South Africa: difficulty getting good information

[BigMike]

Whatever. Give your house back to the people who were on that piece of land before you (or whoever they claim they were descended from). Don't be a hypocrite. Until you do that then don't bother making judgements about other countries.

I'm not making judgments—I'm pointing out that unresolved injustice has consequences, whether it's in South Africa, the U.S., or anywhere else. And no, I don’t pretend personal virtue exempts me from acknowledging structural issues. That’s the point: this isn’t about individual guilt—it’s about collective responsibility to deal with systems built on inherited inequality.

If your answer to that is “do nothing unless you personally give up your house,” you’re not arguing against injustice—you’re just defending inaction with deflection.

So I assue you have a solution then, to all of it, in every country.

No single person has the solution—but refusing to engage unless the entire world is fixed at once is just another way to stay comfortable doing nothing.

Solutions start locally and grow through honest acknowledgment, fair policy, and sustained effort: land reform done right, access to capital, investment in education, and legal frameworks that reflect historical reality—not erase it.

It’s not about solving everything everywhere. It’s about being willing to solve something somewhere.

[Skepdick]

It’s only a repeat if injustice shifts hands without changing form. A real correction isn’t about erasing property rights—it’s about rebalancing them where they were built on exclusion. The state’s role isn’t to sidestep law, but to evolve it when the law itself was once part of the injustice.

OK so it's not a repeat. It's brand new injustice under the banner of justice - a solution for some and a problem for others.

The law always evolves to serve contemporary ideologues.

The futility of this sport/tradition you are engaging in. It's hilarious. Gift-wrapping a turd in more fashionable narrative doesn't make the shit-sandwich pallatable.

[BigMike]

It’s only a repeat if injustice shifts hands without changing form. A real correction isn’t about erasing property rights—it’s about rebalancing them where they were built on exclusion. The state’s role isn’t to sidestep law, but to evolve it when the law itself was once part of the injustice.

OK so it's not a repeat. It's brand new injustice under the banner of justice - a solution for some and a problem for others.

The law always evolves to serve contemporary ideologues.

The futility of this sport/tradition you are engaging in. It's hilarious. Gift-wrapping a turd in more fashionable narrative doesn't make the shit-sandwich pallatable.

Call it what you want, Skepdick—but refusing to evolve just leaves the old turd unwrapped and rotting at the center of society.

Yes, any structural change will displease someone. That’s inevitable. But the difference is this: doing nothing preserves a known injustice; trying something—even imperfect—at least acknowledges that injustice matters.

You can mock the packaging all day, but some of us would rather try to clean the mess than sit back pointing at the stench.

[Skepdick]

Call it what you want, Skepdick—but refusing to evolve just leaves the old turd unwrapped and rotting at the center of society.

Yes, any structural change will displease someone. That’s inevitable. But the difference is this: doing nothing preserves a known injustice; trying something—even imperfect—at least acknowledges that injustice matters.

You can mock the packaging all day, but some of us would rather try to clean the mess than sit back pointing at the stench.

The moral high horse you are attempting to climb on's pretty dead.

You aren't cleaning up the mess. You are shitting on top of it.

[BigMike]

Call it what you want, Skepdick—but refusing to evolve just leaves the old turd unwrapped and rotting at the center of society.

Yes, any structural change will displease someone. That’s inevitable. But the difference is this: doing nothing preserves a known injustice; trying something—even imperfect—at least acknowledges that injustice matters.

You can mock the packaging all day, but some of us would rather try to clean the mess than sit back pointing at the stench.

The moral high horse you are attempting to climb on's pretty dead.

You aren't cleaning up the mess. You are shitting on top of it.

Skepdick, it’s hard not to notice a pattern in your posts: contempt for the poor, cynicism toward justice, and a clear disdain for anyone trying to fix a system you’ve likely benefited from.

You speak like someone born into undeserved privilege who views structural injustice as a joke and those still stuck under it as losers. That’s not edgy realism—it’s the smug stench of indifference, maybe even something darker. There's a whiff of racism in the way you sneer at redress and casually dismiss the legacy of generational harm.

If you’ve got nothing to offer but mockery while others try to repair what’s broken, maybe step aside. Let those of us who still give a damn do the work.

[Skepdick]

Skepdick, it’s hard not to notice a pattern in your posts: contempt for the poor, cynicism toward justice, and a clear disdain for anyone trying to fix a system you’ve likely benefited from.

You speak like someone born into undeserved privilege who views structural injustice as a joke and those still stuck under it as losers. That’s not edgy realism—it’s the smug stench of indifference, maybe even something darker. There's a whiff of racism in the way you sneer at redress and casually dismiss the legacy of generational harm.

My great grand father was dispossessed of all his land by the Communists thanks to post WW2 developments in Eastern Europe.
My parents were dispossessed of their life savings when the state decided that the money in the bank no longer belongs to the depositors.
My grandparents were dispossessed of their pensions using the usual economic tricks when political power changes hands so they had to work till their dying days just to make ends meet.

We've had to rebuild from scratch too many fucking times. The last of which was done here, in South Africa. As immigrants who arrived with nothing but the clothes on our backs.

So you are absolutely right. I am racist to the core. I absolutely hate your race - I hate social justice niggers.

Meanwhile, nobody is going to dispossess my black wife; or my mixed race children of the legacy that we've managed to scrape together in 30 years just because my skin color happens to be pale.

The only way anybody with political power is depriving my family of wealth again is over the pile of corpses I will lay down.

If you’ve got nothing to offer but mockery while others try to repair what’s broken, maybe step aside. Let those of us who still give a damn do the work.

So get off the forum and go do some work, wanker. Only, you know as well as as I do that you are just in it for the lip service.

That chip on your shoulder is merely the sort of proxy-outrage social justice niggers love to feign just to climb upon their moral high horse.

[BigMike]

Skepdick, it’s hard not to notice a pattern in your posts: contempt for the poor, cynicism toward justice, and a clear disdain for anyone trying to fix a system you’ve likely benefited from.

You speak like someone born into undeserved privilege who views structural injustice as a joke and those still stuck under it as losers. That’s not edgy realism—it’s the smug stench of indifference, maybe even something darker. There's a whiff of racism in the way you sneer at redress and casually dismiss the legacy of generational harm.

My great grand father was dispossessed of all his land by the Communists thanks to post WW2 developments in Eastern Europe.
My parents were dispossessed of their life savings when the state decided that the money in the bank no longer belongs to the depositors.
My grandparents were dispossessed of their pensions using the usual economic tricks when political power changes hands so they had to work till their dying days just to make ends meet.

We've had to rebuild from scratch too many fucking times. The last of which was done here, in South Africa. As immigrants who arrived with nothing but the clothes on our backs.

So you are absolutely right. I am racist to the core. I absolutely hate your race - I hate social justice niggers.

Meanwhile, nobody is going to dispossess my black wife; or my mixed race children of the legacy that we've managed to scrape together in 30 years just because my skin color happens to be pale.

The only way anybody with political power is depriving my family of wealth again is over the pile of corpses I will lay down.

If you’ve got nothing to offer but mockery while others try to repair what’s broken, maybe step aside. Let those of us who still give a damn do the work.

So get off the forum and go do some work, wanker. Only, you know as well as as I do that you are just in it for the lip service.

Skepdick, thank you for laying out your story—genuinely. What your family went through sounds brutal, and I don’t dismiss that. Dispossession, wherever and to whomever it happens, leaves scars. But personal suffering doesn’t excuse hatred. It doesn’t justify turning your pain into an excuse to dehumanize others—especially with slurs that have no place in any civil conversation.

You say you’ve rebuilt from nothing, and I respect the resilience in that. Truly. But rebuilding doesn’t make you immune to becoming the very thing you once suffered under. When you throw around racial hatred and threaten violence, you’re not defending justice or your family—you’re mimicking the same cycles of cruelty and dispossession you say you despise.

And no, I’m not just offering “lip service.” I’m here to stand for dignity—for yours, for your children’s, and for the people still trapped under systems that weren’t built for them to rise. If that offends you, fine. But I won't back down from basic decency, and I won’t match your hatred.

You can choose to break the cycle. Or you can keep feeding it. That part, at least, is still up to you.

[Skepdick]

Skepdick, thank you for laying out your story—genuinely. What your family went through sounds brutal, and I don’t dismiss that. Dispossession, wherever and to whomever it happens, leaves scars. But personal suffering doesn’t excuse hatred. It doesn’t justify turning your pain into an excuse to dehumanize others—especially with slurs that have no place in any civil conversation.

I am not dehumanizing you. You are human. And I'd still kill you.

No excuse required. I simply don't like you.

You say you’ve rebuilt from nothing, and I respect the resilience in that. Truly. But rebuilding doesn’t make you immune to becoming the very thing you once suffered under. When you throw around racial hatred and threaten violence, you’re not defending justice or your family—you’re mimicking the same cycles of cruelty and dispossession you say you despise.

And no, I’m not just offering “lip service.” I’m here to stand for dignity—for yours, for your children’s, and for the people still trapped under systems that weren’t built for them to rise. If that offends you, fine. But I won't back down from basic decency, and I won’t match your hatred.

You can choose to break the cycle. Or you can keep feeding it. That part, at least, is still up to you.

Yeah, nonsense. Your proxy outrage is fueled by sanctimony and doesn't cash out to anything of practical worth.

That's why I don't like you. You don't really stand for anything other than meaningless yet duplicit words all philosophers employ when they are out of ideas.

[BigMike]

Skepdick, thank you for laying out your story—genuinely. What your family went through sounds brutal, and I don’t dismiss that. Dispossession, wherever and to whomever it happens, leaves scars. But personal suffering doesn’t excuse hatred. It doesn’t justify turning your pain into an excuse to dehumanize others—especially with slurs that have no place in any civil conversation.

I am not dehumanizing you. You are human. And I'd still kill you.

No excuse required. I simply don't like you.

You say you’ve rebuilt from nothing, and I respect the resilience in that. Truly. But rebuilding doesn’t make you immune to becoming the very thing you once suffered under. When you throw around racial hatred and threaten violence, you’re not defending justice or your family—you’re mimicking the same cycles of cruelty and dispossession you say you despise.

And no, I’m not just offering “lip service.” I’m here to stand for dignity—for yours, for your children’s, and for the people still trapped under systems that weren’t built for them to rise. If that offends you, fine. But I won't back down from basic decency, and I won’t match your hatred.

You can choose to break the cycle. Or you can keep feeding it. That part, at least, is still up to you.

Yeah, nonsense. Your proxy outrage is fueled by sanctimony and doesn't cash out to anything of practical worth.

That's why I don't like you. You don't really stand for anything other than meaningless yet duplicit words all philosophers employ when they are out of ideas.

Skepdick, you've made it clear—this isn't about debate for you. It’s about rage. And now, it’s openly violent and hateful.

When someone says they'd kill another person simply because they “don’t like them,” they’re no longer part of a conversation. They’re issuing a threat. That’s not edge. That’s not philosophy. That’s a line.

I’m not here to match your violence, and I won’t dignify your slurs with more replies. You’ve chosen to spit in the face of every constructive idea, every attempt at dialogue, every chance to rise above the pain you’ve inherited.

That’s your choice. But don’t mistake silence that follows for weakness. It’s just the sound of everyone else moving on—without you.

[Skepdick]

Skepdick, you've made it clear—this isn't about debate for you. It’s about rage. And now, it’s openly violent and hateful.

When someone says they'd kill another person simply because they “don’t like them,” they’re no longer part of a conversation. They’re issuing a threat. That’s not edge. That’s not philosophy. That’s a line.

I’m not here to match your violence, and I won’t dignify your slurs with more replies. You’ve chosen to spit in the face of every constructive idea, every attempt at dialogue, every chance to rise above the pain you’ve inherited.

That’s your choice. But don’t mistake silence that follows for weakness. It’s just the sound of everyone else moving on—without you.

Suddenly you have lines? How convenient. Why can't your life be expropriated despite your lines? All lines can be redrawn if it is to redress the wrongs of the past.

You aren't part of the dialogue, you dumb fuck. You are just doing philosophical posturing with zero skin in the game.

There is absolutely nothing constructive about the activity you are conducting.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Order without fairness is just control. If you start with discipline and delay justice, you risk rebuilding the same imbalance under a new flag.

I think you are not taking into consideration what are the real issues that are blocking SA from moving forward.

How do you square your theory of on-going injustices with the perspective offered by this man?

In my view one has to think in terms of immediate, bold use of power to initiate change.

[accelafine]

I'm not making judgments—I'm pointing out that unresolved injustice has consequences, whether it's in South Africa, the U.S., or anywhere else. And no, I don’t pretend personal virtue exempts me from acknowledging structural issues. That’s the point: this isn’t about individual guilt—it’s about collective responsibility to deal with systems built on inherited inequality.

If your answer to that is “do nothing unless you personally give up your house,” you’re not arguing against injustice—you’re just defending inaction with deflection.

So I assue you have a solution then, to all of it, in every country.

No single person has the solution—but refusing to engage unless the entire world is fixed at once is just another way to stay comfortable doing nothing.

Solutions start locally and grow through honest acknowledgment, fair policy, and sustained effort: land reform done right, access to capital, investment in education, and legal frameworks that reflect historical reality—not erase it.

It’s not about solving everything everywhere. It’s about being willing to solve something somewhere.

[Skepdick]

So I assue you have a solution then, to all of it, in every country.

No single person has the solution—but refusing to engage unless the entire world is fixed at once is just another way to stay comfortable doing nothing.

Solutions start locally and grow through honest acknowledgment, fair policy, and sustained effort: land reform done right, access to capital, investment in education, and legal frameworks that reflect historical reality—not erase it.

It’s not about solving everything everywhere. It’s about being willing to solve something somewhere.

That's some applause light commentary right there.

Should we all begin clapping now?

[BigMike]

Order without fairness is just control. If you start with discipline and delay justice, you risk rebuilding the same imbalance under a new flag.

I think you are not taking into consideration what are the real issues that are blocking SA from moving forward.

How do you square your theory of on-going injustices with the perspective offered by this man?

In my view one has to think in terms of immediate, bold use of power to initiate change.

Alexis, I watched the video you’re pointing to. The host frames the ANC's land reform efforts—and broader rhetoric—as part of a campaign of racial hostility against white South Africans. That’s a serious charge, and it deserves scrutiny. But we also need to separate emotional provocation from structural analysis.

Yes, the rhetoric from some ANC figures—especially Julius Malema—is inflammatory and deeply irresponsible. Singing “shoot the Boer” and talking about “cutting the throat of whiteness” isn’t just divisive, it’s dangerous. It poisons legitimate conversations about justice with the language of vengeance, and it opens the door to international alarmism—like Trump’s refugee play, which was more about optics than humanitarian concern.

But we shouldn’t let toxic rhetoric obscure the underlying issue: South Africa’s land distribution remains one of the most unequal in the world, a legacy of apartheid and colonization that has never been adequately addressed. To say this is not to endorse confiscation without process, or to dismiss the fear and anger of white farmers—it’s to point out that the system is broken for millions who never had a stake in the first place.

So yes, bold use of power might be necessary—but only if it's paired with wisdom, fairness, and long-term vision. If boldness turns into scapegoating or revenge politics, it won’t move South Africa forward. It’ll tear it further apart.

The question isn’t whether power should be used. It’s how—and to what end. Rhetoric that incites fear and division betrays the very goal of justice it claims to serve. But denying the need for change, or dismissing reform as persecution, is just as destructive. South Africa doesn’t need heroes or villains right now. It needs grown-ups.

[Skepdick]

Yes, the rhetoric from some ANC figures—especially Julius Malema.

Julius is EFF, not ANC.

For an armchair genius you can't even Google.

Julius Sello Malema (born 3 March 1981) is a South African politician. He is the founder and leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), a communist political party known for the red berets and military-style outfits worn by its members