Duterte

you forgot your "XD"

FUCK! I hate that 8ch randomly forgets when I turn off a shitposting flag.

he's an edglord faggot trying to hide his fellating of Porky behind a pile of dead drug users. He looks like he's just assmad they're not letting him use up all the speedballs, or possibly like he's wants to trade the seized assets for grey area Thai ladyboys.

as I understand it, it was bad translation and hyperbolic media coverage.
Now US relations are down the drains and the Philippines are flirting with china to make america jelly. Interesting considering they are they are currently trying to get china convicted for rape.
🍀🍀🍀Obama🍀🍀🍀 dropped the ball, probably on purpose just to not have to talk with that fucking retard.
But I'm sure having a strong leader murder all the bad people will turn out great.

Duterte is the new face of social democracy, the "socialism of the XXI century" of Hugo Chavez but now "with Asian values"

This is the future we chose, I want to get off Mr. Porky's wild ride.

Not really.. the talks on china hasn't really anything to do with the great us of a, it was realy a f u c k y o u to america whose been fuckin on the philippines since the dawn of their relations..

And good relations on china is badly needed, they're the one of the biggest importers of prods from the phils

I'm utterly amazed by how many people praise him in the west for executing non-violent drug users by the thousands.

It's bizarre that the war on drugs still has the public this brainwashed.

Nothing of value lost. Seriously. Who gives a fuck if worthless capitalist degenerates die?

Because it's not just the dealers he wants to kill, but users as well.

They are in a bitter territorial dispute with china, and china are fucking dicks
>world.time.com/2013/11/13/china-to-philippines-here-have-a-measly-100000-in-aid/
now Duterte announced there will be no more joint military exercises with USA, in order to help philip-china relations. But the China talks have nothing to do with USA?

or was it just him being a spaz?
>globalnation.inquirer.net/144013/duterte-affirms-ties-with-us-deep-regard-for-obama-dfa

And if they are shot with out trials or due process? Do you honestly not see how this is not good? You want police to be able to kill citizens in the streets? Duterte recently proclaimed he'd be happy to kill all three million drug addicts in the country, thats 3% of the population murdered with out a trial, do you think that's going to turn out well?

They support the capitalist dealers and so are capitalist themselves.

Who cares? Fact is if we want a leftist world we're going to have to kill a huge numbur of people who've never actually done anything criminal or even tangentially criminal but simply don't agree with us and never will (eg most Republicans) so why do you balk at a handful of worthless junkies?

Hi Holla Forums.
That violence is justified in some situations does not mean all violence is justified in all situations.
The transition away from capitalism will probably require some violence, as a response to capitalists violently opposing the socialist order, but no one is seriously advocating purges of republicans. You can't hope to create a better society If you are killing people for having the wrong opinion.
Criminal is a worthless word, it covers everything from a child stealing a loaf of bread to a serial rapist who tortures his victims to death. Yet if you steal, torture or kill with the blessing of the state you are not a criminal.

those are wealth creators you stupid hippie

you forgot your shitposting flag

mfw this is what tankies believe

Brilliant logic, anyone who buys anything under capitalism is a capitalist and must be purged. I sure hope you manufactured and assembled all the parts for your computer yourself otherwise you'll need to purge yourself you filthy capitalist.

XD

jej

itt: rich white boys from the suburbs who can't conceive how shitty it is living in a third world slum where every other person is a meth addict and predatory drug dealers who would be willing to turn their own mothers into a crack whore follow you everywhere you go

Why would I be…? He likened himself to Hitler, is doing a US-style war on drugs, and wants to disregard due process.

Why would anyone outside of Holla Forums support him, let alone Holla Forums?

I'm black middle class from suburbs checkm8

Oh wow huh you're right we really should give the state's enforcers the right to kill anyone they like without any sort of due process or oversight otherwise people might be allowed to sell you something that you want to buy that's not good for you damn I never thought of it that way

Man, that 5th grade idealism sure sounds fun, but unfortunately for you that's just not how things work. It's a dog eat dog world out there, as they say, and most people would gladly kill each other in order to survive. Seeing as that's how the world is, I might as well kill those of less noble character than risk my life for their sake when they would probably kill me.

Surely even if you believe they should be executed, you don't believe innocent people should be?

"Innocence" is just a buzzword used by limp wristed liberals. There are those of noble character, and there are the mundanes. In the past, culling on this sort of scale allowed for people of better character to develop and discouraged cowardly and criminal behavior. Shit like "due process" only increases the amount of people who do not deserve to be here.

Damn right. Back in the day we had survival and the fittest where everyone would be fighting everyone else 100% of the time and only the strongest and smartest could survive, and that gave us some of the greatest generations America's ever seen. However, ever since pussy-ass liberal governments started making laws and saying you can't kill people all that's happened is that the weak were allowed to reproduce and make society worse and worse, and nowadays we have reality TV and rap music to show for it. Once we get rid of the laws and the strong are allowed to take their proper place in society, things will get back to the way they're supposed to be. Semper Fi.

I literally only needed to read this far to know you're trolling

topkek even threw in a flag

Define innocence for me. Who is an innocent man? Show me one.

Here.

That is capitalism in general

No, capitalism in general is when you use private property to extract surplus value from others and accumulate profits.

I like to do drugs sometimes, I'm an adult and am capable of doing so safely and responsibly. People shouldn't be murdered fro providing them just because there's potential for abuse.

ie being free to do what they want

and most people are too stupid or prone to addiction, just look at the local crack street, fuckton of crackheads being zombies for their drug dealers, if those drug dealers ain't just being used by some major gangster that gathers most of the money

He's an authoritarian prick that abuses anti-Western sentiments to look good to the peanut gallery.

Are you stupid? The state enforcing your right to exploit the labour of others through violence is not the same as the state not murdering you for providing a verboten good or service (say, the bourgeois decadence of some sweet jazz music.)

People in poor as shit communities were fucked up long before drugs came on the scene. Usually, they drank instead.

you could say banks and huge corporations also provide goods and service, but that doesn't not make them exploitative capitalists

drug business is always the most pyramid scheme shit with someone on top taking all the money, and make it by making people physically dependent on the products

Duterte's policy it's good because it's pure death, dealers and users simply die, not creating some useless agency like the DEA that will obviously become corrupt and part of the scheme

Corporations abuse wage labour. Banks abuse interest.

Drug dealers exchange one type of commodity for another type. And not all drugs are addictive, and even those that are aren't 100% addictive. Do you think kids who work the counter at a 7-11 and sell cigarettes should be killed too?

Even in the case of banks and corporations, we do not necessarily condone the killing of clerks, accountants and middle managers so much as the de-institution of private property.

Drug addiction is a public health problem, not a not enough murder problem.

The international communist movement MUST endorse Duterte for two reasons:

1. He is a target of Western imperialism
2. He is willing to collaborate with the Philippine communist guerillas

Interest itself, in any amount, is evil.

I wasn't implying that wage labour in a small enough amount would be OK either!

drug business ain't any different from corporations and their customer base is literally dependent on getting more of it

you probably defend this crap because you think you are going against le evil christcucks when the liberal capitalists would have people drugged up on and getting even richer out of it

Kinda crazy how this dude is defending hard drug use. Duterte is a madman, but the answer isn't "heroin is actually pretty neat comrade"

Think of it this way, if one day I decided I want to do a bunch of cocaine and went to my local colombian farming collective to give them some of my labour vouchers for a bunch of refined cocaine, where exactly is the problem? Why should I or the farmers be killed?

I am not defending exploitative practices whether they're used to sell burgers, stockings or ketamine. But if someone is an adult, knows the risks and has some idea of how to manage them, why shouldn't they be allowed to indulge themselves by acquiring some product that they acquired without exploitation and was produced in a non-exploitative way? By your logic, we'd be banning football, motorcycles, sports cars and skydiving too.

I'm not saying that heroin is pretty great so much as I'm saying that drug use will always be a thing and using violence to try and get rid of it is a bad idea. Plus, if I'm old and ready to fucking die, why shouldn't I be able to do a whole bunch of heroin on my journey to death? It'd at least be safer if it wasn't coming off the black market.

ayy lmao
Maybe instead of 1st world posturing, you should actually go and find out what communists in the Philippines think.
twitter.com/prwc_info
facebook.com/notes/philippine-revolution-web-central/on-ruling-class-rivalries-under-duterte-and-prospects-of-a-patriotic-tactical-al/808054989331867
cpp.ph/no-more-cooperation-with-dutertes-undemocratic-and-anti-people-drug-war/

To clarify, I'm not a Duterte fanboy and I don't believe they should be killed. Just punished, whether it's a fine, corporal, prison, etc.

And the problem is that drugs are bad for you, and therefore the state has a moral imperative to stop people from harming themselves. I'd expect a libertarian to give this "muh nanny state" argument.

Those don't even come close to the harms of crack and heroin.

Holy shit you're spooked. They're not even people anymore. Not killing them just creates a shit ton of problems for the working class.

My main problem is that I think drug prohibition is a matter of the cure being worse than the disease.

Crack is no more harmful than ordinary powder cocaine. The reason it's so demonized is because it's (surprise surprise) associated with poor black people. Granted, cocaine can get pretty bad if you fall off the wagon, but it's nothing that can't be enjoyed in moderation.

As for heroin, if you take away the impact of dirty needles and impurities (largely caused by its black market status), it's almost safer than alcohol. Should the state ban alcohol as well? Because that causes shitloads of harm. More than illegal drugs, certainly.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think these things should be advertised or sold for a profit - because in the former case you're pushing people who don't know what they're doing into something that shouldn't be done willy-nilly, and in the latter case you're creating incentives to get people addicted for your own gain.

However, if you just go by the 'it's harmful so we should ban it' and then applied that based on actual measurable harm and not the feelings you have based on exposure to decades of war on drugs propaganda, you would end up banning pretty much anything that might be considered fun stuff.

Plus, all the miserable people who shuffle around drug corners aren't necessarily miserable because they're doing drugs, they're doing drugs because they're miserable. This drug-related bersonal resobonsibilidies :DDD shit is a nice scapegoat for American liberals to use in order to try and pretend that it's not capitalism ruining all these lives.

I just meant cocaine. I was using them interchangeably.

Source needed

I agree the War on Drugs in the US has been a mode of discrimination and entirely ineffective. But just like the war on terror, the issue is the bumbling morons of our nation. It doesn't mean terrorism is fine.

And it makes it an even worse cycle for them.

Btw, even though we don't agree, I think you'll enjoy this video. It's about the War on Drugs.

nytimes.com/2016/09/15/opinion/jay-z-the-war-on-drugs-is-an-epic-fail.html?_r=0

It's a bit late for me to go trawling for sources right now, but I might go do it in the morning if I remember this thread. For now, have this:
webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/news/20101101/alcohol-more-harmful-than-crack-or-heroin
And take my word for it, HIV transmission via shared needles and impurities account for a HUGE amount of heroin's harms. (The fact that they rank crack higher on that page is because the criteria used in the study they cite, which takes into account social harms such as theft etc and the people who use it in crack form tend to get involved in more street-level crime and get caught for it more.)

Plus, there's a significant difference from murdering someone to inspire fear and choosing to put a potentially harmful substance in your own body in order to get your kicks.

If you want some reading, too, I'd recommend the book High Price by Carl Hart, which also goes into the political reasons behind the War on Drugs being a total fuckup, in addition to the science and stats of drug use and addiction.

So basically this is saying that alcohol is more harmful than heroin and crack. I'm not interested in evaluating if that's true, so for the sake of argument I'll assume it is.

Tbh, in my ideal society, alcohol is banned. It's a poison and drunk driving deaths are a travesty that's far too common. However, it's clear that Prohibition doesn't work in the West. On the other hand, that has no relevance to the ban on hard drugs. The reason alcohol can't be banned is because people are accustomed to it and can't let go. The same can't be said for coke, as the vast majority are scared of it and aren't hooked. If the legal barriers are taken away, then there'll be an epidemic of addiction and it'd reach the point where coke could no longer be feasibly prohibited. Even if drink is worse, there's no reason to have 2 or 3 or 4 ills in society taking over.

If that's the reason, then how come the drug prohibition didn't work either? You can't say that people are accustomed to weed and crack and can't let it go.

Furthermore, your argument that legalizing it would lead to an explosion in use is PURE IDEOLOGY.

Poor methods, intentionally going after innocent minorities while letting rich whites go, etc

No, it's an educated guess that's perfectly rational. If something is allowed, it'll probably be done more often. I'd need to look for more relevant data, but for one example: theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/18/colorado-marijuana-law-report-adult-usage-increases-not-kids

To summarize:

- Adult usage of weed nearly doubled
- Traffic fatalities where they tested positive for THC increased by 44%

if you wanted to produce for yourself that wasn't the point, it's about drug dealers and their supporters

Most people who use crack (or any other drug) don't look like they use it at all.

The reason crackheads exist is poverty. Period.

Prohibition doesn't work anywhere. What works is looking at two things (not just one of them):
How much is an attempt to forget their circumstances that they really can't do anything about (i.e some form of alienation from the rest of society, typically related to financial issues and a horribly inequal distribution system of goods, resources, etc.) - and secondly; how much is merely a mixture of circumstances that are not mallable by humanity (life weariness), alongside a fairly common drive (amongst all cultures, and all forms of economies) to seek recreational use of drugs - for pleasure or a more positive-like escapism.

The former we can alter, and do something about. Make a society that best accomodates all within it.
The latter needs to be looked at and accepted, it's how it is. Education surrounding the various substances and their effects, should be readily available. Some percentage of the populace will develop physical addictions, it will need treatment. It's managable.
There is no perfect harmony, there are things that we can change the conditions for and then there are things that must be seen as a part of the human condition.
Taking the denial approach towards it has you stamping out that which continues to occur in perpetuity, and will require massive state enforcement - in the most violent manner. If that is the approach you want to take, I'd suggest you think through the implications that creating and then leaving such an enforcement system in place would have on the rest of society. Suddenly you have a whole other problem - and you're rolling down the hill of absolute rulership.

Realistically, the "epidemics" are not happening due to that fairly small statistical dot of people that might become addicted, they happen for trade and commercial interests usually in the awkward marriage of clandestine war and destabilization agendas alongside the black market mob. It's in other words a symptom of today that is being seen that even in its 'unguided' state is caused by mostly unrelated circumstances (the drug, whichever it is, rationally or not - seen as a solution), when it's not a fire intentionally fuelled by both state and opportunistic capitalists for a mixture of wider strategic goals (or off the record funding for such operations) - and money. Lots, and lots and lots of money.

If in the perfect society that you wish, you would have SWAT teams to raid houses brewing their own beer, you can honestly go fuck yourself.

And what was the total increase in number of cases? That means jack shit if there were actually just three cases total. Likewise, you'd need to look at the total number of THC crash fatalities over several years to try and see how that fits into the overall trend, and even then you're not safe from a spurious correlation.

Secondly, how do you know that the report represents an actual uptick and not the fact that we're seeing more of the dark figure of actual use now that it's legal?

Lastly, marijuana isn't directly comparable to something like cocaine or heroin, as most people know that marijuana isn't particularly harmful or addictive and wouldn't mind giving it a if there was no risk. On the other hand, people are well aware of the risks related to cocaine and heroin, and I seriously doubt that your average 55-year-old female florist is going to say "you know, I've always been curious about smoking crack, and if it wasn't illegal I'd probably give it a try." On the other hand, that's the exact sort of thought process lots of people have regarding weed.

More fundamentally, though, using violence to keep people from doing things you perceive as harmful to them but harms nobody else strikes me as stupid and authoritarian. Why should I follow a system that keeps me from following my own egoist self-interest and doing shitloads of heroin as I die of old age?

Wrong. Did you even fucking read your own link?

It rose 5%. Your spin is disgusting, especially as it's so brazen.