimplification, and I don't see evidence that it was central motivation for the revolution. And I don't even think the revolution was motivated by any high mindedness for most of the founders.
OPs mom should have swallowed
bro………..that is so very very subjective.
"YOU BENEFITED FROM USING THAT DEAD WOOD FOR A CAMPFIRE, YOU ARE EXPLOITING THE FOREST OMG"
what even is this. can you *explain* how someone can exploit an inanimate object instead of just repeating that "lol you can because I said you can"?
All this ammo ain't for show. Send it up, Capitalist.
That picture is ironic, and you added the shit in parenthesis.
Yes, it's what the word really means. Deal with it.
No. Nobody can explain why your wrong understanding of the word "exploit" is true.
I added it so hard I have a picture of the post I was referencing in which he used those exact words………
Ah, good point. Just scrap the parenthetical part, then; "my feefees do/do not like it" isn't at all part of the criteria.
Just means to utilize to an end, possibly for benefit. I am exploiting this nifty text form to compose a message to send to the posting script, for instance.
this is like 10000D left wing exploitation chess , and I feel like I havent done enough psychedelics to fully appreciate how 1000000D it truly is…..
You should have a feudalism flag.
The common use of exploit as it was brought up ITT just means to use something to your advantage, i.e. to use natural resources. This even has technical applications as well, e.g. we say that a fishery is exploited to a specific extent (how many fish are drawn from the population) and this is relevant to ecology because exploitation is sustainable up to a certain point. It's not our fault you're a pedant.
My argument is that said term is so broad that it becomes defacto meaningless and is no longer a negative thing. Ecological health matters but to say "to use to ones advantage or for ones benefit" is exploitation is a kind of endless spiral. You and I are both mentally using this conversation to some kind of advantage therefore we are exploiting each other, when you wash your hands you commit bacterial genocide to stay healthy therefore you are exploiting the bacteria, I am currently resting my head on a pillow made out of some kind of (originally) organic material therefore I am exploiting cotton plants, the building in which I am dwelling is taking up land that as someone in this thread called it was once "virgin land" therefore I am by extension exploiting the land, etc etc etc ad infinitum.
You are trying way too hard to sound smart, dude.
Not really, no. Because it's just using the definition that means "to use a resource." That doesn't mean the other definitions apply. Maybe you should look up the four terms fallacy or the difference between signifier and signified.
Im not trying to sound smart, I either speak like a professor fag or I meme, depending on circumstance, you and your friends didnt understand the latter so I hopped into the former. "to use a resource"
land is a resource
food is a resource
water is a resource
this is the endless spiral
you cant exploit an inanimate object because the inanimate object lacks the sentience to claim a right to its own agency
You are quite clearly ESL or some sort of prescriptivist retard. The phrase “to exploit this area’s resources” (or something to that effect) sounds perfectly normal to me and I would assume most other native English speakers, “exploit” here being used in the sense of “make use of”, “take advantage of” – which, looking at various definitions of the word, aligns with common everyday usage
I took advantage of this fine imageboard to post a message.
Again, drop your fee-fees. They have nothing to do with words mean.
Again, just drop your feels.
That's reality. It can be positive, negative, neutral, etc. It just has meanings, not feels.
Not part of the definition.
"Meanings" that don't go beyond "doubpleplusgood/doubleplusungood" aren't really that great anyway. I'd even go so far as to say "actively ungood." Point being, here, they have nothing at all to do with the word.
my point is that using the word in relation to non sentient objects is incorrect and dilutes actual exploitation as a concept. my counter to your claim that the use of resources is exploitation is that you encounter a logical fork in the road; either exploitation = bad therefore use of resources (exploitation of them) = bad in which case the existence of everything living is negative or exploitation is not negative and is just a kind of existential reality.
There is only one resource. Labor! All other “resources” are only able to be used by civilization because of labor. Without labor they’re useless.
this, yall's definition is based on an undefined precept of morality. I am not saying all morality is a spook but this current one as to the use of resources being somehow immoral seems kinda hazy
I dont agree entirely but labor at least sets a concrete basis for exploitation as a concept as opposed to
"Not inherently negative," at least; it's neutral. Similarly, sexual activity isn't (inherently) negative, and this does not make rape great. It is neutral, and good or bad are based on both values and the individual situation.
Meanwhile, imma exploit the post button…
Exploitation (this definition of it - using resources) is negative in a purely mathematical sense. You take from a resource when you exploit it, leaving less behind. It's not inherently negative in a moral sense though. Marx's idea of exploitation wasn't negative in the moral sense either since morality was not the basis of his critique, rather that exploitation was taking from workers in a mathematical, material sense. So even if we were to grant that the word means the same thing, the pedant is still wrong here about the word connoting something bad.
Well you have to do the labor of picking berries and putting them in your mouth for the value to be realized, but even if you just lie in the sun you are soaking up its energy, which reduces the amount of body heat you need to produce (also helps you synthesize vitamin D). Not entirely true.
in which case the first fuckers point is entirely invalid by bitching about the use of the fronyier by americans
Are you intentionally trying to be retarded or something?
No more than sexual intercourse not being evil makes rape okay; it was an example of a neutral act which, in individual instance, was bad. Coincidence.
Ah, but when I exploit the post button, I leave more behind.
…and similarly, when I exploit a durable capital good, nothing is taken, so… communism?
pray tell why the people on this specific continent were bad for doing what humans up to that point had been doing in most other places for centuries?
I know I'm supposed to just be towing the party line here in which some exploitation is more equal than other exploitation , comrade, but I am not seeing a logical argument here.
You're not exploiting a resource if it's infinite in practical terms. The post button isn't a resource.
Nobody said it was different in North America, just that it happened here.
It's the only plausible explanation, ESL would at least have the humility to read a dictionary.
Here, please try to speak coherently from now on:
Webster's Dictionary 2014:
>2. [tr. v.] To make productive use of : utilize
Webster's Dictionary 1913:
>1. [tr. v., F. exploiter.] To utilize; to make available; to get the value or usefulness out of; as, to exploit a mine or agricultural lands; to exploit public opinion. [Recent]
Webster's Dictionary 1828:
We claim as much of what the white race has accomplished as your jew tribe can claim to have been kicked out of 120 countries and about to be 121, 122, 123, 124…
towing the party line is a really old common term bro
and yes, that invalidates the whole argument the original moron was making that the american revolutionaries were the bad guys lmfao
No, that's a malapropism most popular on >>>/reddit/
The correct phrase is toeing the line as in walking on the line so carefully that you mind where you're placing your toes.
Smallpox blankets come to mind. Unless you're ultraprim, then the dust bowl is much worse.
Well, if "everyone" at a party is raping some passed-out bitch in the back room - we know where you'll be.
Nonpsychopaths, otoh, don't really have a social conformity ethos - tendency, maybe, replacement-for-ethics, hell no, you're a glaring psychopath - and basic ethics aren't exactly conditional on "well, other people have done it." At all.
Now, imma exploit the post button again…
Boy, did you wander into the wrong neighborhood.
SMALLPOX BLANKETS HAS FUCK ALL TO DO WITH RESOURCES OR EXPLOITATION
holy shit, my dude
this is "property is theft" levels of circular jerk thinking.
Read OPs OP and the first few posts afterwords, and then explain how americans using "virgin land" is somehow less ethical than everyone else using land because at one point it was all virgin land you fuckwit, then explain how it is unethical in the first place.
lol, the selfhating white leftists and jealous POC's in this thread. Reminder to not get your history lessons from Disney cartoons.
The native americans were constant at war with themselves, murdering each other and stealing land. European people just came along around 500 years ago and BTFO'd all the natives with their op muskets and immune systems. Europeans conquerors have literally nothing to apologize, they were the victors in territorial conquest and all the other players lost. Oh sorry we killed this tribe and took their land, it's not like they only got the land by killing another tribe who killed another tribe who killed another tribe, etc etc.
What's ironic is that the moral posturing that is doing relies on morals that only white people invented and subjugated themselves to. Literally no other society or culture has ever said conquest of the locals is bad, only europeans have. If the europeans hadn't conquered america, it would be a primitive tribal land where they killed each other and conquered land still.
Your source says right there that it's "toe."
lel you're just mad I told you to go where you belong >>>/reddit/
Your own source says it's "toe." "Tow" is a misspelling and the idea of pulling a ship is a rationalization for the misspelling by people who had only ever heard the phrase rather than seen it written. The addition of "party" happened after the phrase had been in use. The concept comes from walking according to a straight line, i.e. only going where you're supposed to. The idea of hauling a ship doesn't even fit the use of the idiom since it's not about co-operating or helping per se but about regimenting your own behavior.
This but unironically
This is what I'm talking about. You're just inventing possible meanings that fit the wrong spelling. It's not about ideology either. "Toe the line" is about having to behave in a very specific way.
Honestly, these guys look more relatable than stupid.
(If you want people who truly look like retards, see Stephen Crowder.)
Also, for muh natives, Native Americans were mostly wiped out by the time the first English came to the East Coast. Smallpox caused most of the population decline, and the rest is more due to the effects of racial mixing and dwindling land than actual 'massacres'. (Which were often reprisals against native attacks on settlers.) You can say that the natives, seeing the massive tide of white settlers, were justified in attacking them, but that also gives the settlers the justification to attack the natives back. Also, hogging a bunch of land due to your hopelessly out of date agricultural techniques or even pastoral/hunter-gatherer lifestyles is retarded when hundreds of thousands or even millions of people, who were oppressed by feudal lords or landlords, can own their own means of production just by settling on the land.
It says a lot that the Europeans outnumbered the natives within 30-50 years within the East Coast of the US.
Muh natives is just an excuse by porky to tell the common people that they should stay in the plantations and factories, never venturing out to live their lives free and owning their own means of production as a smallholder. The Amerindian should thus be seen as a force of reaction, and their marginalization was ultimately a good thing, allowing millions of working people from Europe and even eastern areas of America to escape poverty and oppression to claim their own destiny.
Of course, the rest of the arguments here are just as correct. Muh 'bad' exploitation vs 'neutral' exploitation is mental gymnastics, plain and simple.
Actshually, the act of murdering someone to, you know, rob them, has a fair bit to do with the transfer of resources. That's what robbing someone is, the transfer of resources.
Though, and I expect your little brain will make a thousand hysterical posts trying to figure this out, not all transfer of resources is robbing someone.
You're… an unusually challenged creature.
You should worry about what that says about you.
all these people would look find if they were wearing jeans and a tucked in shirt. Yes, even the fat guy.
Ask a question of personal ethical sentiment, guess what the answer's supposed to be?
See, this is pretty high on the list of "telegraphing that you're a low-functioning psychopath," emphasis on low-functioning. Normal people view, well, normalcy, but okay, empathy and ethical sentiment, as something that is profoundly cross-species. You chuck out an "only the hWhite Mahn!" stream of, umm… bullshit.
It's… not even remotely realistic. Stirner relied very heavily on this neurobiological tendency which is only one of the many things your brain is too damaged to reproduce. Birds, cats, and even insects are more than capable. You're not.
And no, the fact that there might have been one act of war in a hundred thousand years across two very large continents… is not even remotely a point. You're a low-functioning psychopath, but the delusions which arise from this are not at all remotely connected to reality.
Why the fuck would you ever tuck a shirt into blue jeans?
Who has a small brain? stop smoking crack pal
The only person who looks cringy in that photo is the fat guy in the trilby. The rest just look like normal nerdy guys. It's kind of funny that you profess equality, yet subscribe to the same ultrahierarchical logic that the right-wing has when it comes to men.
I didn't say that they 'don't exist'. I said that whites vastly outnumbered them quickly. All you simply did with your examples is highlight how few of them there were. Turning them into ubermenschen doesn't change that fact. It just makes you nigger-tier in terms of satisfying an inferiority-complex. (Except you're doing it on behalf of another race, which makes it even sadder.)
Also, causing the most 'expensive war in Northern California' is not impressive. There literally has been no actual wars fought there in the history of mankind. Before America settled the idea, any states that owned the area only did so on paper. So in an area that saw only tribal warfare, any guerilla campaign would be the most 'expensive' war in North Californian history. It's not exactly a high bar. (The area wasn't even fought over during the Mexican-American War. It just was given away in the peace deal while most of the fighting happened in Texas and Mexico proper.)
Namecalling is not an argument. Also, the literal porky parties in America (the Federalists and Whigs, who had the support of the big city merchants and capitalists) were against Western expansion. Bacon's rebellion, and a lot of rebellions by poorer colonists against the wealthy elites, were often aimed against the pro-Indian policies of the colonial elites.
The elites have little gain in settling most of the West initially. The colonies were valued mostly for resources, and the porkies and plantation elites were satisfied with their holdings in the East. Most of the Western land just ended up being in the hands of small farmers instead. The only benefit that porky has from Western settlement is it being a pressure release valve that makes normally revolutionary farmers have an alternative to violent overthrow of the system.
Basically, you can only criticize me for being a socdem tier reformist than anything else.
Also, no one is a porky unless you actually own a business and exploit workers. Noncapitalists aren't porkies by nature.
This is the problem with LARPers. They always throw words around like they mean nothing. If porky just means anyone you disagree with, then the word is meaningless.
I mean, you'd be the reactionary porky sympathizer. You wanted America to stay or revert to a more primitive state. (From a Yeoman farmer economy to the primitive agrarian/hunter-gatherer societies of the natives) You also aid the interests of big capital by preventing the workforce from moving away from the cities, which aids in the growth of capitalism in America. You also are willing to aid major imperialist powers in your pursuit of 'native rights'. By all accounts except for actually being a porky/capitalist, you're the 'reactionary porky'.
based and redpilled tbh
Fuck off back to the dust bin along with Milo and HoochieMinh. Nobody liked you on old Zig Forums, and nobody likes you here either.
SAGED for OP being a faggot
Yes, and it's a battle that the left has absolutely no hope of ever winning. For reasons that are likely related to the left's inability to meme, they also can't comprehend what constitutes as "cringe". Like here:
With the except that one of them is fat and dresses nicely, it's just a group of normal kids.
appearances matter a lot. Want real world action you can do? Lose weight. No one respects fat people.
Like I said; leftists like you can't comprehend what constitutes "cringe".
Oh, now you speak for a whole board?
Did you strawpoll the people here or something?
Also, there's a post above you that literally disproves your point. At least, someone likes me here. Hell, I've actually made friends on old Zig Forums.
It's not their weight that's even the main issue. (Half of those people aren't fat.) It's the overuse of hair-dye.
The guy under Brianna Wu looks normal actually. It's just his sign that's cringy. Wu herself isn't that weird either. (Not attractive, but not cringy either.) And, the girl (or tranny) in the top-right corner, aside from the pink hair, isn't TOO bad. She actually looks pretty decent. Everyone else looks cringy honestly, with a lot of it being due to shitty fashion decisions than actual body issues.
Except for the fat ones and Carl the Cuck. Carl the Cuck just has bad genetics. I can't even really blame him for looking that way. Or, maybe it's just his expression or the glasses.
And, what am I to say? I've done cringy stuff before. (Like 4-5 years ago) So, I guess I have to shit on myself for my past retardation as well.
Your pedophile father should not have raped you when you were a kid, you faggot.
By that I meant that the US itself was the product of revolutions against the monarchies of Europe and that US patriots are totally stupid because the capitalist system itself has formed feudal structures!
Your whole life is pointless, you faggot!
Do you have another Tourette attack?
If you like, I can derail this thread into an age of consent discussion so they'll be frightened away.
HURRRR DURR muh Spanish and Portuguese wuz racist memes.
Fuck off,the niggers literally had an entire system already in place when they got there and all they did was buy them from local black slave owners. They profited like crazy from selling slaves and nogs treated each other like animals(especially non free africaners). But let's ignore that because of muh evil whitee racist man opression hehe
relax, everyone had some prejudice back then, im not blaming Iberians
are we going to pretend like the modern free market is equal to feudalism ?
Unless it's you dumb commie fucks doing it, in which case it's "revolutionary", amirite?
Then, it's preventing porky from robbing your shit. The Enclosures must be reversed. ;)
your daily reminder the USSR was hyper imperialist well after the west turned away from imperialism
Mah m8, they were just… uhm… liberating people!
It's called righting the wrong. Rebalancing the karmic scales
>Well after the west turned away from imperialism
The USSR was genuinely imperialist, but come on now the US is based around being sustained by imperialism and Europe still is imperialist but is just behind America's shadow.
the hungarians wanted the soviets out and you liberated them by murdering them
ye you could argue this i suppose, ah well, cant much be fucked to defend any governments shit actions
this is what gets my goose about marxists, you people pay lip service to a free society but at the end of the day nearly every marxist ive ever met has been driven almost exclusively by narcissism, contradictory ideals (neo marxists, anyway) and a burning desire to tear everything down that they dislike. people like that could never function in the stateless society marx promised. this is probably why a bunch of lefties are bugging out to stirnirism, which while flawed is much less contradictory and is nowhere near as authoritarian.
Oh boy here we go again.
don't mind me, just making sure we're all here to damn Burgerland and her Empire intimately and from within
I think my problem with Marxists above all is that they're a bunch of losers who have never worked a day in their lives, who think they're "working class", that outright despise the actual working class, and are in turn despised by the actual working class they claim to be speaking for.
This has been beaten so hard that it's not even funny. Most of the disease deaths happened by the time that you allege that smallpox blankets were considered and there's no evidence that the strategy was ever used anyways even IF your alleged claims are true. The period of large population decline was from 1500-1600, not 1700-1800.
All lumpens are Rosa too? And, Marx is the Socdem for condemning them?
I think everyone already brought up the Soviet Union, but even Third-World 'anti-imperialist' countries end up oppressing and conquering some even smaller minority. See Syria/Iraq and the Kurds. Or, Vietnam and the Montagnards. The only principled anti-imperialist stance by your definition is to support Native American tribes that DON'T conquer other tribes and DON'T align themselves with either America or Britain. (Yes, native tribes have aligned with America against the British. Incidentally enough, Native Americans in the South actually became prominent slaveowners and supported the Confederacy.)
The best part is that the very notion of empire destroys your argument of ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing and Imperialism are mutually contradictory. One is creating an ethnically pure nation-state and the other creates an imperial state where a central group dominates outlying groups. So which is it? America the nation-state that eliminated the native tribes or America the multi-ethnic empire?
Yesh, like I expect you to be Amerindian, one of the smallest racial groups percentage-wise in the whole nation. And please, don't pull off an Elizabeth Warren. You're just going to embarrass yourself.
Because World War 2, Vietnam, and the War on Terror, wars that costed 36% of the GDP, 2 Trillion Dollars, and 2.3% of the GDP of an industrialized superpower aren't as expensive as some bumfuck war in wilderness against tribal spergs with feathers on their heads…A war you can't even name.
As for muh land, you know the whole reason why common people liked Western Expansion so much was that the land was so cheap that even a poor as fuck prole can snatch some for himself.
Which leads to my next point, you are also objectively wrong. The majority of the land acquired westward was actually above the Mason-Dixon Line. And, aside from Missouri, all of it was within free states or free territories.
Even the areas out west that had slavery be legal didn't have the same plantation economies as the Southeast states for the simple fact that cash crops don't grow well in the arid climates of those areas. Slavery was basically a null presence in them.
Even then, the very existence of slave states out-west and attempts to make free-states slave states outraged Western farmers, which would then give the Republican Party the votes to win the 1860 election on a platform of preserving 'free labor' (defined as small farmers owning their own piece of land) against 'slave power'. So, basically, Western Expansion was the whole reason the Civil War and the resulting abolition of Slavery happened. Western expansion destroyed slavery.
And, you have the gall to say 'buh-bye' like an arrogant bitch despite arguing like a complete brainlet.
The triple digits predicted my victory, and now you can suck on my fat all-American, white, Custer's Revenge ==DICK!==
Fug, I left my sage on.