Shitpost #2
Hello Kiddywinks. Eem back. So I'm in Australia if you hadn't heard, and there is no fucking WiFi anywhere, so I'm stuck on my phone shit posting. 

I mean, let's think about Australia. In the same way that America is the place where the uber-religious people went, when Australia was first discovered by the British in the 1700s, it was nearly deserted. Of course, on the other side of the globe, with no infrastructure, no one in their right minds would consider emigrating there. So, in the same way Nauru is now to the Aussies, Australia became the place where we sent our Criminals and Undesirables. There was no real need to guard it either, they could just go fuck themselves and never harm Britain again. It became a community made soley out of the shits of the U.K., criminals, poor people, people who contributed nothing to society. For my friends across The Atlantic, a bit like Maine or New Jersey. (I exclude the natives, they are literally shits).

So how come Australia is a civilised (fairly) nation? Sydney and Brisbane are two of the nicest, most civilised places to live in the world, the climate is lovely, though it gives me sunburn, and it is a perfectly functioning western democracy (albeit south eastern). So, what happened to the criminals?

Well, my Republican friends, surprisingly enough, this actually proves that poor people are not a different species. Nor are they necessarily stupid. Then why do they not become rich, I hear you Republicans ask. Well, that's because, surprise surprise, it is not that easy. Lack of spending in education, very expensive Universities, no state health service, and little childcare aid mean that life is a struggle for them, and even if they can pay off their bills, then they won't have a good job, because they don't have degrees, perhaps they had to drop out of school for reasons, and despite having potential, they won't have qualifications. The Republican Party think that just by eliminating taxes they can be richer: this isn't true, obviously. It is worse for society too, because people's potential is lost, and the public are less capable of making a living because of these things.

What about the criminals who were a major part of Australia's population? Well, whilst Trump may say "Some people are born Rapists", that just isn't true, because these people are evidently not Rapists or Criminals, even though their families were. Republicans think that these natural criminals need to be shut away. I don't. They are made criminals by their nature and their childhood, and by helping them with a state health service, better education and social aid, we can made "born criminals" into normal people. Even when they have committed a crime, society should try and rehabilitate them rather then lock them away, because that is a massive waste of potential, or even send them to the chair for lethal injection,  which is even worse and ethically unsound. 

Next time you walk up to the ballot, remember this example. Everyone is equal, but society subtly discriminates against some, and so instead of locking them up or letting things go the same, perhaps you should consider voting Democrat, or Liberal if you are in Canadia the UK or Australia. Australia is a perfect example of why.

Edit: I wait expextsntly for hate from Liberal Bashing Krypto Facists and those who live in Maine.
This shitpost makes me angry because it has all the stereotypes I see from communists. Or at least what constitutes as communism, if you live in the US. UK liberalism is pretty far left, compared to what US liberalism is supposed to be like. Arguments that can be presented against this, although most are specific to each point and not really the general idea, as the general intent is to deconstruct each part individually.
1. Permanent incarceration is worse than lethal injection. I don't personally find lethal injections to be a good option, because it opens up too much leeway to decide what constitutes are morally just killings. However, being imprisoned for life, with no chance of leaving and the constant threat of beatings and murder, is much worse than a quick death.
2. The argument against natural criminals. Three words: nature or nurture. Generally speaking, this argument of criminals being the product of society is too debatable to be used as solid evidence if one expects support from the majority. Also, you don't "rehabilitate" criminals. There are certain crimes that actually can be argued are a product of society, but those relate mostly to minor offenses that can be traced to policies like the US war on drugs(something proven to be flawed on numerous levels), or things like stealing or assault. But even then, prison is incentive based. Don't want to go to prison? Don't commit a crime. Simple enough. But then you have rapists and murderers who have committed morally wrong punishments. Does rehabilitation sound like a good choice when you know that someone beats another individual into submission, and forces them into sex, or ends another life without? justifiable reason? Chances are, you probably don't. Now I might sound "fascist" (even though Trump isn't even republican and is an independent individual, and someone I personally disagree with) but if you commit a serious crime, you should be responsible for it. Bad situation or not, you made that decision, and now you have to face it.
3.The argument that no taxation is something held as a legitimate point is an ideal supported only by actual radicals. But like any group, for example the pro-communist supporters of the far UK left. Every group has its minorities, it's how things work.
3. This entire shitpost did not need for a political agenda to be elected into it. You could have argued that born criminals aren't a thing, and that people are a product of the environment Despite myself partially disagreeing with that, I can see logic behind it. But it was injected with a staunchly "republicans aren't good, here's why, vote liberal" message that didn't add anything to it. It simply shunted it into the "political rant disguised as a "shitpost" category, and it's the second time this has happened. It's starting to get irritating. I get it, you're clearly UK democratic. But I strongly dislike inclusion of political opinion in a non-IRL situation. I don't factor it into how I think of a person, I more treat it as an individual post not related to them, but it sticks in the back of my mind. And I highly doubt many other people like it either. Keep it IRL. Make some comedic shitposts instead. It will have more relevance, and it won't be a subject of displeasure.
PS: Radicalists don't live in Maine. They live in the middle of the country. Maine is full of decent people.
I look at the world around me, I have thoughts about it, I write it down, I call it a shit post for want of a better name. For your satisfaction I can renamed this something else.

Firstly I am not a communist, this is a Liberal Post, and Communism is an economic view not a societal one. The free market is a beautiful thing, and I would not destroy it ever, so I am content with being a Democrat, no further left.

Second, I want to defend the post. The last post in this Forum was on Tuesday, and I see no harm, in fact I see only good results that come of destroying my boredom by goading Conservatives like yourself. There is a benefit to me for these posts, and no noticeable harms: and if you don't like the post, well for fucks sake don't respond to the arguments and prolong the discussion you claim to despise.

On the death penalty, I take issue not because it is more mean to them, it is because it is irreversible, unethical for reasons you seem to acknowledge, and is a massive waste of potential. Life sentences can be necessary for people who are irreversibly separated from society and have caused immense harm to it, and in those cases I support them.

But for the rest of the time, strong sentences are wrong. First, let me reiterate that the best way to stop crime is to act before it happens, by which I don't mean the NSA. I mean increasing education and benefits, and with so many mentally unhinged people perpetrating crime, establishing proper mental healthcare. Also, get rid of guns.

But as to criminals, two Republican policies piss me off; lack of rehab and mandatory minimums. Drugs and theft, the two most common crimes, which 85% of inmates are in for, are the two crimes which rehab is most necessary. Theft is brought upon almost entirely by desperation, and poverty, and why should the taxpayer pay for years of jail, when with just a bit more benefits, and some rehabilitation to society, getting jobs and social services they could pay for themselves. Assault and battery, and manslaughter are several serious crimes which are often mistakes by perpetrators, and someone who gets into a drunken fight and wounds another man should be given his chance to rehabilitate and recover. But, just to seem tough on crime, the Republican Party takes all criminals as scum, when a tiny minority are dangerous, and the vast are nurtured criminals.

I haven't touched on drugs or mandatory minimums, so I will now. Man. Mins. are like quotas, which tell judges how to punish criminals and how many they need to lock up. This focuses on drug criminals, who are the true victims of the War on Drugs. Horrific stories of deprived children pressured into drugs who then got addicted are unheard, as judges are forced to send kids to jail to make a republican seem tough on crime. This destroys Judicial review, a pivotal part of our legal systems, and court cases are depersonalised into figures, and excessive punishments gifted out. This means that a lot of the people I propose to rehabilitate shouldn't be in jail to begin with. Republican justice is evidently unjust.

I never said that republicans believe in no tax. They believe in low tax, and I have shown why other methods reduce poverty far better than this poor excuse for a rich person tax break.

Finally, some apologies. I'm sorry this reply to a whole coming, I was at lunch. I'm sorry that you love in a country were anyone outside you tiny Overton Window is branded as a communist, and I am sorry that it allows guns and the death penalty. I apologise that politics is so alienated from the common man that the moment a political party enters a conversation, it is propaganda. I am sorry for forcing you to reply to this, feel free to concede defeat, and I am sorry this post is displeasing to you. I am sorry I am a bleeding heart European liberal, I know that triggers you. I am very very sorry that in the most politically relevant year since 2001 I am talking about politics and forcing you to defend the Republican Party, because most of all I am sorry that you belong to a party with the Economics of Greed, Social policies built on ignorance and foreign policy built on George W. Bush's whims.

Vote Democrat.
I'm a libertarian, not a republican. It's spelled overton, not oberton, and that concept involves fearmongering and manipulation of public ideal. McCarthyism is the only example of the Overton Window being used to create hatred against communists. I don't concede defeat because one, there never was a battle, and two, you didn't signifigantly damage my argument. Proofread your writing if you don't want points made about spelling errors, like the 'no' taxes point that was present. Did anyone insinuate it was propoganda, or are simply taking the victim card to spin an advantage? People have differing opinions, it isn't propoganda, and I have the right to challenge that opinion with my own argument. That's what I did, and that's what I'll continue to do. I stated that the war on drugs was a legitimate problem, but you inexplicably used it as a counter to my argument. Judges don't fill qoutas in the US, and manslaughter is still an act that I view as morally punishable. Punish them, then rehab them if you so please. The charges for non-serious crimes are minimal, and usually months to a year at most. Again, a deterrent, but not a brick wall. You can just say that you think mental health care should be improved due to your idea it correlates to criminal activity as a result of a mostly nurture society. Your random jab at guns. Why? That has nothing to do with your argument whatsoever. To reiterate: I am not a republican. I am a libertarian. There's a signifigant difference. Also, calling something the Economics of Greed would be as insulting as me calling you a commiecrat.
Yeah, sorry 'bout the typo's, phone's autocorrect a piece of shit, and I cant type for shit on that tiny keyboard. Edited.

I am glad you are a libertarian, and now that there are no Republicans to bash I cant do any more Republican bashing, but I will defend my case, perhaps with a bit less Republican attacks. Ignoring comments on my hyperbolic and irrelevant Republican bashing ending, I will say that I used the War on Drugs not in the same way you did, but as context to the subject of mandatory minimums, which still stands as a point, and though you deny it, across America, Republican states create arbitrary quotas to win them votes and destroy judicial review, and I can talk about that if you deny it. Manslaughter and Assault are morally punishable, but lack of spending in the prison system that people with like minds as you bring, mean that the rehab these people, who are probably accidental criminals, are just washed up as "born criminals", as are petty thief's and drug users, and though they have relatively small sentences, without rehab, getting a job, getting a life back is very difficult, and a lot of them begin to hate the system and just get thrown back in jail. Rehab isn't, as many think, a get out of jail free card, it's a way of getting a life back, recovering, and reconciling with society, and thus far more important than made out. When I talk about mental health, I talk from the experience of a European who has watched a spate of mass murders across his continent, perpetrated in most cases by mentally deranged patients who lacked mental health care as a child. The same is true with mass murders in the USA, and my point is to focus on issues like that, and that of education instead of seeing prison sentences as the only prevention mech. My jab on guns is so, so justified, and by Economics of greed, I mean the farce that is Republican Economics, involving normally between $2-10 billion extra debt for the sake of Tax cuts for Rich Donors and a vague promise of higher GDP that is barely related. Instead, they should pay higher taxes to provide social services for people, and cut the deficit in the process.
You'll have to provide evidence as to why the jab at guns was justified in order for me to see the logic behind it. As for the rest of it, just work on making your overall message more clear, because that's mostly what caused my issues with the topic. I won't deny the US system is corrupted, but then again, that's sort of why I identify as a libertarian.
Oh fun fun trying to explain to a Libertarian that funnily enough, guns kill people and they cause more harm then whatever good they cause. Bear with me, the Atlantic will have some gooduns.

Please at least admit that the lack of background checks to find out who is a deranged lunatic and who isn't is a fatal flaw in the system, which has cost the lives of many an innocent victim.

And surely Assault weapons have no purpose except murder? Here is why assault weapons should go.

Practically speaking, that still won't cut it, here is the Atlantic on the practical argument:

And here is a powerful ideologivpcal one from the NYT:

Finally, if we ban guns it WILL work, here is the post again:

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)