The Seriously? Theatre of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts V

[BundouYMB]

This is pretty old news. Besides, I care more for every human life that these bastards have taken than for some old temple, regardless of how beautiful it was.

Loss of human life is terrible, but cultural heritage can never be replaced, while new humans are born all the time. Some parts of our heritage are more important than a single individual. Even if it is an odd calculation.

Why is that absurd?

Something like Stonehenge or Taj Mahal is clearly worth more to humanity than a single human being.

I admire your contributions in the international elections board but your politics are literally the worst. Piles of rocks have no inherent value. Those buildings might be pretty, or educational, or inspirational, but at the end of the day its rocks. They’re not conscious. They’re inanimate objects, politicus. You can build a new piles of rocks or even put the same ones back together. It blows my mind that anyone on God’s green earth can weight a real human being in one hand and a useless pile of rocks like Stonehenge in the other and say the latter is somehow more worthy of existing than the latter.

In a different time and place you’d be the most rabid of nazis. After all, Hitler built so many pretty buildings, and had such a great respect for German heritage. You have no empathy and no perspective.

[BundouYMB]

This is pretty old news. Besides, I care more for every human life that these bastards have taken than for some old temple, regardless of how beautiful it was.

Loss of human life is terrible, but cultural heritage can never be replaced, while new humans are born all the time. Some parts of our heritage are more important than a single individual. Even if it is an odd calculation.

Why is that absurd?

Something like Stonehenge or Taj Mahal is clearly worth more to humanity than a single human being.

I admire your contributions in the international elections board but your politics are literally the worst. Piles of rocks have no inherent value. Those buildings might be pretty, or educational, or inspirational, but at the end of the day its rocks. They’re not conscious. They’re inanimate objects, politicus. You can build a new piles of rocks or even put the same ones back together. It blows my mind that anyone on God’s green earth can weight a real human being in one hand and a useless pile of rocks like Stonehenge in the other and say the latter is somehow more worthy of existing than the latter.

In a different time and place you’d be the most rabid of nazis. After all, Hitler built so many pretty buildings, and had such a great respect for German heritage. You have no empathy and no perspective.

Arguing "Ad Hitlerum" I see, never a good sign.

Calling Stonehenge a "pile of rocks" is like saying Grand Canyon is a hole in the ground in Arizona". It may be true on one level, but it completely misses the point - it is a direct link to our ancestors, a view back in history and a magical place. And you can never recreate something like the Taj Mahal or the church of St. Peter, Hagia Sofia etc. Maybe a faint and hollow replica, but that is all.

I think you lack perspective - individuals life for a short time - while the great masterpieces of art and architecture can inspire and enjoy countless generations. People have died to safe cultural treasures from destructions in fires and during war, and rightfully so. Culture is not "death" it is life, beauty, happiness and inspiration. Of course only a very small part is so to a degree where it is more important than human something as precious as a human life, but there surely are things that are.

You think the difference between human beings and rocks is how long they last. Got it. You clearly have empathy in spades and have such a great historical perspective on this. Devastating rebuke of my argument.

[BundouYMB]

The impulse to physically destroy the past utterly is usually linked to the impulse to murder all who do not fit in: the systematic destruction of ancient sites by ISIS and their dreams of genocide are part of the same terrifying package. Year Zero is a terrible terrible thing to see declared and you should be very worried whenever it happens.

Alright, I'll bite. What's your point? It's politicus who said human life was worth less than historic sites, which is more than a casual link between their beliefs and murder. Also, I'm not proposing destroying Stonehenge. I said if I had the choice between killing someone and tearing Stonehenge down I'd be out at three a.m in a wife-beater dragging rocks.

[BundouYMB]

Yes. Their ideologies are obviously completely different but both of their campaigns are fueled by white resentment. Sanders is winning over liberal whites who are resentful that Clinton is running a campaign appealing to America's ascendant nonwhite majority -- and by extension not appealing to them. Trump's appealing to conservative whites who are resentful at the very prospect of the Republican establishment maybe, possibly considering appealing to some portion of America's incoming nonwhite majority.

Of course, there are also other factors at play, like the stagnation and decline of factory jobs and small town midwest economies that were based around them, but lets be real here. That's been happening for decades, and Trump and Sanders didn't appear when it started or during the peak of when it was happening (not to mention the fact that whites are still in an extremely advantageous economic position compared to nonwhites, even in the heart of midwest industrial decline.) So I maintain that this does not explain, entirely or even mostly, the rise of Trump and Sanders. I genuinely think the main factor at play with their rise this year is the fact that Obama to some extent and Clinton to a much greater extent have refused to do the whole treat-whites-like-they're-special-snowflakes-and-put-their-issues-on-a-little-silver-pedestal-during-election-years thing and whites are having a little cry about it.

Posted here by the resentful white kid. I'm sure the irony is lost on you.

[BundouYMB]

I know the term Radical Centrist can be confusing. On one hand you have establishment types such as Thomas Friedman and Fareed Zhakaria who have used that term to describe their ideology, which is Neo-liberal globalism. On the other you have a Radical Centrist Populism which is protectionist, immigration restrictionist, and was best represented by the Reform Party, which Trump was once a member of. Trump wrote a book back in 2000 when he was considering a run under the Reform Party. Back than he was pro-choice and advocated a massive tax increase on the ultra wealthy. Since than Trump has ran to the right to win the GOP primary. My personal ideal of radical Centrism would be a combination of the best aspects of Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and Ralph Nader. Trump is far from idea but he is the closest to that of anyone running.

Bolding by me. The idea that any combination of positions from these three could be called radical centrism is absurd.

[BundouYMB]

I like the caucus system. You know that the people are informed instead of just sheeple. One of the major flaws of the caucus is relative lack of accessibility. I propose that people should be able to tele-caucus on iPads or something. That'd kill two birds with one stone, nearly eliminating the need for absentee and early ballots.

I predict a Bernie 55-41 win, although I don't care much altogether.
Trump over 70.