I seriously want this woman to bring democracy to my country.. We don't deserve to stay a shithole...

I seriously want this woman to bring democracy to my country.. We don't deserve to stay a shithole, why can't we have a nice, comfy Scandinavia-style society? Putin is just a measly peacock who loves to show off.

Other urls found in this thread:

aljazeera.com/indepth/inpictures/2016/07/fierce-fighting-rages-libya-160725115159385.html
spotniks.com/7-fatos-que-contradizem-tudo-que-voce-acreditava-sobre-a-suecia/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

You are the kind of leftist that I hate the most.

You are the main reason why Latin America is full of violence, rampant corruption and populism.

>b-but user, we must be like Nordic countries!!!

The Nordic model only works in Nordic society.

>I seriously want this woman to bring democracy to my country.

>rigged primaries
>democracy

end yourself

Anyone else been watching mature porn lately because of hillary?

>democracy
>Clinton

Ask the lybians how they like their democracy that clinton brought them russiaanon.
aljazeera.com/indepth/inpictures/2016/07/fierce-fighting-rages-libya-160725115159385.html

why won't Russians join the Arab spring

Thats false though

Latin America is full of violence, rampant corruption and populism is because of niggers

It's your own fault

And Lybians'

They were all given a chance for democracy, but they failed it. I think this is right.

care to explain why?

Russia will fail forever trying to copy the Nordic Model.

Slavic countries are full of corruption, if you want nanny state like Nordic countries, most Russian public money will go to corrupts.

Again, Nordic model only works in Nordic society.

DUDE FOR THE LAST TIME NOONE STARTED OUR REVOLUTION
whatever go fuck yourself

Don't bother, he's just another "demschizoid"

Forget about the Nordic model.. Take the Swiss model. Whatever model that is better than what we have now and that works in the long term (i.e. without the Ponzi scheme of importing millions of migrants from Islamic and African countries) is fine

it was our fault we had no idea how democracy worked and held elections without uniting an army first
partially the USA's fault for leaving us too early without baby sitting for a while
which they would if not for retards being OCCUPATION and shit

>Take the Swiss model

MY FUCKING SIDES. Swiss model is even more impossible to copy than Nordic model.

STFU stupid vatka, nobody shares your passion for barbarity and degeneraty nor wants to become Venezuela or Iran

So much this. I want to kill all gommie nordiboos so hard, man. They will never admit this will never work in Latin America.

Only the American model works in this shit country.

Because Putin isn't trying as hard as possible to keep Russia from disintegrating at the hands of the USA and Soros, right?

>hurr durr

>I seriously want this woman to bring democracy to my country

Shes quite possibly the least democratic person in america

>why can't we have a nice, comfy Scandinavia-style society

You want to be dominated by muslims and marxists?

Because any progressive and long-term democracy works in a culturally and ethnically homogenous society. So if Southern Brazil seceded from the rest of the country it would stand better chances.

How the fuck is he trying? By filling our country with millions of Asian migrants? By destroying our free thinking? Move to Venezuela or Iran, that's where we're moving anyway

No, I want a homogenous, enlightened and cohesive society which we are never going to have with Pootin

>No, I want a homogenous, enlightened and cohesive society which we are never going to have with Pootin

Youll have it even less with this nutter

>Take the Swiss model
yes that would go great in russia, you're the kind of retard that ruins countries, copying random successful models without any regard for context always ends in a fucking shitshow (my country is a prime example).
retards like you need to shut the fuck up and pick up a book.

I hope Putin puts you in jail for your stupid post communist piece of shit

2bh here is my opinion on socialism
it works in small countries with a small population (norway etc) and in big countries it's a disaster cuz paying all those niggers welfare will destroy it

We need an impulse. Who cares how Clinton conceives a perfect democracy if kicking Putin out is still in the High Russian interests?

What kind of "you"? I am not the government, retard. Democratize or suffer, fag! I love that approach.

how could you have a homogenous society when russia controls the homeland many different ethnicities

She's more likely to bring communism to the USA than she is to bring democracy to Russa

M8, Uruguay is homogeneous as fuck, 99% of them are light skinned mestizos or some white looking people.

They are failing hard trying to copy nordic model. The only think they gain with Nordic model is more corruption, more public debt, l,ow gdp growth, more populism and more violence.

>which we are never going to have with Pootin
You're never going to have that when you genuinely believe some guy is stopping you from enlightening yourself. You have the most powerful learning tool in human history at the tips of your fingers right now and you're using it to bitch about your current situation. The leader does not make the country, the people do. Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country.

Not just controls.. Russia spreads her legs in front of them like a desperate whore. We don't need that to prosper. We don't need to rebuild an empire to become a cohesive democracy. Again, if you like where Russia is going, you will like countries like Iran, Venezuela, Turkey, North Korea etc. Protip: all our vatniks (agressive patriots) love those countries. And they hate white people even if they show support for Trump.

Because it takes work.. It's like spiritual self-imporvement, but on a national level. If you failed it, you don't deserve anything else.

>What kind of "you"?
the kind that protests that your country isn't copying other models despite being in a ridiculously different context, the kind of hypocritical retard that asks for a "homogeneous, enlightened and cohesive society" by acting like a divisive, ignorant moron that spouts nebulous buzzwords, you know the kind of guy that wants a democracy but only as long as it shares your opinion.
look I'm not defending putin or the russian government, just saying you should probably put your head on a train track.

Asking for a "homogeneous, enlightened and cohesive society" is NOT the same as demanding to copy other models. This is merely the foundation of a successful democratic society, nothing more, nothing less. I also think that there is an element of humiliation in the futile attempts of lesser nations (of which Latin America is part of) to build democracy. I am aware of that and I like that.

No one can copy Nordic model. Nordic people have Law of Jamte, it a cultural thing coming from middle ages. You will only ruin your country trying to copy them.

Meanwhile Asia is beating us all copying the American model.

Hillary Clinton? Are things really that bad in Russia right now?

Good then. "Get rich or die trying".

If people, when given a chance to have a democracy, become barbaric religious extremists, it's their fault and they deserve that. If they turn into a Latin American cartel-infested HIV-prevalent semi-literate shithole, it's their fault too.

I know where Russia is going and it's probably going to be worse then Brazil in all respects (however hard it is to imagine), so I have economic as well as moral considerations against Putin's autocracy, and I know what the risks are.

Isn't Putin a pseudo gommie statist like Venezuela?

Nordic model only works with protestants tbqh. Catholics and orthodox are too emotional to build their societies in a rational and uncorrupted manner.

Yes he is, and this is not a big secret. Before Russia decided to harden its stance against ISIS many Putin's patriots were actually sympathetic to ISIS - thing went this far.

What? Anglos are very individualistc and meritocratic.

Your culture is gommie as hell, that's why nanny state works in your countries.

The American model almost always works pretty well in Brazil. America is not even minarchist anymore.

Almost everything private here works almost first world tier, at least in infrastructure.

>Asking for a "homogeneous, enlightened and cohesive society" is NOT the same as demanding to copy other models.
no, that's why I didn't say that, you literally asked to copy the scandinavian model, when people told you that was stupid you suggested to copy the swiss model instead.
>This is merely the foundation of a successful democratic society, nothing more, nothing less.
The USA is the most obvious example of that statement being wrong.
>there is an element of humiliation in the futile attempts of lesser nations (of which Latin America is part of) to build democracy. I am aware of that and I like that.
Chile and Argentina are higher than Russia in HDI, might want to keep that in mind before saying the word "humiliation"

>no, that's why I didn't say that, you literally asked to copy the scandinavian model, when people told you that was stupid you suggested to copy the swiss model instead.
I used those as an example of what a successful society can be.. Your obsession with those particular wordings and inability to think abstractly is disturbing.

>The USA is the most obvious example of that statement being wrong.
USA became worse in terms of quality of life over that past decades.. Google the book "Our Kids: American Dream in Crisis". Unsurprisingly enough, the USA also became less cohesive and homogeneous.

>Chile and Argentina are higher than Russia in HDI, might want to keep that in mind before saying the word "humiliation"
Those statistical deviations in stats are still not inspirational enough to take after YOU

Clinton is terrible person.

You can have her, I don't want her as our president.

Also she's dead center establishment democrat. Sanders was more left but he's a cuck with no pride.

>Your obsession with those particular wordings and inability to think abstractly is disturbing.
so I should read your mind then? so that every point I disagree with was "inability to think abstractly", not you being wrong? what the fuck am I supposed to read besides the words you write?
>USA became worse in terms of quality of life over that past decades
>Unsurprisingly enough, the USA also became less cohesive and homogeneous.
do you have a single fact to back that statement up? because almost every index you can think of says otherwise, the US in the last decades has reduced poverty and inequality, increased GDP per capita and their HDI increases steadily too. I'd love to see some data to back up the claims that you keep pulling out of your ass
>Those statistical deviations in stats are still not inspirational enough to take after YOU
are you trolling or is your english as shitty as your reasoning? because that sentence makes no fucking sense

>so I should read your mind then? so that every point I disagree with was "inability to think abstractly", not you being wrong? what the fuck am I supposed to read besides the words you write?
It's your problem, not mine. I made my point clear.

>do you have a single fact to back that statement up? because almost every index you can think of says otherwise, the US in the last decades has reduced poverty and inequality, increased GDP per capita and their HDI increases steadily too. I'd love to see some data to back up the claims that you keep pulling out of your ass
Go and research into the question a bit deeper then, because I'm not going to waste my time and prove to you anything. America is lagging behind Western Europe in several fundamental things, that's why it seeks to reform itself.

>are you trolling or is your english as shitty as your reasoning? because that sentence makes no fucking sense
I double-checked it and it looks perfectly coherent. Probably you don't even know (or maybe forgot) what you wanted to say in this thread, and I've said it all already.

REKT

>It's your problem, not mine. I made my point clear.
at first you did and I refuted it, instead of making a counter-argument or elucidating you said that I didn't understand your abstract thinking for refuting a direct quote from you, which is the most retarded retort you could possibly make.
>Go and research into the question a bit deeper then, because I'm not going to waste my time and prove to you anything
so you're asking ME to go look for data to corroborate YOUR argument, I can't believe you're this fucking stupid.
>America is lagging behind Western Europe in several fundamental things, that's why it seeks to reform itself.
again, you're saying random things you've assumed and show nothing to back them up, not even reasoning.
>I double-checked it and it looks perfectly coherent. Probably you don't even know (or maybe forgot) what you wanted to say in this thread, and I've said it all already.
Look, this is the sentence you wrote:
>Those statistical deviations in stats are still not inspirational enough to take after YOU
that makes absolutely no sense, I can't even understand what you were trying to say from how confusing it is, that sentence is such nonsense that I can't even assume what it means.

It fails because we have literal retards in power, also sindicates being cancer. Not because of Uruguay itself. Our government spent all our superavit in wellfare shit and useless builidings and shit.

>at first you did and I refuted it
You refuted literally nothing. I said that a well-developed, democratic society needs to be cohesive and homogeneous (and in fact, I didn't say that it's the only prerequisite), all I got in response was gibberish nonsense.

>so you're asking ME to go look for data to corroborate YOUR argument, I can't believe you're this fucking stupid.
I provided a reference from a well-respected social scientist, I couldn't care less to continue on this topic because you seem ignorant and low-informed about the subject

>again, you're saying random things you've assumed and show nothing to back them up, not even reasoning.
I have no obligation to back up everything to YOU - all of my thoughts and ideas are intended as food for thought for intelligent posters, who you possibly aren't

>that makes absolutely no sense, I can't even understand what you were trying to say from how confusing it is, that sentence is such nonsense that I can't even assume what it means.
Buy yourself a book about English phrasal verbs, maybe. In all honesty, I don't give a fuck.

>russia being homogenos
i want to fuck tatar and jew girl though

The only change that Clinton can deliver to your land is an Iraq-tier hellscape.

>You refuted literally nothing. I said that a well-developed, democratic society needs to be cohesive and homogeneous (and in fact, I didn't say that it's the only prerequisite), all I got in response was gibberish nonsense.
the response you got was very easy to understand but I'll explain again since you seem to be mentally challenged
>a well-developed, democratic society needs to be cohesive and homogeneous
proven wrong by multiple examples of countries, namely the USA, how did you respond to this? you just dismissed it by pulling claims out of your ass as seen here:
>USA became worse in terms of quality of life over that past decades..
The reason you refuse to back statements like this up is because you can't, it's nonsense you made up. If a country NEEDS to be cohesive and homogeneous then a simple exception to the rule disproves it, it's basic cause and effect you mouth breathing retard, in this case there are many exceptions that contradict your statement.
>I provided a reference from a well-respected social scientist
No, you simply mentioned a book and made no reference to it whatsoever besides the mention of it's title, not even a quote.
>I have no obligation to back up everything to YOU - all of my thoughts and ideas are intended as food for thought for intelligent posters, who you possibly aren't
yeah what an intelligent discussion that's going to lead to, just spout random bullshit with no reasoning behind it, or even proof for that matter, what a philosopher you are.
>Buy yourself a book about English phrasal verbs, maybe. In all honesty, I don't give a fuck.
again, the phrase:
>Those statistical deviations in stats are still not inspirational enough to take after YOU
makes absolutely no fucking sense in the english language and blaming me for not understanding you is ridiculous, it's laughable to watch you try to come off as intellectual when you can't form a goddamn sentence properly.

hillary will make us iraq
trump will make you iraq
sanders will make you ussr

what a time to be alive

"You don't believe in American democracy? Our planes is already fly to you!" (stale joke from early 2000s).

>proven wrong by multiple examples of countries, namely the USA, how did you respond to this? you just dismissed it by pulling claims out of your ass as seen here:
OMG, you're a very stubborn fool, aren't you? Google already Robert Putnam's research on social capital, how it affects democracy and local governance.. Namely, the effectiveness of local democracy is directly dependent on social capital (i.e. cohesion, trust and cooperativeness within society). That book that I quoted above is also his work. Quite unironically, the best states in America are North-Eastern and Mid-Western states, with the most homogeneous population. New England, Minnesota and some others - those are the LEADING states in most stats. Of course, social cohesion and social capital is not the sole factor of success, but those White northerners are the driving force behind America's grandeur.

Now, The USA is moving in a completely wrong and different direction. Not only the accessibility to education and housing became worse (there is data on it in the book), it is getting filled with millions of Latin Americans. They give a short-term boost in GDP, but in the long run, they're a disaster. Because they bring along they social norms, their way of thinking, their culture, which all resulted in their countries being miserable shitholes whose population is desperate, but futile to pull themselves out of the cesspool of their own wretched mentality. Latin American immigrants destroy social cohesion, divide society (see Trump) and, most importantly, they bring a different, undemocratic and unwestern culture.

I hope my point is clear now.

Trump won't actually do anything because both the left and the right won't allow him.
The majority voting trump now are just to stop Hillary, because the left is actually retarded enough to let hillary do shit.

I wonder if things always get this exciting, or if something crazy is going to happen soon.

hillary honestly seems just like a right winger to me, sprinkled with some gay rights and other things to get a wider vote

the world has been pretty boring politically. It's all talk and it fizzles out.

>socialism works for Nordics but not for Sudacas because of Russia
Nope, sorry.

I'm not talking about Russians, but gommie nordiboos

No, you fail because our culture can't into Nordic social democracy. Just deal with it. Stop trying to be Nordics, come to real world, full economic freedom, education and meritocracy, you will NEVER be able to copy Nordics unless you nuke Uruguay and put Nordics to replace your population.

> the best states in America are North-Eastern and Mid-Western states, with the most homogeneous population. New England, Minnesota and some others - those are the LEADING states in most stats
That's a confirmation bias, since ethnically and culturally diverse states like new york, new jersey, texas and california are also some of the leaders in stats such as HDI, GDP per capita, education, etc. you simply picked the ones that fit into your narrative of social cohesion.
>but those White northerners are the driving force behind America's grandeur.
if you're trying to turn this into a discussion about race then russia gets the short end of the stick
>Because they bring along they social norms, their way of thinking, their culture, which all resulted in their countries being miserable shitholes whose population is desperate, but futile to pull themselves out of the cesspool of their own wretched mentality(...)they bring a different, undemocratic and unwestern culture.
I hope you understand how pathetically ironic this post is, this whole time you've been advocating for a democratic change in Russia, with it's core being, and I quote: "cohesion, trust and cooperativeness within society", this coming from the very country that defined the opposite of western ideals, the biggest ideological and cultural enemy of the US. How could this country improve then? well by your reasoning it can't, it is culturally locked into, and I quote you: "their way of thinking, their culture, which all resulted in their countries being miserable shitholes whose population is desperate, but futile to pull themselves out of the cesspool of their own wretched mentality.", Russia probably has the most outstanding history of oppression, totalitarianism, violent revolution and poverty, if we assume the point you made about latin-americans to be correct then you must also accept that russians are in a worse position

>That's a confirmation bias, since ethnically and culturally diverse states like new york, new jersey, texas and california are also some of the leaders in stats such as HDI, GDP per capita, education, etc. you simply picked the ones that fit into your narrative of social cohesion.
All ruled and driven by educated whites.. That's where the term "white privilege" came from. In addition to that, a high GDP doesn't necessarily mean a high quality of life for everybody.

>if you're trying to turn this into a discussion about race then russia gets the short end of the stick
It's just a matter of fact that racial divisions often overlap with cultural divisions.. In the first place, it's all about culture, mentality. But culture is often based on identity, so all of this is interrelated.

>I hope you understand how pathetically ironic this post is, this whole time you've been advocating for a democratic change in Russia, with it's core being, and I quote: "cohesion, trust and cooperativeness within society", this coming from the very country that defined the opposite of western ideals, the biggest ideological and cultural enemy of the US. How could this country improve then?
By changing its ways.

>Russia probably has the most outstanding history of oppression, totalitarianism, violent revolution and poverty, if we assume the point you made about latin-americans to be correct then you must also accept that russians are in a worse position
Exactly, but at least I am enlightened enough not to blame "the privileged white man" for all of that, or complain that we've been brainwashed by someone into communism/capitalism/degeneracy. This is called responsibility. Comparing backwards & savage societies with successful and prosperous is what really makes you understand the underlying mechanism of success. It lies not in ideology, but in the minds and habits of the people.

despite the memes, america has great immigrants. it's actually a problem, as the original countries they are coming from are suffering

and also you just changed your point from culturally homogenous to "ruled by whites". russia is ruled by russians, why aren't we successful? stop changing your point and just say I wish russia was for russians

There's no contradiction here. The terms "comfy" and "homogeneous" go hand to hand, because otherwise there is ethno-social stratification which brings disharmony and tension.

I don't want Russia to be run by vatniks or be populated solely by vatniks. So it's about the quality of human material.

Russia has certain diversity, there is no point to expand it even further. There is no point to expand the "empire" as well. If those conditions are met, the next step is self-improvement for the whole nation.

I thought you meant kicking out all the current inhabitants of russia, like tatars, chuvaks and ural people

>All ruled and driven by educated whites..
objectively wrong, plenty of non-white political representation in the mentioned states, not to mention not all whites belong to the same culture, I also shouldn't have to point out that Obama is black.
>By changing its ways.
if you claim that Russia can change it's ways and surpass it's own cultural barriers then you also concede that latin-americans can do the same, nullifying the point you were trying to make earlier.
>Exactly, but at least I am enlightened enough not to blame "the privileged white man" for all of that, or complain that we've been brainwashed by someone into communism/capitalism/degeneracy. This is called responsibility. Comparing backwards & savage societies with successful and prosperous is what really makes you understand the underlying mechanism of success. It lies not in ideology, but in the minds and habits of the people.
yet we see countries which share almost identical cultures in completely different socio-economic situations, Saudi Arabia and Syria are almost identical culturally speaking yet one is in civil war while the other is one of the most developed in the middle east offering a great quality of life to those that are aligned with their beliefs, and I know what you're thinking: "but saudi arabia has oil", so the other example we can bring up is Colombia and Venezuela where the roles are reversed, almost identical countries except that Venezuela has incredible oil reserves, yet Colombia is now one of the fastest growing economies after the American intervention, and Venezuela is collapsing into itself. North Korea and South Korea are also a prime example of the primacy of ideology and economic policy over culture. There are plenty of other examples like this that conflict with the idea of culture being the main determinant of success.

you can have her m8

I definitely NEVER meant anything like that

How would she do that, you silly?

Because its summer.

>seriously
I trust you, comrade. There are no people in Russia who wouldn't want to have a female president.

nah, they will exploit you and kill you slowly with drugs, aids, abortions and alcohol like they did in 90s, it is still going on tho. hard to fight it

Eles nem são socialistas quando comparados com o Brasil

spotniks.com/7-fatos-que-contradizem-tudo-que-voce-acreditava-sobre-a-suecia/

>objectively wrong, plenty of non-white political representation in the mentioned states, not to mention not all whites belong to the same culture,
>I also shouldn't have to point out that Obama is black.
Half-white, but never mind. It's about culture. You see no ghetto culture in American politics. Ghetto culture is reserved for ghettos. But Latin Americans are much more numerous than Blacks, and soon their culture will prevail everywhere. It's different, it has different norms and attitudes. And it won't fuse with the White culture into one, but will clash with it instead.

>if you claim that Russia can change it's ways and surpass it's own cultural barriers then you also concede that latin-americans can do the same
You pulled that out of your ass. I never negated anybody's right to become civilized, I was merely stating the obvious truth.

>the other example we can bring up is Colombia and Venezuela where the roles are reversed, almost identical countries except that Venezuela has incredible oil reserves, yet Colombia is now one of the fastest growing economies after the American intervention, and Venezuela is collapsing into itself.
Colombian people are still not particularly enlightened and civilized. Economic growth doesn't matter much if it's not accompanied by improvement of society.

>North Korea and South Korea are also a prime example of the primacy of ideology and economic policy over culture. There are plenty of other examples like this that conflict with the idea of culture being the main determinant of success.
The flow of ideas is the second thing. The presence of a democratic culture among people guarantees a more free flow of ideas and protects society from self-destructive and authoritarian ideas like Military Communism a la North Korea. Circulation of ideas and culture are interdependent, but there are always workarounds

>You see no ghetto culture in American politics
well that's completely obvious, I''m guessing your senators aren't squatting in the street drinking vodka
>But Latin Americans are much more numerous than Blacks, and soon their culture will prevail everywhere. It's different, it has different norms and attitudes. And it won't fuse with the White culture into one, but will clash with it instead.
"white" isn't a culture, it wasn't when irish, italians and germans arrived in america, all white and all coming from completely different cultures. and it isn't now, there are plenty of white people in the US who are piss-poor and plenty who are doing well for themselves despite their "white" culture. this is some black lives matter level of racial baiting you're running on.
>You pulled that out of your ass. I never negated anybody's right to become civilized, I was merely stating the obvious truth.
you stated that "the effectiveness of local democracy is directly dependent on social capital" and you defined social capital as: "cohesion, trust and cooperativeness within society", by the very fact that you are here debating this point and speak as if you are above "vatniks" is proof that you represent the very opposite, you assume intellectual superiority between you and those who oppose you, you don't trust your government or your own countrymen, you represent the exact opposite of the ideals you clamor for. I hardly believe this is "the honest truth"
>Colombian people are still not particularly enlightened and civilized. Economic growth doesn't matter much if it's not accompanied by improvement of society.
not even 10 years have passed and yet the results are visible, you can't expect civilization to flourish overnight, although considering your views you probably do.
(1/2)

>The flow of ideas is the second thing. The presence of a democratic culture among people guarantees a more free flow of ideas and protects society from self-destructive and authoritarian ideas like Military Communism a la North Korea.
This is under the presumption that authoritarian ideas are inherently self-destructive, yet we see quite a good sample of authoritarian regimes doing well for themselves, with places like China or the even more extreme the absolute monarchy in Saudi Arabia. whether authoritarian regimes are self-destructive is up to the authority, not the doctrine.
The claim that the free flow of ideas protects society from authoritarianism is also wrong, there are plenty of democratically elected totalitarians.
>Circulation of ideas and culture are interdependent, but there are always workarounds
False, interdependence implies one cannot exist without the other, yet plenty of political movements exist completely outside of culture, communism, democracy, etc. do not require the spread of culture for implementation, the most obvious one being fascism which glorifies local culture and rejects foreign influence, yet existed in many different countries.
(2/2)

>measly peacock
what did he mean by this

>well that's completely obvious, I''m guessing your senators aren't squatting in the street drinking vodka
They're bydlo as fuck and often have mafia ties.

>"white" isn't a culture, it wasn't when irish, italians and germans arrived in america, all white and all coming from completely different cultures
They all merged into a single culture over time. Someone sooner, someone later. This is unlikely to happen with Latin Americans.

>there are plenty of white people in the US who are piss-poor and plenty who are doing well for themselves despite their "white" culture
America is a very segregated country where even wealthy Blacks live in their own neighborhoods, which again proves the fact that people feel more comfortably in a homogeneous environment

>you assume intellectual superiority between you and those who oppose you, you don't trust your government or your own countrymen, you represent the exact opposite of the ideals you clamor for
I see no contradiction here: my ideals are plain as day

>I hardly believe this is "the honest truth"
The truth is harsh and bitter

>not even 10 years have passed and yet the results are visible, you can't expect civilization to flourish overnight, although considering your views you probably do.
I'm not gonna lie to you, I have little idea of what's going on in Colombia. Their problems.. like cartel wars are of little interest to me. I just see the large picture and can say the the world is driven by semi-random factors that are not easy or impossible to predict. But we can discern certain patterns and draw wisdom from them.

which would win in a fight

>why can't we have a nice, comfy Scandinavia-style society
Look at Pooland. You won't have even with democracy as Pooland is smaller Russia with democracy

>This is under the presumption that authoritarian ideas are inherently self-destructive, yet we see quite a good sample of authoritarian regimes doing well for themselves, with places like China or the even more extreme the absolute monarchy in Saudi Arabia.
Those societies don't generate and exchange ideas, they don't allow for the mind to be free. That configuration, whatever successful it is in the short- or midterm, is not the paragon, not the perfect state of things. Democracy and freedom is an achievement of humanity, and I don't believe it should be given up.

>The claim that the free flow of ideas protects society from authoritarianism is also wrong, there are plenty of democratically elected totalitarians.
Because humans are not perfect, external conditions like economy and war can pretty much affect the psyche, bringing out the lowest of instincts

>False, interdependence implies one cannot exist without the other, yet plenty of political movements exist completely outside of culture, communism, democracy, etc. do not require the spread of culture for implementation
That's why I said about workaround. Ideas can influence humanity on their own, they can be taken as is and put into action, but if society is not able to modify them, the ideas become rigid and dysfunctional, eventually losing competition from the outside world and collapsing the whole system and society.

t. Iraqi 2002

>They're bydlo as fuck and often have mafia ties.
yes, politicians are corrupt, this happens everywhere, even in the most developed countries, the Panama Papers had plenty of G-20 politicians in them, that hardly qualifies as the same culture we see on the streets.
>They all merged into a single culture over time. Someone sooner, someone later. This is unlikely to happen with Latin Americans.
do you have any logical reasoning to say that? people with up to 4th or 5th generation still see themselves as "italian-american" or "irish-american", if you consider that to be culturally merged then the case southwestern America with mexican-americans isn't different from a cultural stand point, we've seen the same thing with racially different immigrants such as east-asians and Indians. If you have a racial bias then go ahead and say it, don't tip toe around it with unnecessary verbose. There are plenty of reasons to oppose immigration but this "cultural-clash" that only applies to certain groups is just roundabout racism.
>America is a very segregated country where even wealthy Blacks live in their own neighborhoods, which again proves the fact that people feel more comfortably in a homogeneous environment
so your definition of homogeneity is based around wealth? or are you saying that people who belong to a particular neighborhood do so because of cultural reasons?
>I see no contradiction here: my ideals are plain as day
If your ideal cultural values for functioning democracy are as you said: "cohesion, trust and cooperativeness within society" then your contempt and distrust towards other russians that aren't aligned with your point of view are proof of your hypocrisy.
>The truth is harsh and bitter
the problem here is that you haven't proven it to be the truth and your own speech contradicts the values you claim to stand up for.

>62620743
>NOONE STARTED OUR REVOLUTION

?

Did it just appear out of thin air?

>yes, politicians are corrupt, this happens everywhere, even in the most developed countries, the Panama Papers had plenty of G-20 politicians in them, that hardly qualifies as the same culture we see on the streets.
And the president of Iceland resigned straight away.. It's about the pressure that society puts on any people in charge

>do you have any logical reasoning to say that?
Consult any American, he will confirm that whites form a separate cultural identity from blacks and latinos. Labels that they put on themselves play little role.

Racial boundaries are strong in America too.. Again, ask a real American to confirm.

:so your definition of homogeneity is based around wealth? or are you saying that people who belong to a particular neighborhood do so because of cultural reasons?
Both

>If your ideal cultural values for functioning democracy are as you said: "cohesion, trust and cooperativeness within society" then your contempt and distrust towards other russians that aren't aligned with your point of view are proof of your hypocrisy.
I act as a third party observer, not society itself, and I have the right to criticize anything and anyone

>the problem here is that you haven't proven it to be the truth and your own speech contradicts the values you claim to stand up for.
I really feel like I'm talking to a pidorashka, Westerners are usually better at understanding concepts that pidorashkas and latinos cant't understand

>Those societies don't generate and exchange ideas, they don't allow for the mind to be free. That configuration, whatever successful it is in the short- or midterm, is not the paragon, not the perfect state of things. Democracy and freedom is an achievement of humanity, and I don't believe it should be given up.
someone should teach you the differences between facts and opinions, just because you believe in something doesn't make it true, you can't just allude to something as nebulous as "the perfect state of things" and expect people to accept such a claim.
>Because humans are not perfect, external conditions like economy and war can pretty much affect the psyche, bringing out the lowest of instincts
and that is also an opinion, I do not support authoritarianism but saying that it is simply the result of psychological moments of weakness and a manifestation of lower instincts is not an argument, the same statement could be made about any system, including democracy, yet it means nothing if not properly demonstrated.
>That's why I said about workaround. Ideas can influence humanity on their own, they can be taken as is and put into action, but if society is not able to modify them, the ideas become rigid and dysfunctional, eventually losing competition from the outside world and collapsing the whole system and society.
If we were to accept this premise then your claim that there is "a perfect state of things" is wrong, as that which is perfect doesn't require modification, it is by definition perfect. I'd also point out that if ideas do indeed become "rigid and dysfunctional" and lead to "collapsing the whole system and society" in a practical way then that would also apply to democracy, I'd argue instead that the more workarounds, exceptions and modifications then it no longer a foundation, and that's when democratic values can be more easily attacked, when it is no longer the constitution of all else.

>someone should teach you the differences between facts and opinions, just because you believe in something doesn't make it true, you can't just allude to something as nebulous as "the perfect state of things" and expect people to accept such a claim.
I honestly don't care what you accept or not. If people knew with 100% certainty what to do with humanity, there would have been no opposing ideologies and different philosophies.

>I do not support authoritarianism but saying that it is simply the result of psychological moments of weakness and a manifestation of lower instincts is not an argument, the same statement could be made about any system, including democracy, yet it means nothing if not properly demonstrated.
You're so full of fallacies that you overgeneralize my statements in your every sentence

>If we were to accept this premise then your claim that there is "a perfect state of things" is wrong
And again (I never made that claim)

>I'd also point out that if ideas do indeed become "rigid and dysfunctional" and lead to "collapsing the whole system and society" in a practical way then that would also apply to democracy
Democracy is a meta-idea, it's a framework that allows for other ideas to circulate within it

>I'd argue instead that the more workarounds, exceptions and modifications then it no longer a foundation, and that's when democratic values can be more easily attacked, when it is no longer the constitution of all else.
When ideas circulate and change people's perception of how to control the world around them, that is the flow of ideas that I referred to. The term "workaround" is used in the context of applying ideas without having the culture of nurturing them.

>And the president of Iceland resigned straight away.. It's about the pressure that society puts on any people in charge
only after being threatened with a violent uprising, He was also the only current head of state from Europe to be directly involved, others with a more indirect involvement went completely untouched, like Cameron.
>Consult any American, he will confirm that whites form a separate cultural identity from blacks and latinos. Labels that they put on themselves play little role.
whites themselves constitute different cultural identities, I doubt the high-brow liberals from New England would consider themselves culturally tied to the poor NASCAR watching redneck, hell I doubt they would share too much with a new yorker, even within New York you can see different white-descendant cultures.
>Both
so in order for homogeneity to be achieved you would require both wealth and cultural similarity?
there is a name for that, I'm sure you're familiar with it.
>I act as a third party observer, not society itself, and I have the right to criticize anything and anyone
so you go on and on about how your idea are right and everyone else is wrong but when you have to receive criticism yourself you remove yourself from the argument, how very intellectual of you
>I really feel like I'm talking to a pidorashka, Westerners are usually better at understanding concepts that pidorashkas and latinos cant't understand
an ad hominem, very nice, truly the mark of an enlightened individual. now I know you're simply replying out of pettiness rather than defending your point of view.

>only after being threatened with a violent uprising, He was also the only current head of state from Europe to be directly involved, others with a more indirect involvement went completely untouched, like Cameron.
He resigned because his reputation was stained too much. That's how a civilized society works - it imposes reputation risks on its members

>whites themselves constitute different cultural identities
Those have largely dissolved, even Russian Americans are mostly "whiticized"

> I doubt the high-brow liberals from New England would consider themselves culturally tied to the poor NASCAR watching redneck
That's right, and that's why I said about NORTHERN states in the beginning

>so in order for homogeneity to be achieved you would require both wealth and cultural similarity?
You can't achieve it on a whim, it's a process, like everything in the world

>so you go on and on about how your idea are right and everyone else is wrong but when you have to receive criticism yourself you remove yourself from the argument, how very intellectual of you
I haven't received any particular criticism yet. In order to do that, one has to accept some common ground and go on from there, while you are desperately trying to denounce even the most basic facts, like that a homogeneous society is more likely to become successful or that a heterogeneous society is more prone to discord. So we're walking in really shallow waters here.

>an ad hominem, very nice, truly the mark of an enlightened individual. now I know you're simply replying out of pettiness rather than defending your point of view.
I don't have to defend my point of view at all.

>I honestly don't care what you accept or not. If people knew with 100% certainty what to do with humanity, there would have been no opposing ideologies and different philosophies.
If you don't care then why are you replying? let me rephrase what you said for you: "I have nothing to justify what I'm saying so I'll pretend your opinion doesn't matter"
>You're so full of fallacies that you overgeneralize my statements in your every sentence
I am quoting you directly, in what world is that overgeneralizing, those were your words, here is your statement: "external conditions like economy and war can pretty much affect the psyche, bringing out the lowest of instincts", that was your excuse for the democratic election of authoritarians, it is and exact quote.
>And again (I never made that claim)
Your words, this is a direct quote: "That configuration, whatever successful it is in the short- or midterm, is not the paragon, not the perfect state of things." if there is no "perfect state of things" then how can you recognize what that state is or isn't?
>Democracy is a meta-idea, it's a framework that allows for other ideas to circulate within it
Ok, not only is that not exclusive to democracy, it also doesn't disprove that we were to accept your premise of rigidity and dysfunctionality then democracy would also be subject to it.
>When ideas circulate and change people's perception of how to control the world around them, that is the flow of ideas that I referred to. (...) applying ideas without having the culture of nurturing them.
what is the "culture of nurturing them"? I'd also point out that democracy is an idea inside the collection, not the other way around, ideas existed a long time before democracy and existed for a long time without it, the free flow of ideas isn't a consequence of democracy and democracy doesn't even guarantee the free flow of ideas, the censorship of right wing movements in europe is a prime example of that.

>the nordic model works

Hahaha no it's fucking shit. All these commie idiots never visited this failed state

>He resigned because his reputation was stained too much. That's how a civilized society works - it imposes reputation risks on its members
are you sure it wasn't the tanks and armed population outside the president's office?
>Those have largely dissolved, even Russian Americans are mostly "whiticized"
And do you have any reasoning to back that up? would you consider guidos from jersey culturally equivalent to a southern redneck? I would also like to know why this cultural dissolution doesn't apply to non-whites according to you.
>That's right, and that's why I said about NORTHERN states in the beginning
Ok, so you openly acknowledge that there are cultural differences between different white groups in the US? Also you said, and I quote: "but those White northerners are the driving force behind America's grandeur." so what constitutes a term as loose as "America's grandeur"?
>I haven't received any particular criticism yet. In order to do that, one has to accept some common ground and go on from there,
You've dodged plenty of my arguments with extremely nebulous and abstract explanations, also I am in no obligation to find common ground with you, specially if you're constantly being intellectually dishonest and base all your reasoning around theory and repeatedly get facts wrong.
>while you are desperately trying to denounce even the most basic facts, like that a homogeneous society is more likely to become successful or that a heterogeneous society is more prone to discord. So we're walking in really shallow waters here.
your opinions aren't facts, there are plenty of homogeneous societies that aren't successful and plenty of heterogeneous societies that are. the continent of Africa completely disproves you "facts"
>I don't have to defend my point of view at all.
the problem here isn't that you're unwilling, it's that you're unable. you've already proven that you're replying out of pettiness.

>let me rephrase what you said for you: "I have nothing to justify what I'm saying so I'll pretend your opinion doesn't matter"
Our entire dialogue consists of you spewing out fallacies and overgeneralizing my statements without contributing any value. Basically I am the only one who brings value and meaning to the discussion, while you are like.. well, a parasite feeding off you - by desperately trying to misinterpret random phrases. Unsystematically and without purpose. You have no agenda, no opinion, so it's like talking, you know, to a little dog who's trying to bite you.

>here is your statement: "external conditions like economy and war can pretty much affect the psyche, bringing out the lowest of instincts", that was your excuse for the democratic election of authoritarians, it is and exact quote.
Yep, I see nothing wrong about that statement. It can be true. But only in those cases when a society if mature for democracy and for some reason falls back. The problem is, most societies are NOT mature for democracy.

>Your words, this is a direct quote: "That configuration, whatever successful it is in the short- or midterm, is not the paragon, not the perfect state of things." if there is no "perfect state of things" then how can you recognize what that state is or isn't?
That is a negation.. It doesn't say that perfection is achievable. Perfection is a state, but the world and humanity is made up of processes.

>Ok, not only is that not exclusive to democracy
At the moment, it is. Communism is pretty harsh when it comes to the free flow of ideas.