It's kind of weird that when people talk about who you should vote for they often say you shouldn't look at superficial things like the color of the candidate's skin, you should research their stance on issues etc. But nobody says this about invasions in the past. When Brits and their descendants moan about the Norman Conquest it's always about how some people who were "not our kind" came in and took power from people who were "our kind". In fact the rulers before the conquest were not "your kind" if you were a peasant, because by definition those who rule over you are not your kind. And why doesn't anybody talk about which group of rulers brought the most benefit to their subjects instead? When people talk about the French ruling over Haitians suddenly Haitians are supposed to be grateful for the blessings of civilization that the French brought with them.https://www.bitchute.com/video/gUq5uReFT7D8
>>532784103>invasions>took power>conquest That's the difference. In a democracy you're given a choice. Someone taking power without consultation, regardless of their race, isn't comparable.
>In fact the rulers before the conquest were not "your kind" if you were a peasant, because by definition those who rule over you are not your kindThis is an argument for getting rid of class, not ethnicity
>>532784405democracy is a lie
>>532784766Then your problem isn't with democracy but with a system which may be referred to as a democracy but is in fact not.So what are you actually complaining about, without using terminology that by your own admission is misleading?
>>532784103>It's kind of weird that when people talk about who you should vote
>>532784103That a faggit, look at his clothes.
>>532784411No, people talk about the rulers before the conquest as if they were benevolent and the rulers after the conquest as if they were evil, based on nothing other than "sameness" vs "otherness", when as I said, both were rulers, and thus by definition "other".
>>532784835As I said, it's rulers. Your rulers are never your kind. You're the one that says it makes a difference if you choose or not (you don't, ever), without backing this up and without making a substantial connection to the topic. People moan about the color of the skin, the language, the religion or whatever, but the fact remains, rulers are rulers, do you disregard what they actually accomplish and look at superficial things, or do you disregard superficial things and look at what they accomplish. The Brits and their descendants who complain about the Norman Conquest never complain about the decline in living standards for peasants, if that happened, it's always just "They weren't Brits like my great-great-great-great grandfather. That means they were bad." Brit or not Brit, you as a peasant and the nobleman are not the same kind, in the slightest.
>>532785260Do you think it makes a difference if I rape you or if it's consensual? You're trying to argue that a mutual agreement is the same as slavery.
>>532785462You've sidetracked from the topic which was stance on issues vs color of skin and similar. If we run with the idea that you actually do choose your rulers in an election, you still haven't made a point about why people still say you should look at issues and not color of skin etc. You seem to be running with the premise that when you do choose your rulers it's ok to look at only the superficial, but this was not my premise.
>>532785462>>532785680>You seem to be running with the premise that when you do choose your rulers it's ok to look at only the superficial, but this was not my premise.Or I guess rather you're running with the assumption that when you don't choose your rulers it's ok to look at only the superficial. Either way, you haven't backed it up or made a substantial connection to my point.
>>532785680You were the one who used the term democracy, even though you knew it to be misleading, or maybe you changed tack when it was shown how bad your original point was.Maybe you should rephrase. Since you don't believe that democracy exists, how would you describe your problem without using that term?
>>532786112I didn't use the term democracy in the OP. To get back to the actual topic, which I stated in the OP, you have rulers regardless of whether you choose them or not. Regardless of whether you choose your rulers or not your rulers are not "your kind". So the question remains, why do people who care about elections and voting normally say you should look at issues rather than the superficial, but people (probably often the same people) most often don't care about the issues when looking at a change of rulers in the past, then all of a sudden all they care about is whether they were considered to be "our kind" or "not our kind".most people thinkvoting in modern timesok: caring about their stance on issuesnot ok: caring about the color of their skin, their surname, how handsome they are, if they are charismatic etcin historynot ok (nonexistent): caring about their stance on issuesok: caring about the color of their skin, their surname etcI'm pointing out the hypocrisy here.Furthermore I pointed out the hyposcrisy in thinking black Haitians should be grateful for the civilization brought to Haiti by the French imperial rulers, but nobody of British descent looks at the Norman Conquest and says they're grateful for what the Normans brought, then it's ok all of a sudden to be like a black Haitian who is hateful of whites and everything the white French brought to Haiti.
>>532786766I think that your inability to understand the concept of consent is beyond my ability to correct.
>>532784103Antiracusts are simply traitors.
>>532786915You're still stuck in your tangent, even after I've restated the actual topic a few times. I'm not going to beat a dead horse. There are never ever any good discussions on this fucking website, you're all too fucking dumb for it.
>>532786915So you seem to be implying that a ruler that's "of your kind", as the rulers before the Norman Conquest are alleged to be, is a ruler that you automatically consent to ruling over you. If not, you haven't at all addressed the WHY which I typed in the OP, "it's not comparable" is not answering "why". But I'm wasting my breath, you're not interested in actual discussion, nobody here is, nor capable of it.
>>532787071Anyone who rules over you is so different from you that they might as well be another race. So what's your point?
>>532784103They did a lot of things back then that was stupid. We know much better now (thankfully).
>I love zapping my brain cells on the daily
