All posts by Dxrknrg
Hold on, pause the debate for a second. I'll respond tomorrow, I want to sleep instead cause my day was pretty long as hell.
Anyways, @YugoMafia you know these messages do not carry enough justification for deletion? Technically I could strike you right now because I'm an admin, but I won't because I believe in second chances + it's not big of a case.
Just treat this as your first and final warning.
Fuck it, i'm debating
@EchoChamberQueen intent does not nullify impact. while the song's context is anti-apartheid struggle, words evolve with context, especially in democratic societies trying to rebuild trust. yelling "kill the boer" in post-apartheid rallies, where whites are no longer in political power, cannot be viewed in the same moral picture as during the liberation struggle.
Also, why use violent language against people today who were not responsible for the oppressive actions of their ancestors decades ago? it's like demanding that black americans should sing songs about 'killing white americans' because of jim crow laws. such rhetoric only deepens divisions and contradicts the goals of peace, healing, and equality—values that not are essential and practical, especially in a socially and economically divided nation like south africa, but also the entire progressive ideology you and the lefties follow. if they truly want progress and reconciliation,, then should focus on unity and constructive solutions rather than reopening old wounds with violence
It's not acceptable if the president doesn't condemn or condone the song, especially when they set the moral establishment of the nation. when the head of state, especially in a democratic nation where they answer to the people, fails to condemn a chant, the phrase can easily be interpreted as incitement or hate speech against a minority. silence becomes a statement in itself.
@Antiverta we're not fighting personally, we're just fighting politically
Party loyalty exists lmfao
If anything it would be hypocritical for me to support the libs and the demonrats
What does that have to do with anything
@YugoMafia i haven't seen you debated at all. do you lack the balls to fight and just gonna call us brainwashed?
@RebloxBanana real life politics do not correspond with ron 💀
Its 100x more complex than just communist, democrat, and fascist
Unrelated, but the usa is not as far right as russia
No i just dont want to debate about ts for the next 5 days, when i already had elsewhere just a few hours ago. gives me nothing good in return besides wasting a massive amount of my precious time
Don't got the willpower or time to debate anymore in this niche area even though i have a rebuttal for most of your points, but whatever, you cant change my mind
You might be a troll or an illiterate, the video's title literally says "false genocide claims"
Based man already explained above, but i would like to add on to your first reply: the like to dislike ratio says a lot when it's literally widespread across almost every video on youtube that claims trump is spreading false lies about white genocide - MSNBC, CNN, ABC, PBS, SBS, CBS, BBC, you can name more
lmao this says it all
Another Trump Win.
Famous lebron james mesage
Anyways i don't wanna debate anymore
Idc if u or another person posts their counterargument, wont respond
Lol, alright ill reiterate: unions are not the check the power, sometimes they are the power. you continue to show unions as defenders of justice, yet public-sector unions are sometimes not reacting to oppression, they negotiate directly with politicians they help elect, thereby breaking the line between oversight and collusion; blocking reforms, like merit-based hiring, performance accountability, or cost-saving initiatives; and driving costs in a system that can’t go bankrupt and has no competition.
Lmfao why are you still bringing up military spending and healthcare costs when they have minimal connections with this debate specifically about public unions? Yes, those budgets have their own flaws and efficiencies, but you can't just ignore union costs because the "military budget is larger" or "healthcare is worse." Simply, one inefficiency does not justify another, and saying “this is worse” doesn’t make public union costs irrelevant. After all, taxpayer dollars should be scrutinized everywhere, not selectively defended or dismissed.
I'll clarify more: “Realistic Rights” means "balance" - not guarantees for life. REALISTIC RIGHTS include: fair wages, due process before termination, workplace safety, and reasonable hours. UNREALISTIC RIGHTS include: guaranteed employment regardless of merit, promotions based on seniority alone, shielding poor performers from discipline, and pensions far above private-sector equivalents. It's not about "hiring randos", it's about government union contracts can and do create systems where it is nearly impossible to fire someone, even when underperforming.
you provide no evidence for this. i certainty cant find any evidence suggesting that a large amount of people employed as civil servants underperform. I got you.
https://veterans.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1725
https://www.ctinsider.com/waterbury/opinion/article/police-accountability-pratt-strike-20326743.php
https://nypost.com/2020/08/15/nyc-pledged-to-ban-teacher-rubber-rooms-they-went-underground-instead/
https://www.hoover.org/research/case-against-public-sector-unions
"Check on power", yet in practice, they often become a power center themselves — one that is immune from market discipline and often unaccountable to the public. In the private sector, if a union asks for too much, the business fails to move — there are natural limits. Unlike in the public sector, there is no profit motive, no bankruptcy — just taxpayer money. So no, anything they are far from being perfected as a "neutral check" or a "check on power."
I commend you doing some math in your argument, but one small problem: your math is superficial. Look, it's not just about per capita burden, you failed to factor in other variables that impact this number real-time — cumulative burden across all levels of government and program, the unsustainable debt and deficit trajectory of the U.S. government, and the inefficiency in how funds are used, especially when agencies cannot restructure due to union setbacks.
Your last question "As an employee would you rather more or less rights?" is a very much false binary. I never argued about shrinking the rights of workers, all I'm saying is that they should have realistic rights. In the private sector, like I said, workers do NOT enjoy lifetime job security, guaranteed, raises, or automatic promotions by seniority. Yet in the public sector, union contracts guarantee those things, often regardless of merit. That’s not fairness — that’s sociopathy, especially when these incompetent people are consuming hard-worked money from the hardworking American private working class. If we really believed all workers deserve equal treatment, we'd be scaling back public-sector privilege or lifting private-sector rights via legislation.
Anyhow how id like to end my arguments with a simple question: Who pays for these benefits, how sustainable are they, and are they deserved by performance?
Just wait until these underperforming government employees, long shielded by union protections and demanding higher taxpayer-funded wages, are finally dismissed or pushed out into the private sector. From there, reality will haunt them.
In the private workforce, they’ll quickly discover that all the benefits I listed (and more) are not as guaranteed or consistent as the unions within the federal government, probably because they’re privilege earned, not a baseline entitlement. Why should Americans pay for these people's benefits when we do not receive those?
@EchoChamberQueen clearly you and the left are short sighted and fail to see that it was won in a very different era — the late 19th and early 20th centuries — when workers had literally no protections and suffered from extremely dangerous conditions. Conversely, in today’s federal government, workers already enjoy job protections and civil service laws, paid leave, pensions, healthcare, and fixed working hours and regulated conditions without needing a union.
Simply past wins don’t justify giving unions unchecked influence over a modern, already-protected system.