I think the fact that the USSR is not around is evidence that perhaps socialism does not work at scale. If its unable to last how can you consider that working? People in the USSR had a very hard life due to the downfall of socialism. Can you provide me any example of socialism currently that works at scale in a multiethnic country that does not rely on others for military protection?
It’s funny how you are praising China right now despite it’s heavy capitalistic nature. I bet if china collapsed you would say that wasn’t real socialism either.
I think the fact that John F Kennedy didn’t get reelected is evidence that perhaps he wasn’t a very good president.
People in the USSR had a very hard life due to the downfall of socialism
my evidence that a thing is bad is that when you take it away things turn to shit
Can you provide me any example of socialism currently that works at scale in a multiethnic country that does not rely on others for military protection?
Are you one of those “norway can only have healthcare because they’re all white” people? Why would having more than one ethnicity in a country make doing things harder or easier? Not to avoid the question, China.
I think Norway works because its a small country that is culturally and ethnically homogenous and relies on others for military defense. It’s pretty easy to have extensive social programs in that environment but it’s not indicative of it working at scale. China is 90%+ chinese so I’m not sure China qualifies as an answer to that question.
I think Norway works because its a small country that is culturally and ethnically homogenous
Why do you use these euphemisms when you mean ‘all white’? It’s such a tedious exercise when it’s already clear where you’re coming from.
And you’re not answering the question. I asked you why you think having ‘racial purity’ in a country makes it easier and better to run. You restated that you think it’s the case. Elaborate.
I didn’t say all white because I don’t believe it has to be all white, I think ethnic homogeneity allows groups to forgo a lot of issues that come from having different people with different values all amongst each other. I don’t think that should be very controversial. If you don’t believe me, go look at the most successful social policies are mostly racially homogenous. You can shut your eyes and pretend like it’s not the case but it’s not very helpful to the conversation at hand.
Can you please for example tell me what black people care about differently than white people?
Those things that don’t follow from racism and its history, of course. This is about your premise. I’m trying to uncover why and how you think different races are different from each other such that they can’t get along in the same society and we should “go back from where we’re from” if things were going to run as smoothly as possible.
I think the fact that the USSR is not around is evidence that perhaps socialism does not work at scale. If its unable to last how can you consider that working? People in the USSR had a very hard life due to the downfall of socialism. Can you provide me any example of socialism currently that works at scale in a multiethnic country that does not rely on others for military protection?
It’s funny how you are praising China right now despite it’s heavy capitalistic nature. I bet if china collapsed you would say that wasn’t real socialism either.
I think the fact that John F Kennedy didn’t get reelected is evidence that perhaps he wasn’t a very good president.
my evidence that a thing is bad is that when you take it away things turn to shit
Are you one of those “norway can only have healthcare because they’re all white” people? Why would having more than one ethnicity in a country make doing things harder or easier? Not to avoid the question, China.
I think Norway works because its a small country that is culturally and ethnically homogenous and relies on others for military defense. It’s pretty easy to have extensive social programs in that environment but it’s not indicative of it working at scale. China is 90%+ chinese so I’m not sure China qualifies as an answer to that question.
Why do you use these euphemisms when you mean ‘all white’? It’s such a tedious exercise when it’s already clear where you’re coming from.
And you’re not answering the question. I asked you why you think having ‘racial purity’ in a country makes it easier and better to run. You restated that you think it’s the case. Elaborate.
I didn’t say all white because I don’t believe it has to be all white, I think ethnic homogeneity allows groups to forgo a lot of issues that come from having different people with different values all amongst each other. I don’t think that should be very controversial. If you don’t believe me, go look at the most successful social policies are mostly racially homogenous. You can shut your eyes and pretend like it’s not the case but it’s not very helpful to the conversation at hand.
Can you please for example tell me what black people care about differently than white people?
Those things that don’t follow from racism and its history, of course. This is about your premise. I’m trying to uncover why and how you think different races are different from each other such that they can’t get along in the same society and we should “go back from where we’re from” if things were going to run as smoothly as possible.
Are you denying that different cultures have different values? Why do you think ethnic groups have battled so much throughout history?
Answer a question with an answer, please.
What are black values? What are white values? Where do they differ?
I don’t have to answer your reductionist questions. Be mature and be able to discuss ideas without sperging out