/uog/ - Unpopular opinions general

Ismail btfo this image. Stop posting this, it's retarded.

is Not Socialism is good how do you explain oskar dirlewagner

tbh Ismail is just very good at copy pasting sentences from books, but he doesn't really understand what those sentences mean

Sounds similar to what I believe:
>positive and negative menageries
>zookeeperism is the worst political system
>boons to society are a zoo-wide plague
>bonobo love > baboon love
>early feedings are essential
>nuts and berries should be banned
>mandrill boy is my idol
>stealing tourists backpacks is good if it benefits your tribe
>we must overthrow the zookeeper+baboon menace to ensure a secure future for our species

Attached: 044274466ebfcbc0898a7fb25485d6e17bdd37f1.jpg (255x133 15.89 KB, 10.11K)

...

I think even you’re smart enough to think pointing out a single person doesn’t BTFO an entire worldview. 99% of the Nati.onal Socialists were normal, healthy people

Attached: D846C032-A4FF-4759-B2CC-8C22122B8051.jpeg (1200x802, 253.36K)

Without sanction it will be better than Vietnam and Laos.

Whatever you think of him he posted sources that disapproved that image. Not that you need them since the image is shitty.

Ismail is a drooling retard and a Reddit Chapotard with no independent thoughts in his head. He should kill himself

Example?

What has Ismail said that you think this? It's about China, right?

He’s a literal liberal

Hurr durr, he cites books, what a fucking retard
Not his position.
I've seen him talk shit about Khrushchev many times.

Try again sweaty :^)

I don't know what you mean by this. Obviously you want to quote a soviet book if you want a soviet perspective of something.
He says it's still is a ML state. I don't think he ever said 🇬🇧China🇬🇧 will certainly have socialism.
I'm not aware of him praising cornman.
Ok.

I miss boonposting

...

Hopefully this doesn't salt your apples too much:
1.Normie conservatives and rightwing liberals (even libertarians to a certain extent) aren't a threat to socialism and shouldn't be persecuted after a revolution. They should be able to express their beliefs and only be met with violence if they start being violent against socialists. Most of them will end up leaving the country either way
2.Eugenics in the sense of preventing people with down syndrome, extremely low I Q, any other serious inheritable disease/mental illness should be pursued. Maybe not so much aborting these people (should be a last resort) but more about trying our best to prevent these conditions
3.Completely open borders are a bad idea. Accept legal immigrants only, also people need to realize that many, not just a few refugees leave their countries solely for welfare benefits. I'll give you an example; I'm chilean and I remember reading somewhere how a few years ago 5 (yes that little amount) syrian refugees came to Chile, to leave their war torn country and just have a chance of a peaceful life right? Well, the thing is, Chile doesn't have a welfare state, so when those 5 syrians learned they would get little to no welfare, 4 of them left and went back to Syria. Literally only one out of five actually stayed.
4.I rather have class conscious workers with somewhat socially cónservative stances than no class conscious workers at all

He talked shit about Settlers, if you are the same Black Power poster from the new Settlers thread i can understand being butthurt from the amazing BTFOing Ismail (and everyone in the thread tbh) did of the book.

Maybe I'm paranoid but I feel more and more that most "moderate" conservatives are just fascists waiting to be radicalized. Of course there is a type of social conservativism that is acceptable and mostly benign but the rise of neofascism started from moderate conservativism and right wing libertarianism. At the very least they should be subject to close scrutiny.

Eugenics is a very harsh word. Generally speaking every woman should have a right to abortion and not be held accountable for the reasons. Otherwise I don't think anyone will disagree that people being born with disabilities should be prevented as far as possible.

Open borders should be a long term goal, again, I don't thing many people want to immediately abolish them entirely. Of course there need to be massive global changes until that is a realistic possibility.

That's a bit vague. Generally speaking, sure everyone has a right to hold actually reactionary views, thing is, modern social conservativism, the type that causes sexism, discrimination of sexual minorities, discriminiation of gender minorities, xenophobia and so on, is very obviously little but a capitalist strategy to divide the working class along arbitrary lines. Everyone has the right to have a personal dislike towards whoever they want, but at the end of the day every working class white man needs to realize that the black worker, the muslim worker, the female worker, the gay worker, the transgender worker, is his comrade and deserving of his solidarity, no matter how they personally may feel about their identity.

then why was Not Socialism opposed violently everywhere it went, and nations formerly under it celebrated their liberation?

Attached: 1498857968484.jpg (992x880, 157.09K)

Global capitalism won't end in our lifetimes.

are you serious right now. the people that would cheer to see us all killed are no threat to us?

global climate change is going to start making things really shitty in the next 20-30 years

If they only think that then they're no danger. After all you can't change the way people think if they have their beliefs ingrained into them. Maybe in 10 years I'll no longer be a communist but I'll never be rightwing. After having read the shit that I've read it's pretty much impossible for me to turn to the right. I'm more likely to go apolitical than become a rightist.

None of this is fascist. Fascism isn't any capitalist you really don't like

Eugenics for the good of society is a good thing. Women choosing to abort their child at will is disgenics and should be banned

Open borders in almost every situation is a bad idea.

conservative doesn't = reactionary

modern day liberalism does the same thing its just manifested differently

Even the term "solidarity" used here is vague.
Sure its one thing to support Syrian working class for example however to throw open the borders and invite the entire middle east into the west is bad all around

the liberals would too if CNN equated Communism to Russia

Rightwing Traditionalism is superior to post enlightenment rightwing

This applies to pretty much all liberals regardless of specific positions or tendency, the reality is that most people in a society aren't going to take up arms in a counterrevolution even without class consciousness, especially not working people. However, there is a higher percentage of petit-bourgeois in Imperial Core nations like the US that tend towards these right-liberal positions with relations to positions further right and they're going to be the footsoldiers of a hypothetical counterrevolution regardless. I think it's just common sense to agree that if most people are going to abide by a social contract and general rules of civic life then there's actually no problem at all what their views are, but once they start attempting to engage in politics to advocate for those views then we might start to run into problems. You actually can't change the way people think through idealism. I don't see how your opinion is unpopular, if anythign the unpopular part would be that you presumably don't think the same about other kinds of liberals?

Uncontroversial for the most part outside of the "Low I Q" stipulation, which doesn't really mean much. I assume that you used to be a reactionary? (I was too like 6 years ago it's not an indictment)

3.3.Completely open borders are a bad idea. Accept legal immigrants only, also people need to realize that many, not just a few refugees leave their countries solely for welfare benefits. I'll give you an example; I'm chilean and I remember reading somewhere how a few years ago 5 (yes that little amount) syrian refugees came to Chile, to leave their war torn country and just have a chance of a peaceful life right? Well, the thing is, Chile doesn't have a welfare state, so when those 5 syrians learned they would get little to no welfare, 4 of them left and went back to Syria. Literally only one out of five actually stayed.
No-one honestly argues for "Open Borders" and still considers themselves a Communist. The current framework for this nonsense is mostly coming from Idealist Liberals being useful idiots for Capital by advocating for Open Borders within the nation state framework, and then on the other hand Bourgeois Political parties using this "Open Borders" framing intentionally, whilst they actually just mean immigration reform, but they intentionally choose the edgiest way to frame it because it's politically useful for Capital to be able to muddy the waters on Immigration so that they can hold a captive source of Labour Power to threaten "Native" workers with whilst also superexploiting Immigrants based on their 2nd class status. "Open Borders" In a Communist Society doesn't even make sense because the Nation State won't work the same way that it does in Capitalist Society. The bit about Syrian Refugees doesn't mean anything (and sounds made up, do you have a source?), the vast majority of those are in the Middle East themselves and simply allowing them to Immigrate literalyl doesn't solve the core issue which is Imperialism itself in the first place.

soundcloud.com/whatisleftpod/open-borders

A bit too much wonkery and apprehension around using the big I word in this podcast but I think this summarises the political issues surrounding the topic in the 1st world.

Don't see how this is controversial, but this also depends on the level of development within a Society. The majority of Class Conscious workers in say, the UK in my experience aren't particularly "actually reactionary" assuming that's a dogwhistle for Bigotry, but they care about Family, Community and other things that everyone else does. Seems like equivocation to me.

This is the most unpopular opinion on this board, if recent threads are anything to go by.

"White privilege" is a terrible understanding of how identity politics works. It's a combination of "imperial core privilege" and "racial minority oppression." The default for people living in The West(TM) is to have the privileges associated with living in the imperial core, but minorities don't get all of these and on top of that have additional problems to deal with. The "white privilege" concept is that somehow hurting minorities inside the empire (i.e. white supremacy) benefits white people in general. How does a cop killing a black man help a white man? It doesn't. It comes from a limited frame (misattributing the privilege to whiteness rather than being a 1st worlder) and buying into utilitarianism (harm and benefit are opposites that cancel out, the absence of harm is mathematically equivalent to a benefit). The reality is that white supremacy serves to divide people against each other and fool poor whites into thinking that capitalism and white supremacy is good for them because look how bad it is for other people.

Every time some liberal tells a white person they have white privilege, they are unwittingly telling them that it's in their interests to support racism, which is directly counterproductive to anti-racism not to mention untrue.

Attached: 0abb7c1c4534b755fca6966a60845be0cc1dff022d6c113374c44c2d33cd3420.jpeg (500x281, 14.56K)

So hot take time
1) Liberals aren’t too bad at least in my country
2)I have met many self proclaimed incels, they are insufferable
3) Antifeminist suck buuuuuuut i am starting to get annoyed by weird spiritual/culture war against patriarchy (see peoples trials are too good for rapist etc…) sometimes passing laws and some propaganda is all we can do
4) Anita is cute and did not say anything too wrong
5) Supporting some regimes that are..you know ..Reactionary and anticommunist just cause they fight against America is shity praxis comrade (i don’t support imperialism in any way though and fuck amerikkka)

Attached: 55949691_2364281580504628_7334801846524968960_o.jpg (1003x1296, 79.75K)

Other than the US most imperial nations are succdem

the american progressive liberals are probably a bigger threat.

Almost every "communist" outside of leftypol does.

agreed

yeah but it creates even more problems and should be stopped.

There is a tendency to have an autistic reaction at conservative ideas of community and family.

Feminism is worse honestly

Antifa is a CIA plot to discredit leftism

It reduces would be revolutionaries to trash can liberators

Attached: 2d7cb95c4ab5b83e6ad6e4cd991a3542650458740cff8bbfeac77882859a229d.gif (320x175, 2.33M)

feminism < antifeminism < unaffiliated < egalitarian
Abolish all gender roles. Most problems men or women deal with relate directly to something the other sex deals with, and let's not even start on people who don't neatly fit into either category. It's not a competition between genders. We need to cooperate to free ourselves from the ideology of gender prescribing how we're supposed to live.

meant for and
whoops

Rolling a can into the street like that is to block cars and control traffic flow.

Yes, I do agree that this absolutely hypothetical policy that no one, much less anyone on the left, has ever seriously proposed would be pretty bad.

Where I was trying to get at is that it's at this point a very real problem that many workers who would actually benefit from leftist policy refuse to support leftist movements because those sometimes adress the issues of minorities they happen to dislike. And, sure, the core of any leftist ideology is class struggle and civil rights issues should always be in support of that and the western left would do well to be more in tune with its proletarian roots but the problem is not entirely on their side. There is an actual problem over people refusing to support leftist parties over petty prejudice against arbitrary groups that's obviously a result of indoctrination by capitalist media.

No one here "supports" Iran and Syria etc. we critically support them against Amerikkkan imperialism.

Personally I don't believe I was ever a reactionary, closest was when I was really young and I was super nationalist but didn't really understand what right or leftwing meant so idk. The reason why I mention I Q is because while I don't think it's as important and relevant as white nationalists make it sound I still think having a society with a higher I Q average will be more capable at achieving progress and solving their problems. For example an I Qbelow 65 was considered "mental retardation" (they changed the name for obvious reasons but it's essentially the same). Imagine how better our societies would be if we could prevent I Qs of 65, 70, 80, etc from ever manifesting themselves again.

I'd dispute this tbh, most nations in the Imperial Core have been transitioning away from Social Democracy for decades at this point. I agree with you on the whole though, thought policing isn't something we should be striving for

Not sure I'd say that progressive liberals are the problem, but yeah there is definitely a massive contingent of "Left Liberals" who are a big issue, particularly in US & UK.

Most of the people I see advocating for it are at best Radlibs who are merely appropriating the aesthetics of Socialism & Anarchism. This is a more general problem outside of just this issue. I would suggest listening to the podcast it's basically all about critiquing this concept that the "Left" supports.

Which part? I agree that freeing labour power to be exploited between borders is a problem when it doesn't come with an exhaustive opposition to Imperialism for pretty much everyone. The core issue here is the underlying conditions that create the problem in the first place, whereby these nations are imperialized and their profits are extracted without going back into the nation to develop, leaving a massive dearth of opporunities for the working class there, at which point, it's not really a choice to immigrate if possible in the same way that wage labour itself isn't a choice. I mean look at Africa for example, the extraction mechanisms whereby all of the profits of Imperialism there are offshored by firms & national bourgeoisie so that they can't even be taxed stifles their economic development at which point the IMF swoops in and gives them loans with stipulations that further institutionalize the practice, and then we're fed a narrative in Bourgeois Media that despite all this aid given to these nations they're still net debtors when it's the Imperial Core that created this relationship in the first place. Another more abstract example is the free trade deal itself, whereby once you create this relationship of exchange between 2 territories that have unequal development, Capital dictates that they'd rather take labour power from the poorer nation than invest Capital into the poorer nation because it suits their interests to create the conditions for labour power to be forced to move according to the whims of capital. It's pretty rich to tell the workers in the third world that not only do they not get a say in what happens economically with the profits derived from their own economies, that it's actually us who gets a say, and they have to move to us in order to also get a say. Creating a political situation in which workers actually do have economic power is a prerequisite to solving the Immigration problem unless you think that Imperialism is a good thing for the establishment of Communism.

Is there? I'd say it's pretty split in my experience, but I couldn't say for certain. Sounds like this problem goes back to the preponderence of Liberals in the Communist & Anarchist movements.

Ashkenazi Jews are literally the master race, and thus they deserve to rule.

Ok I think I understand you better now fam, the thing is it's not the Autism Level deficiency that's causing the retardation, it's the retardation that's causing the Autism Level deficiency. There are pretty big disputes around how effective of a measure "Autism Level" is in determining the outcomes of whether a person can either maintain a dignified life or be a productive member of society on top of this. Most people would agree with eliminating genetic problems, but how exactly would you screen foetuses for "low I Q" without essentially depending on testing the parents, at which point, how do you not also justify killing the parents? The issue with talking about it in these terms is that you play into the far-right rhetoric for genocide, so it's a poor tactical move.

Just write lQ with a lowercase L.

gender is a spook there is only biological sex.

I don't think there can be a "materialist" person devoid of "ideals" – perhaps they may be if those ideals are reactionary, however it certainly seems that a person can never disavow idealism entirely as that would kind of be its own ideal, no?

shut the fuck up fam.

You see, it's not that easy.

Attached: Screenshot_2019-04-19 uog - Unpopular opinions general.png (683x166, 16.76K)

I think the wordfilter is still hilarious fam, people that don't are prob new

hi recent convert

while this might be true I wouldn't say austerity would make a country not succdem.

they absolute are a problem capitalism is THE problem but between the two capitalist parties int he US the liberal are more harmful to leftism than conservatives

While I do agree this gets into the "no true scotsman" territory

While first and foremost the problem these nations have is imperialism, transporting the people to the west is not a solution in fact it makes the situation worse.
The people coming in are either good the for country or bad.
If they are good then it is just a continuation of imperialism robbing the third world of their best and brightest. If they are bad their behavior will directly impact the working class here.

the last thing that will solve this problem is to move huge amounts of their citizen far away.

while this might be initially bad it would help the nation build up until they are capable of socialism

From the looks of things immigration contributes the workers not having economic power.

yes leftists tend to shout fascist(or pol on leftypol) at anything they don't like

Maybe in socialism, but in global communism it really doesn't matter. Mass immigration occurs almost entirely for economic reason. If everyone has everything they need in the area they live in, there isn't a very big reason to immigrate en mass.

IQ levels generally rise as conditions are improved because of the "softening"/elimination of poverty/intelligence traps (i.e. Malnourished uneducated children who didn't receive proper nutrition and are exposed to materials which may negatively alter or affect their growth or genetics grow up and have children who then also lack nutrition and education on top of their now inherited gene mutations. Then repeat.)
One such example of environmental mutations mutations that occur from smoking/being in a smoking environment sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130701135550.htm

It is when barely any of the markers of Social Democracy remain. I'm not talking about "Austerity" here, I'm talking about the entire Neoliberal project from the 70s until now.

Democrats aren't "progressive" liberalism, they're at the absolute best, Social Liberalism. Progressives as an entity don't find representation in either of the two Bourgeois parties.

I mean we're posting on an imageboard, not having a debate, I'm not defending radlibs, I'm saying that this being the dominant position that people associate with Communists is a massive problem.

Idk what all that idealism is about them being "good" vs "bad" but yes Imperialism is the primary contradiction.

Yes, that's the point, not sure what you're arguing against here

Please learn what Imperialism is, because it seems as if you don't understand what I'm saying. It's precisely the opposite, poorer nations are being starved of both Capital & Labour Power.

No Capitalism, and one of it's mechanisms, Imperialism is what contributes to the workers not having economic power. You're putting the cart before the horse.

They really don't

All in all fam, I think you have an unwillingness to engage with actual Marxist concepts if they don't fit your preconceived notions that are presumably inherited from your Nationalist beliefs. Perhaps, when people repeatedly say Zig Forums in response to your posts, then it's not all the "leftists" being triggered, but actually, it's saying something about your posts. Self-Reflection was something that was a very long period for me when I moved away from being a reactionary.

Adults are the real idealists, not children. Children are born curious and naive about life, but they don't have convictions nor ambitions to "change the world." Thats what jaded old men do. It's adults who make up fantastical poems on new schools of thought that end up hurting contemporaries and posterity, attacking the youth for hesitating or objecting to blindly follow. Yet, it's considered disrespectful or absurd to correct grown men as you would a child.

Attached: pamtri - Untitled.mp4 (640x360, 3.47M)