1
47

[–] Warmoose76 1 points 47 points (+48|-1) ago 

Because they are brainwashed, everyone should be treated equally and given equal chances (as long as your here legally) but we are certainly not equal or the same. Kids today are told that if you acknowledge races are different from one another than your racist.

0
13

[–] Schreiber 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Except that people are not treated equally or given equal chances in libtard nations.

America is one of the most racist nation on the planet with its affirmative action, diversity hires, political correctness, etc. Also probably one of the worst places for east asian on the planet in terms of government discrimination policy and also the best place for groids and spics.

In terms of government policy, the best place for sand niggers is Scandinavia, Germany, and France. The best place for desi indians/pakis is England. The best place for jews is probably America (not the arab infested Israel due to corrupt knesset virtue signaller and hamas). The best place for whites? Non-white and non-black countries probably, and definitely not Europistan or America Sodomite states.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] Durm 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Yeah. At the end of it, they aren't treating everyone equally anyway, regardless. Not the people who they think don't believe what they do, not even themselves.

0
1

[–] Seius 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

The best place for whites?

Mars baby

1
9

[–] Samsquamch 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago 

There's treating everyone equally, and allowing everyone freedom. You can't have both, and sadly we've chosen equality at the expense of others' freedom.

0
8

[–] Warmoose76 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

The problem is we are not treating every ones freedoms equally. Now days whites and Asians are treated less than equal with their freedoms. That's what I mean by equality sorry for the confusion, but I think I know what your saying and I think we are actually on the same page just a miss communication.

0
2

[–] armday2day 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

There's a difference between equality in outcome and equality before the law. You can expect the law to treat everyone equally, and you can expect a certain level of freedom.

0
1

[–] crustyjuggler 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I feel it's a deeper issue as well. Like the progressive mindset is all about interpreting freedom as freedom from effort or challenge or suffsring. The founding fathers wanted freedom from government intrusion, control or tyranny.

0
3

[–] patriot_biz 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I disagree . In minorities, I think that they are taught to fear that eugenics will result in a pogrom or something. For whites, I think they are at attracted to the idea that if they nod their head along with the media, then they don't have to think.

0
4

[–] Caesarkid1 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

The most vocal supporters of equality admit that minorities are inferior and need to be given a voice/platform by "privileged" whites as opposed to allowing them to find their own voice. Of course they are just the useful idiots of the white race who as you say are simply nodding along.

0
1

[–] ready-ignite 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Equal Opportunity vs Equal Outcome.

Everyone has a chance to win a running race. They all start at the same place and run to the same finish line. There are people who will be more likely to win the race due to prior training, genetic gifts, better nutrition, better equipment. Some people may have poor nutrition, injuries that prevent running, and so forth. Everyone has an equal opportunity to win.

Equal outcome. You have a running race but design it so everyone ends at the finish line at the same time. Slower people are given head starts. Worse, you start hobbling and interfering with faster people to get people to finish at the same place. The more you interfere with how the race is won, the more you've got to keep micromanaging everything to keep the outcomes equal.

Stefan Molyneux has a great video breaking it down further.

0
26

[–] Cannibalguy 0 points 26 points (+26|-0) ago 

Simple: Those who are on the lower half of the spectrum do not want to feel inferior.

0
8

[–] 1HepCat 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Moreover, even if you're in the 51st percentile for overall superiority, you're still inferior to a lot of people. None of the 48% of your betters have your interests at heart so much as their own. Similar situations for 52nd percentile and so on.

Even if you're in the 100th percentile for overall superiority, lots of people will still be superior in some aspect or another. Maybe you're super smart and super strong and work pretty hard... Even so, there are going to be some people who are pretty smart and pretty strong and work super hard. Again, those people are not going to be working with your benefit at the fore of their mind.

Also, the Dunning Krueger effect means that actually inferior people think they're superior--they're too stupid to know better.

Another concern is just randomness and chance. Two comparable fighters go into the octagon one day and fighter A wins. The next time fighter B wins--maybe A stubbed his toe on the way to the fight and that made the difference.

Even if you actually are significantly superior, two or more people could overcome you by working together.

For all of these reasons, it's best not to advocate for establishing a rigid hierarchy of superiority:

  • You will probably not be at the top of the hierarchy
  • Even if you make it to the top, it'll be short-lived
  • If you lord your superiority over others, they could get lucky or gang up.

0
1

[–] Cannibalguy 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I look at it at this:

In a world of inequality (reality) even someone in the 51st percentile would prefer the heirarchy to equality as equality would lower their comparable status.

Obviously those under would have their status raised.

I do agree that most heirarchy establishments are bullshit that are rarely established by logical means (Looks at history, people were rulers simply because of their bloodlines) and history also contains many examples of the less powerful banding together to take out the powerful oppressor the way America defeated Great Britain.

Now with that in mind, can we all robinhood the wealthiest 500 Americans for 15% of their net worth and use that money towards a greater good than those 500 people would?

0
1

[–] Le_Squish 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

That last part reminds me of what happened to the rural whites that supported the KKK in the 1950s. The upper class established their gated nigger free communities and guess who wasn't invited.

0
8

[–] ninjajunkie 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Never realizing, they are in the bottom half because they're too stupid to learn from their failures and climb into the top half.

0
8

[–] WilliamCutting 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Can't climb over genetics. Most people in that boat literally aren't 'bootstrapable'. Not suggesting we be forced to lift them, simply recognize that nature is not about fairness.

0
1

[–] SHIVASHIVASHIVA 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

cannibals being cannibals...

0
1

[–] draaaak 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

More like lower 80%

1
14

[–] elitch2 1 points 14 points (+15|-1) ago 

They are confused between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. One of these is righteous, the other is the destroyer of worlds.

1
0

[–] draaaak 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

People never have equality of opportunity though. Since everyone's life is different, everyone will have different opportunities throughout their lives. Some people are born with no legs, and will probably never have the opportunity to cut their toe nails, while most everyone else will.

0
2

[–] plankO 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

So cut everyone else's legs off for equality? The problem is the definition of equity is changing we should use fair instead. The man with no legs has a fair opportunity to make the most of his life. His mistakes are his own and he should be expected to pay for them. This reminds me of a gimp opera singer whose wealth and success came from perfecting his voice not his stubby limbs.

1
8

[–] Bfwilley 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

I blame participation dystrophy trophies.

0
3

[–] Koalemos_Grottesco 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

It has been going on for a lot longer than those.

0
8

[–] is_pepsi_okay 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Cause they want to live in a simple world that they understand. What energy they have is focused elsewhere.

0
6

[–] NonyaBidness 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

People conflate equality with equality under the law. We have neither, but should strive for the one which is possible (which is the individual sovereignty one).

Edit: More to your question, democracy has nothing to do with freedom. It's tyranny of the largest voting group (which is almost never a majority. Don't let them fool you.), and it's easily manipulated. People think of democracy, where everyone has a say in matters, as freedom. If Ron Paul had the only vote, we'd all be so much relatively freer that it would likely be unfathomable.

With freedom comes prosperity. With wealth comes everyone. With everyone comes little regard for liberty. Either everyone accepts that libertarians must call the shots to preserve the foundation that provides the wealth they appreciate (in which case they'd likely accept the NAP themselves and be part of the solution), or it all collapses.

0
5

[–] MetalAegis 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

They are afraid of the inherent supremacy involved in admitting differences in racial intelligence.

0
3

[–] The_Prophets_Profit 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Why shouldn't they be?

0
4

[–] MetalAegis 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Supremacy isn't inherently a bad thing so long as those who lead by superiority are empathetic to those who are not, and that those who have not are not resentful to those who lead for the betterment of all who live.

Of course the real world doesn't work that way.

0
0

[–] Whitemail 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

All it takes is for group A and group B to be different, and you will find that each group has superiority in some areas, meaning the other group is inferior.

0
3

[–] con77 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

fee fee's

load more comments ▼ (60 remaining)