desertrain10 ✭✭✭✭✭


Last Active

    Plutarch wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    yeah, A link or some sort of reference would be nice.


    If it's true (whatever "they cutting off welfare" exactly means), then I don't think that's a good thing. I'm generally against the "welfare system," but cutting it abruptly is not the proper way to address the problem. Some people are very much dependent on welfare.


    An advanced capitalist society could not sustain itself without a welfare system

    You keep on expressing your dislike of capitalism, and I keep on telling you that I believe that your understanding of capitalism is flawed. And this might be yet another example.

    I'm not sure what you exactly mean by "advanced" and "welfare system," but I would argue that a capitalist society generally thrives well with a very limited "welfare system" or with no "welfare system" at all.

    I believe that the kind of welfare system that currentlyknitrates in the United States is counterproductive in regard to the mitigation of poverty, the opportunity for social mobility, and the production of wealth.

    I don't necessarily think capitalism is this great evil

    I just believe your disdain of the welfare state /social welfare programs is short sighted and misplaced

    My understanding of the welfare state being a system whereby the government undertakes to protect the health and well-being of its citizens, especially those in financial or social need, by means of grants, pensions, and other benefits

    Corporations being the backbone of market capitalism. By "advanced" = when corporations own corporations which own corporations

    That said, capitalism and technological advances have done much to destroy traditional tight knit, self sustaining communities of the past leaving many of the unemployable without support...

    Capitalist economies are also subject to boom and bust cycles leaving many without work

    The welfare state is the necessary management of capitalistic poverty and unemployment

    It provides a cushion

    Absent the redistribution and government programs, an advanced capitalist society would not be able to sustain itself and grow

    There would be insufficient demand to drive production. There is only so much the wealthiest amongst us can buy

    Not mention the social unrest that would occur

    Advances in technology and globalization is going to make the welfare state even more necessary moving forward

  • Re: ADHD! SHUT DA F*** UUUUUUP!!!!

    deadeye wrote: »
    Aight ladies, this is the type of shit that's annoying.
    CNN)Ariana Grande says she was sexually objectified by a male fan, and she's speaking out about it.

    The 23-year-old pop star took to Twitter late Tuesday night to express her "hurt" over an incident that she says took place while she was out with her boyfriend, Mac Miller.
    Grande told her over 42 million Twitter followers that there was a "young boy" who followed them to their car and appeared to just want a chance to meet her. That was, she said, until he looked over at her boyfriend and said, "Ariana is sexy as hell man I see you, I see you hitting that!"

    "This may not seem like a big deal to some of you," Grande wrote to her fans. "But I felt sick and objectified... I've felt really quiet and hurt since that moment."
    Grande went on to say, "I am not a piece of meat that a man gets to utilize for his pleasure. I'm an adult human being in a relationship with a man who treats me with love and respect."
    Grande said she felt she needed to speak out to let others know that language like this isn't okay and should not be tolerated. "We need to share and be vocal when something makes us feel uncomfortable because if we don't, it will just continue. We are not objects or prizes we are QUEENS."

    I could even understand it if she was some prudish chick that really didn't want to be seen in a sexual way. But didn't this chick just have a video with Minaj where she was prancing around half naked.

    So it's cool for females to objectify themselves when it adds to their fame and bank account, but then when they are faced with the natural consequences of that, then its a crisis? Ya'll can't have it both ways.


    Please explain.


    i'll bite

    all i will say is naturally we are social creatures and we all seek to present an image that others would like to see in order to make the social interaction more profitable for us

    when we go to a job interview, or even the club, for example

    you do it...I do it

    and considering the fact we live in a image based society, the more attractive you are the more you are rewarded by society

    not to mention naturally we all yearn for the attention of the opposite sex

    what bothers me is how then women are made to feel guilty / ashamed for basically being human/products of their environment ..... and how we are taught to expect disrespect for practicing sexual agency if you dare offend the male, christian gaze....who does it really benefit? and why is it a woman's responsibility to convince others that her value goes far beyond her sex appeal, that should be a given. is she not also someone 's daughter , maybe someone's mother. does she not also have a brain. who are we to judge that she decided to use what goad gave her to flip a profit

    everyone is free to have their own opinion/values, but its crazy how some of yall can recognize the humanity and respect the come up of former drug dealers/gang banger turned rapper or business man who exploit themselves to make a dollar, but the instagram model/stripper you go your way to stare at doesn't deserve to be called anything other than bitch or hoe

  • Re: Submission-Should Women submit to her man?

    a woman should submit to her man's need to feel loved and respected

    a man should submit to his woman's need to feel loved and respected

    2stepz_aheadgnsStoneColdMikeyobnoxiouslyfreshSimptimusLEMZUSblacktuxYoung Stefdeadeyerip.dillablackrainBrideofKillaBussy_Getta (Nope)soul rattler
  • Re: Damn! Jim Brown Really Is A Coon

    I haven't been following closely. Other than saying he had a sit down with Trump and likes him, what exactly has Brown been doing to get him labelled as a coon. I mean we're just taking it to another level if a noted activist can be called a coon just because he likes someone you don't like.

    So... If I sat down with a Klan member

    ... and then I said something stupid like:

    "I really like this guy.

    "They KKK aint so bad. Negros need to give these guys a chance and hear them out."

    What would you call me?

    Trump ain't a Klansman. Trump is a conman and getting people to like them when no one should is what conmen do. It's crazy to me that Jim Brown thinks Trump is a good guy after sitting down with him, but I wouldn't call him a coon. Ya'll act like Trump didn't have a lot of high profile black people who loved him before all this. You think he's any different now than he was then? The only difference is he said a bunch of racist bull shit to appeal to the racists that he needed to become president. Now he's about to screw all of them and us over like the crooked business man that he is.

    regardless of whether or not trump has had famous blk associates over the years, trump speared headed the racist birther movement; was sued by the Justice Department for racial discrimination in the 80s; used his influence to demonize the central park 5; and has used highly offensive language stereotyping blks as lazy or criminal

    his father also had ties to the KKK

    so yea none of this is new, just not widely discussed/publicized

    i've never liked the man

    maybe coon is too harsh a word but can we all admit it is disappointing to see jim brown embrace him the way he has
    CashmoneyDuxLike WaterSmokey Tha BanditTrillfatePeace_79
  • Re: Since Women Are Equal, Then Why Can't They Get Their Asses Whooped?

    zzombie wrote: »
    zzombie wrote: »
    zzombie wrote: »

    I think your real problem is you want me to make a soft argument you want me to soften what I say because it sounds extreme to you.

    Objectively speaking history has proved that men are better at the things that actually count like War, leadership and science even art. You can look all throughout history and even in our contemporary times and you won't find too many woman of comparable skills in the fields mentioned.

    And if you look Within each Society and judge it by its own standards you will find the same pattern that you find in Western Society..
    Namely that men are the ones pushing that Society forward. Women should be able to be free to live up to their potential and there are some women who are better than men but the male gender is overall better at most things of importance... it is what it is sorry I can't be nice about it

    What you're saying is just false. Men may have appeared to be better at things like leadership, science, and art throughout history, but that's largely because men are the ones that have had the opportunity. For most of history, at least in the west, women haven't really been able to participate in those things to a major degree. Hell, you could make the same argument about blacks in America. Whites could say that if you look through history they've been better at those things than us in this country, and that might be true, but it kinda ignores all the barriers we had set in front of us. As blacks have gained more opportunities, you'd seen great black leaders, scientists, and artists. The same goes for women. The male dominance is really just a hold over from times when physical might is what determined everything, and in that one area, men are unquestionably superior to women on average.

    amongst black people.. black men a better than black woman the pattern I mentioned in my last post still holds. Which is why I said going by the standards of each Society men are still better in the things that count. there is no black female equivalent to Miles Davis, Marcus Garvey or George Washington Carver.

    our physical differences and biological differences have real consequences in our motivations and drives.

    A lot of cultures in Africa prior to colonization shared responsibility between men and women. The two groups had different responsibilities and roles in leadership, but women weren't relegated to second class the way they have been in the West. And you can't treat the black community in the West as being totally separate from the West. In America the patriarchy has been just as ingrained in the society than the racist institution, hell to some extent, more ingrained. So yeah, there hasn't really been a female Marcus Garvey or a female George Washington Carver, but that's less because black women are incapable of doing things like that and more because black women would have never received the opportunity to rise to those heights given the barriers to them.
    zzombie wrote: »
    Black people black men at the top
    White people white men at the top
    Chinese people Chinese men at the top
    East Indian people East Indian men at the top
    Hispanic people Hispanic men at the top.

    ^^^^^^ this is historical and contemporary reality so you cannot just blame Western Society for it it's always been this way amongst all people.

    And I suspect it's because our biological differences force men no matter the circumstances to build ,to succeed, to fight to conquer.... as long as men are around women don't have to have the drive to do any of that. I know that as a man if I don't provide if I don't produce some kind of wealth, stability and safety for myself and for my children and women then I will be s*** in the eyes of other men and woman. However all a woman has to do is be pretty or be willing to give the pussy up and her life can be set.

    Which is why today even with all the freedoms woman have women on average still don't work as hard as men in the workforce

    Again, much of that is due to the fact that there was a point in all cultures where physical might is what determined who controlled the power. Men were always stronger in that way, so they almost always had the power. It doesn't mean women were stupid or couldn't lead. In fact, when you look at instances where women did get power such as with Hatshepsut or Elizabeth I, they are considered among the best leaders ever of their respective cultures.

    I am not one to romanticize African history... all African societies that had women in greater power were more primitive . all the great African societies were patriarchal Mali , songhai even the Zulu.

    Physical might still determines who's going to rule because that physicality which is rooted in biology has real life social effects.... big strong men don't act the same as weaker men or women because physicality affect confidence and confidence affects how people perceive you.

    And I don't think women are stupid just that they are not as good as men in things that actually count.


    Many ppl, including women who've internalized this garbage, think this way

    The idea that women can’t be trusted with decision making or to lead

    And that's why structural and cultural barriers to independence and self realization women face persist