/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2864215
>>2864500
>>2864501
poverty draft tbh.
reservations actually experience the poverty draft. when a suburban petty bourgeois white boy like platner joins the US military despite his parents offering to pay for his college, because he wants to go kill some arabs and have an adventure. that's not poverty draft. poverty draft is when you live on a reservation or in american samoa or some shit and the only job is the military.

fwiw this varies from group to group.

>>2864506
>peolpe don't "choose" to do anything
Right, so you never actually typed this post, then?

>>2864509
Being opposed to anyone who's ever been in the military is absolutely a losing strategy.

>>2864511
>bringing up platner unprompted
check not run out yet?

>>2864495
if you suffer a traumatic brain injury, are you the same person as before? I say no. Do you say yes? Does your brain produce the same behavioral outputs it would have produced had you not received any brain damage? I say no. Do you say yes? Does a person with brain damage process stimuli as quickly and reliably as a person without brain damage? I say no. Do you say yes? Does a person with brain damage process stimuli and produce outputs as quickly or reliably or accurately as a person without brain damage? I say no. Do you say yes? If you say "no" then we agree. If you say "yes" then we do not. If you say "yes" explain why. Ontological responsibility is just a fiction to justify socially constructed rituals like execution, imprisonment, torture, etc.

If a bee accidentally touches alcohol while out collecting pollen, it gets drunk. Its behavior is altered, its nervous system produces different outputs than it normally would. When it returns to the hive drunk, the other bees tear it to pieces. This is, to me, the essence of what people do when they hold each other responsible. It is a ritual meant to make the collective feel like they have control over the individual, but all that is proved is that the stimuli has rippled out from the individual to the collective. the bee accidentally became drunk, and it triggered the other bees into being violent. Nobody was "controlling" anything, it was all just stimuli and response from beginning to end. One big incident, like a tree falling in the woods, only with the illusion of "responsibility" for those whose brains have been trained by evolution to create symbolic explanations. Like yours and mine.

>>2864511
So iraqis should forgive their rapists if they were native?

>>2864518
yes i'm being paid by zionists to point out he's a zionist. great stuff

>>2864521
no actually. not even close to a reasonable interpretation of what i said.

This debate is so retarded it moved on to Marx's infallibility, inebriation, the naturalness of superstitous thought, some other random bullshit I probably missed.

>>2864520
Who typed this post? If no one chose to type it, how did it appear?

>>2864523
If poverty draft is real than every gang member goes free because they were just trying to escape poverty

>>2864525
>dodging questions
>asking questions already answered
go back and read.

>>2864526
not what i'm suggesting

>>2864517
I'd agree with that anon, I just find it funny that anti-military purists and noble savage theory with extra steps purists are not only a circle shaped venn diagram but also conveniently overlook natives being disproportionately represented in the US military. ofc >>2864511 has a simple explanation for that phenomena but the anti-military purists won't like it since it gets in the way of their individualistic moralism.

>>2864528
The only reason to bring up poverty draft is as an excuse for joining a reactionary VOLUNTEER ARMY

>>2864527
>go back and read.
But I would have to choose to do that.
And I am not responsible to your words, am I?
In fact, I never even typed this, so you are getting mad at nobody.

>>2864526
NTA but its actually pretty common for gang members to join the military and/or for SOCOM groups to basically form there own mafias like the ft bragg fent cartel.

>>2864520
>are you the same person as before?
Who’s “you”?
What is “you”?

>>2864531
i don't believe in free will so i don't believe people are "excused" or "responsible."

I think we can overcome the systems which stimulate our behavior, but only if we evolve to recognize them and change them. unfortunately evolution is slow.

The US army is reactionary and volunteer yes. I think there is a difference between a person who joins for "adventure" and a person who joins because it's the only job. I don't think either of them are "excused" I just think both of them exist in a system that produced them as predictable and statistically likely output.

>>2864535
My brain is acting transactional today. Answer "My" question with something other than a question and maybe I'll answer "yours"

>>2864536
>n't believe in free will so i don't believe people are "excused" or "responsible."
so antisocial behavior cannot and shouldn’t be punished because it was inevitable anyway, got it

>>2864533
that's fine

>>2864538
you confuse prescriptive and descriptive. like i already said, punishments can and do happen:

>If a bee accidentally touches alcohol while out collecting pollen, it gets drunk. Its behavior is altered, its nervous system produces different outputs than it normally would. When it returns to the hive drunk, the other bees tear it to pieces. This is, to me, the essence of what people do when they hold each other responsible. It is a ritual meant to make the collective feel like they have control over the individual, but all that is proved is that the stimuli has rippled out from the individual to the collective. the bee accidentally became drunk, and it triggered the other bees into being violent. Nobody was "controlling" anything, it was all just stimuli and response from beginning to end. One big incident, like a tree falling in the woods, only with the illusion of "responsibility" for those whose brains have been trained by evolution to create symbolic explanations. Like yours and mine.

>>2864538
Imprisonment is not supposed to be about punishment, it is supposed be about "rehabilitating" the perpetrator.

>>2864539
Who are you talking to? But wait, you are not even typing, are you?
You are a disembodied mind experiencing spontaneous phenomena.

If there is no free will then there is no redemption

>>2864544
Nor sin

>>2864537
>Answer "My" question with something other than a question and maybe I'll answer "yours
Specify or don’t bother saying anything else.

>>2864546
see
>if you suffer a traumatic brain injury, are you the same person as before? I say no. Do you say yes?

>Does your brain produce the same behavioral outputs it would have produced had you not received any brain damage? I say no. Do you say yes?

>Does a person with brain damage process stimuli as quickly and reliably as a person without brain damage?

>I say no. Do you say yes?

>Does a person with brain damage process stimuli and produce outputs as quickly or reliably or accurately as a person without brain damage? I say no. Do you say yes?

If you say "no" then we agree. If you say "yes" then we do not. If you say "yes" explain why. Ontological responsibility is just a fiction to justify socially constructed rituals like execution, imprisonment, torture, etc.

>>2864549
Sp-ec-ify what is “You”

>>2864544
ok? and? redemption for what? existing? shit happens and then you die. big deal.

>>2864545
>sin
just a spooky word when an individual brain produces behavior that the collective brain rejects. like the bee who returns to the hive drunk and is torn to pieces.

>>2864538
>so antisocial behavior cannot and shouldn’t be punished because it was inevitable anyway, got it
punishment doesn't solve the behavior nor even discourage it. it is just a cathartic ritual for an enraged collective. frankly it doesn't even matter if the individual is truly guilty, all that matters is the collective is convinced they are. this is why lynch mobs happen. technically when a mob lynches somebody they are the ones defining the "social" and the person who got lynched was "determined" to be "guilty" of "antisocial behavior." Whether this is actually true is besides the point. The ritual can be as brutal as a lynch mob or as elaborate as a trial by jury, but it is all a ritual nonetheless. punishment does nothing. Evolutionary processes will eventually either succeed or fail in producing a society where undesirable behaviors are as close to impossible as possible. That is the real essence of justice, not "crime" and "punishment" dialectics. You want an eye for an eye. If that makes you feel better that's fine, but it doesn't really mean anything.

>>2864550
any arbitrary nervous system producing output based on stimuli

>>2864552
Source

>>2864553
"my" questions are still sitting there even after I have answered "yours." Is "your" brain unwilling to respond to them? that is ok.


>if you suffer a traumatic brain injury, are you the same person as before? I say no. Do you say yes?

>Does your brain produce the same behavioral outputs it would have produced had you not received any brain damage? I say no. Do you say yes?

>Does a person with brain damage process stimuli as quickly and reliably as a person without brain damage?

>I say no. Do you say yes?

>Does a person with brain damage process stimuli and produce outputs as quickly or reliably or accurately as a person without brain damage? I say no. Do you say yes?

>>2864555
>"my" questions are still sitting there even after I have answered "yours." Is "your" brain unwilling to respond to them? that is ok.
I require a valid source to fully answer your question

>>2864556
very funny. chew on this for a while. systems are capable of self correction, but not really choice. self correction is when an entity tries and sometimes fails to adapt to its environment. nature will kill you if you do not adapt to your environment so it's not really a choice so much as it is a compulsion. in human society you will be killed, imprisoned, humilitated, or ostracized if you don't openly profess to believe in things like free will, guilt, crime, punishment, and responsibility, so those who profess to believe these things are not merely choosing to believe in spooks, they are forced to believe in spooks. I do not blame them. The rewards for believing in these spooks are also pretty compelling. At the end of the day violence is more compelling than truth. What gets defined as "antisocial" is sometimes actually quite unfortunate. For a long time materialism was determined to be antisocial behavior.

>>2864559
Do you have a source for any of this?

>>2864561
Giordano Bruno was tortured for 8 years and burned at the stake for denying the trinity, mary's virginity, and, among other things, thinking that the sun was just one star of many billions. He was punished for his antisocial behavior. His brain produced the wrong outputs. He was the bee who came back to the hive drunk. It doesn't matter that he was drunk on the truth.

>>2864561
I know you're going to continue trolling to prove your little point about how you are using your free will to be annoying but give it some thought, won't you? maybe when you're trying to sleep.

>>2864564
Source?
>>2864566
>about how you are using your free will
That is not my point. My is point is that you are being imprecise with your words, and that you keep utilizing baseless statements in this discussion. It is annoying.

>>2864569
you could have said that earlier instead of just dodging questions, but your neurochemistry won't allow you any more than mine will allow me to believe in a spook like free will.

punishment systems can be viewed as a set of evolved mechanisms that regulate behavior without requiring anyone to have acted from an uncaused choice.

>>2864569
btw words can only be imprecise. if a word truly perfectly described the thing itself, there would be no need for the thing itself. words are compression. they are lossy. like a jpg.

so for one, tribes are collective national entities, so there is a big difference between land being private property and land being owned / controlled by a tribal nation, the later is much closer to socialism ala cuba ( tho there is a wide difference between how politics operate between different tribes or factions of leaders, obviously we support indigenous proletarians, not capitalists, and often tribal authorities are puppets of the gov/ white capitalism) and even in the case of lots of land being owned by individuals / families there's usually overarching responsibilities to the land that don't exist under capitalism.

Now personally I don't think that true justice for indigenous people's is possible under the current system, and requires a mass international revolution, but disregarding indigenous struggles outright, or as something irrelevant to the international socialist revolution, rather than these peopel interconnected simultenous struggles, that's a grave error and a vector of reactionary thinking as much as opportunist idpol arguments that disregard the existence of compredor capitalists

indigenous nations are having their shit stolen, their leaders murderered, their people terrorized all over the Americas for the benefit of trans-national extractivist megacorps, their struggle is just one front in the class war, reacting to this like it's a distraction from the "real" struggle is just ignorant and reactionary, maybe do some research before forming your opinion based on some stereotypical internet randos who might not even be humans

that being said certainly capitalism exists on reservations and even collective ownership can foster capitalism, but to act like land being owned by the US gov or some mining company is no different from being granted to one or more

>>2838858

> If a socialist society would be established all this land would be owned collectively and social relations like settler and would be irrelevant anyway.

centuries of oppression don't just magically go away, especially when you pretend they don't matter, if you form a new society in a former colony without addressing the foundational relations that colony is built on ( namely the genocide of natives, or enslavement of africans etc. ) you're just going to reproduce those same relations. So you now have a nominally socialist society that just reproduces white supremacy and shouts loudly about how racism doesn't exist, maybe try making any discussion of racism illegal and have indigenous leaders arrested if they say otherwise.

>>2864584
>you could have said that earlier instead of just dodging questions
I wanted to see if the discussion actually lead anywhere
>but your neurochemistry won't allow you any more than mine will allow me to believe in a spook like free will.
No source
>>2864588
No source

>>2864622
Does the sky being blue require a source you fucking asshole?

>>2864622
>I wanted to see if the discussion actually lead anywhere
well it could if you put as much effort into answering my questions as i put into answering your questions, but your brain won't let you.
>>2864626
don't let this anon get under your skin

>>2864643
>well it could if you put as much effort into answering my questions
Your questions were shit and required more context you failed to provide.
>>2864626
The sky is not relevant to this discussion, so no.

>>2864594
I agree that you can't just sweep things under the rug, but by definition if you have universal equal rights to employment, housing, education, etc combined with socialist relations of production then by definition you can't "reproduce those same relations" of settler colonialism and slavery. That's just a huge exaggeration. At most you might have lingering discrimination in some areas, but even just removing the capitalist basis of the economy would dramatically improve the conditions of oppressed nations in America.

>>2864691
>Your questions were shit and required more context you failed to provide.

for those who haven't read the entire conversation, these were the questions


>if you suffer a traumatic brain injury, are you the same person as before? I say no. Do you say yes?

>Does your brain produce the same behavioral outputs it would have produced had you not received any brain damage? I say no. Do you say yes?

>Does a person with brain damage process stimuli as quickly and reliably as a person without brain damage?

>I say no. Do you say yes?

>Does a person with brain damage process stimuli and produce outputs as quickly or reliably or accurately as a person without brain damage? I say no. Do you