Atheistforums.com

23 minutes of liberal goodness.

Trigger Warning!

QuoteSteve Hughes is an Australian comedian that has his finger on the pulse when it comes to Liberals/SJW's and their shit! In this rant, Steve breaks down what is happening in the West and the constant attack on our way of life.

Taken from an interview with Tom Rhodes, this is an edited version just using Steve's side of the conversation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8OP8Rzi0r8

I like one of the comments in the video here

QuoteIts because we have raised a bunch of entitled babies that can't handle any sort of criticism...so they stop free speech because they can't think or substantiate their answers...so sad!!

There is nothing I hate more then blocking free speech. We live in secular free countries, the ones who bitch about wanting rights for everyone except 'cis white straight men' don't really care about rights, they only care about getting social justice brownie points.

The reason why groups like antifa are still around now isn't because of anti fascism, it's because the current generation of university students have been spoon fed such political bias so much, and due to not living in the real world, they can only look at the world from that narrow point of view

Liberalism isn't to blame, it's something else this current generation has developed, liberals are just unfortunately caught within the spectrum of this messed up group think. You just have to look at past examples of liberals and compare a far, far less insane generation

Universities are now communist indoctrination camps.
Whole generations are infected with this mind virus.
Pity the "liberals" on this forum are ignorant of this.

The "professors" should be sent to North Korea, or Venezuela to get a taste of they teach.

(http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/sites/ito/files/antifa_huntington_beach_communist.png)
(http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/IxAAAOSw5VFWKiAs/s-l300.jpg)

I grew up in Hungary under communist rule. I know how wonderful it is.
Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.

You grew up under a communist banner, I assumed you moved when you were old enough?

How does it make you feel seeing this current collage age generation coming out of universities with communist and/or Marxist ideals in the west?

Quote from: Munch on March 07, 2018, 05:17:18 AM
You grew up under a communist banner, I assumed you moved when you were old enough?

How does it make you feel seeing this current collage age generation coming out of universities with communist and/or Marxist ideals in the west?

I left Hungary just after the failed revolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956) against the Soviet rule.
It wasn't pretty.

It is rather worrying watching the resurgence of this toxic ideology.
They do not teach about the 100 million dead that the ideology caused.
Probably the professors do not know it either.

If you watch Youtube or "right wing" sites, you see that Hungary (Victor Orban) is against EU immigration.
Hungary was invaded by the Ottoman empire  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks_in_Hungary) (1541-1699) then the Hapsburgs, then the Nazis, and the Soviets

Hungarians are well schooled in foreign invasions. They don't want it again, thank you very much. 

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it

Young people are railing against capitalism.
Well, there are other ways.

How stupid and ignorant one has to be to not understand how socialism works?
Look at Venezuela where people are starving, escaping the country by the millions.
While they have more oil than Saudi Arabia.

Is that what you want the USA to become?

Let yourselves be herded like sheep by the communist. Wake up, fools.

Current college students may be a lost generation (like youth after WW I).  But not from the trauma of WW I, but because of the decadence of easy money (in the US the easy money comes in the form of toxic college loans).  Make the kids pay up front, end the toxic free lunch (thanks Obama for another evil legacy).

What exactly, are students getting for their money?

What career prospects one gets from graduating in women studies, gender Studies, Africa studies, and the multitude of other studies?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7W5zTzhf0o

I'm just glad my bfs doing something useful in uni for his future, IT and computer studies

Quote from: Munch on March 07, 2018, 08:29:20 AM
I'm just glad my bfs doing something useful in uni for his future, IT and computer studies

That can be useful.  But liberal arts (the original meaning) makes you a better person.  Priceless.

Unfortunately in UK, if you aren't already replaced by a cheap E European programmer, you will be replaced by a cheap Indian programmer.  Funny how managers are never replaceable?

Reminder the 'progressives' are not liberals. They are both collectivist and authoritarian - 2 things completely antithetical to liberalism.

Also reminder that marxism intentionally seeks hegemony over language, so as to associate unrelated ideals and identities with itself. This is what they are doing with the term, 'liberal.' They've manipulated both liberals to associate themselves with marxism, and for conservatives to associate liberals with marxism.

Liberalism is first and foremost about individual liberties. Again, if your ideology espouses, "collective first" and, "government power is to be used for the betterment of the collective, regardless of individual liberties" - which 'progressives'/SJW's absolutely do, then you are espousing an ideology that simply cannot be called liberal in any way, shape or form.

What can you expect from the Spawn of Satan?  Either you be a conformist to maintain the status quo (even if we shouldn't) or you be a conformist to the revolutionary guard who seek to destroy the status quo (even if we shouldn't).  Either way, money, power and pride are obtained, at your expense.  Sheeple of the World Unite!  You have only to lose your wool and mutton ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on March 07, 2018, 01:04:46 PM
What can you expect from the Spawn of Satan?  Either you be a conformist to maintain the status quo (even if we shouldn't) or you be a conformist to the revolutionary guard who seek to destroy the status quo (even if we shouldn't).  Either way, money, power and pride are obtained, at your expense.  Sheeple of the World Unite!  You have only to lose your wool and mutton ;-)

There's a third option. Cut government down to its bare minimum. Don't let it stay as is, and also don't let the marxists seize it. Shrink it to the point where whether the individuals in government are 'progressive' or traditionalists is irrelevant because they don't have the power to turn their shitty collectivist ideals into law of the land.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 07, 2018, 01:10:19 PM
There's a third option. Cut government down to its bare minimum. Don't let it stay as is, and also don't let the marxists seize it. Shrink it to the point where whether the individuals in government are 'progressive' or traditionalists is irrelevant because they don't have the power to turn their shitty collectivist ideals into law of the land.

That is Libertarian (modern version).  That died in 1865 and 1933.  Ideas aren't human, so they can die more than once.  People seek power and wealth, and they use any means, including government, to obtain it.  So as I have said before, the corrupt nature of humanity means there is no redemption in history.  Maybe in literature however.

Quote from: Baruch on March 07, 2018, 01:13:22 PM
That is Libertarian (modern version).  That died in 1865 and 1933.  Ideas aren't human, so they can die more than once.  People seek power and wealth, and they use any means, including government, to obtain it.  So as I have said before, the corrupt nature of humanity means there is no redemption in history.  Maybe in literature however.

I'm not even for full libertarianism. I think anarchism is naive - stupidly naive. But the US government is twice as fat as it should be.

I'm a misanthropist down to the bone. I know there's no redemption for mankind, because we are not as a species far removed enough from beasts. The vast majority do what immediately 'feels' correct. They are slaves to their biology, like any other beast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU7XaUjwqSg

Socialism is good.

Ethno National socialism =]

Socialism is a tool, just like capitalism.   It's applicable for some problems, but not others. 

You can't build a functioning society with just a hammer in your toolkit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAJbCVBL88o

Quote from: Jason78 on March 07, 2018, 01:33:24 PM
Socialism is a tool, just like capitalism.   It's applicable for some problems, but not others. 

You can't build a functioning society with just a hammer in your toolkit.

Socialist policies, which is what you no-doubt mean, do not a socialism make.

It's a crime that the same word is even used. Because it's not even the case that the more social policies a nation has the closer it inches to socialism.

No, the only thing that creates a socialist state - or socialism - is the government seizing the means of production. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Therefore, socialism is not a 'tool.' It is a societal system - one that is doomed to produce misery every single time it is practiced.

Like in Venezuela.

The Scandinavian countries have social democracies, but they probably should be called regulated market democracies.

Quote from: Sal1981 on March 07, 2018, 04:47:28 PM
The Scandinavian countries have social democracies, but they probably should be called regulated market democracies.

A social democracy by by definition is capitalist. You probably already know this, but I just want to clear up confusion among anyone here who has any sort of sympathies for socialism:

Socialism and capitalism are antithetical to eachother, and none of the northern european countries are examples of socialism - they're all capitalist.

Examples of socialism are shitholes like venezuela, where government has seized the means of production. Currency controls, price controls, complete control of the economy by the government. That's socialism.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 07, 2018, 01:23:50 PM
Socialism is good.

Ethno National socialism =]

What happens in Wakanda, stays in Wakanda.

Quote from: Jason78 on March 07, 2018, 01:33:24 PM
Socialism is a tool, just like capitalism.   It's applicable for some problems, but not others. 

You can't build a functioning society with just a hammer in your toolkit.

Yes, you need a sickle with the hammer to make up the whole flag.  Lying is a tool, it is good or bad depending on who you are lying to.

Quote from: Sal1981 on March 07, 2018, 04:47:28 PM
The Scandinavian countries have social democracies, but they probably should be called regulated market democracies.

Not for much longer .. they will become tribal tyrannies like Zimbabwe.  Only this time with colored Vikings.

A real hate-fest going on here!  You might note that liberals and progressives are quick to say when their own do bad things, but Conservatives just circle the wagons in defence...

Quote from: Cavebear on March 08, 2018, 04:13:01 AM
A real hate-fest going on here!  You might note that liberals and progressives are quick to say when their own do bad things, but Conservatives just circle the wagons in defence...

Shut the hell up and stop taking 'sides' when neither side has your best interest in mind and in fact are actively working together, against your best interests.

If you hear a criticism of progressives or democrats and your immediate reaction is to assume the one doing the criticising is a conservative or republican, and then mount an attack on those parties; congratulations, you are acting in exactly the manner your lords knew you would, and need you to.

Both parties are full of drooling retards who wave every shitty thing their team does under the rug while blowing out of proportion every shitty thing the enemy team does. They agree on 90% of things and just posture against one another on the remaining 10%, so arguing as to whos worse is a useless endeavor - worse, it's actively counter-productive if you ever want to be free of your chains.

Quote from: Cavebear on March 08, 2018, 04:13:01 AM
A real hate-fest going on here!  You might note that liberals and progressives are quick to say when their own do bad things, but Conservatives just circle the wagons in defence...

Liberals are compulsive liars our of one side of their mouths ... Conservatives lie out of the other side of their mouth.  I hate both.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 08, 2018, 01:05:49 PM
Shut the hell up and stop taking 'sides' when neither side has your best interest in mind and in fact are actively working together, against your best interests.

If you hear a criticism of progressives or democrats and your immediate reaction is to assume the one doing the criticising is a conservative or republican, and then mount an attack on those parties; congratulations, you are acting in exactly the manner your lords knew you would, and need you to.

Both parties are full of drooling retards who wave every shitty thing their team does under the rug while blowing out of proportion every shitty thing the enemy team does. They agree on 90% of things and just posture against one another on the remaining 10%, so arguing as to whos worse is a useless endeavor - worse, it's actively counter-productive if you ever want to be free of your chains.

You missed the point.  One side DOESN'T do like the other does...

Quote from: Baruch on March 08, 2018, 01:59:29 PM
Liberals are compulsive liars our of one side of their mouths ... Conservatives lie out of the other side of their mouth.  I hate both.

There isn't an equivalency, and that's the problem.  The Republicans circle their wagons and the Democrats form a circular firing squad...

Quote from: Cavebear on March 08, 2018, 04:07:04 PM
There isn't an equivalency, and that's the problem.  The Republicans circle their wagons and the Democrats form a circular firing squad...

That was funny ... and true.  Guess we know which bastards will win this one.  Well some bastards are sure to win anyway.

Quote from: Baruch on March 08, 2018, 07:42:31 PM
That was funny ... and true.  Guess we know which bastards will win this one.  Well some bastards are sure to win anyway.

Nope, as odd as it may seem these days, the Democrats are protecting their basic "left of center" position, while the Republicans drift farther to the extreme Right every election. 

Quote from: Cavebear on March 12, 2018, 02:15:58 AM
Nope, as odd as it may seem these days, the Democrats are protecting their basic "left of center" position, while the Republicans drift farther to the extreme Right every election.

The Clintons ... cough, cough ...

Quote from: Baruch on March 12, 2018, 06:48:21 AM
The Clintons ... cough, cough ...

So the rationality of the Bill Clinton administration seems better then the Trump inanity?  May I suggest a remedial course in logic and analysis?

Quote from: Cavebear on March 12, 2018, 06:52:38 AM
So the rationality of the Bill Clinton administration seems better then the Trump inanity?  May I suggest a remedial course in logic and analysis?

Compared to Hitler, Hillary would be nice.  Therefore vote for Hillary?

Quote from: Baruch on March 12, 2018, 06:54:02 AM
Compared to Hitler, Hillary would be nice.  Therefore vote for Hillary?

Nice trick, comparing Hillary Clinton to Hitler as a barely better choice.  You do know there is a massive difference, right?

Quote from: Cavebear on March 12, 2018, 07:04:16 AM
Nice trick, comparing Hillary Clinton to Hitler as a barely better choice.  You do know there is a massive difference, right?

You misread ... you see what you want to see (like most people, including the blind men feeling up the elephant).  No, everyone compares X to Hitler, as their go to rhetorical trick.  It even has its own name, the gambit.

Quote from: Baruch on March 12, 2018, 07:10:24 AM
You misread ... you see what you want to see (like most people, including the blind men feeling up the elephant).  No, everyone compares X to Hitler, as their go to rhetorical trick.  It even has its own name, the gambit.

You are the one who just compared Clinton to Hitler (barely favorably to be sure) but made the stain of the comparison.  I need not say anything further on that.

Quote from: Cavebear on March 12, 2018, 02:15:58 AM
Nope, as odd as it may seem these days, the Democrats are protecting their basic "left of center" position, while the Republicans drift farther to the extreme Right every election. 

Both parties are drifting left, relative to where they were, say, 25 years ago. If you think otherwise it's because you are sympathetic to the democrats, and are therefore unable to see what is a readily observable fact. The united states peoples were much more conservative 25 years ago. Now they're not. And so republicans have had to drift leftways in order to stay competitive.

Mind you, both parties have agreed on 90% of issues forever, and the remaining 10% isn't real disagreement, but rather just posturing.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 12, 2018, 12:45:23 PM
Both parties are drifting left, relative to where they were, say, 25 years ago. If you think otherwise it's because you are sympathetic to the democrats, and are therefore unable to see what is a readily observable fact. The united states peoples were much more conservative 25 years ago. Now they're not. And so republicans have had to drift leftways in order to stay competitive.

I find that to be an amazing suggestion. 

Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 12, 2018, 12:45:23 PM
Both parties are drifting left, relative to where they were, say, 25 years ago. If you think otherwise it's because you are sympathetic to the democrats, and are therefore unable to see what is a readily observable fact. The united states peoples were much more conservative 25 years ago. Now they're not. And so republicans have had to drift leftways in order to stay competitive.

Statistics don't really back that up, though. It's more a case of the left moving further left and surrounding themselves with like minded individuals, and the right doing the same.

Statistics show that important left issues, like unions, gun control (at least before the last sting of mass shootings), economic regulation, etc. are all getting less support than they did 20, 30 years ago. That doesn't particularly indicate a shift to the left.

If you mean shifting to the left socially, I would agree; it is no longer (generally) acceptable to be a racist, sexist bigot like it was before, though we are seeing some backlash to that. But in terms of policy, America has shifted further right. That is simply not up for debate; even during Obama's presidency everyone was sick of him and the Senate giving the right what they want with nothing in return. And if you don't think the current house and presidency is even further right than it was under Obama, we really have nothing to discuss.

Quote from: Cavebear on March 12, 2018, 01:54:32 PM
I find that to be an amazing suggestion.

Gil the Amazing must have learned his art from Dr Strange ;-)  I think he was being sarcastic.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 12, 2018, 04:09:55 PM
Statistics don't really back that up, though. It's more a case of the left moving further left and surrounding themselves with like minded individuals, and the right doing the same.

Statistics show that important left issues, like unions, gun control (at least before the last sting of mass shootings), economic regulation, etc. are all getting less support than they did 20, 30 years ago. That doesn't particularly indicate a shift to the left.

If you mean shifting to the left socially, I would agree; it is no longer (generally) acceptable to be a racist, sexist bigot like it was before, though we are seeing some backlash to that. But in terms of policy, America has shifted further right. That is simply not up for debate; even during Obama's presidency everyone was sick of him and the Senate giving the right what they want with nothing in return. And if you don't think the current house and presidency is even further right than it was under Obama, we really have nothing to discuss.

I think the situation is that the Left is staying pretty much where it has been for decades and the Conservatives keep moving toward the Right, following the alt-right, tea party, and evangelists. 

Quote from: Cavebear on March 15, 2018, 01:51:10 AM
I think the situation is that the Left is staying pretty much where it has been for decades and the Conservatives keep moving toward the Right, following the alt-right, tea party, and evangelists.

You are stuck in the 1980s.  I wish I was still there, too.

Quote from: Cavebear on March 15, 2018, 01:51:10 AM
I think the situation is that the Left is staying pretty much where it has been for decades and the Conservatives keep moving toward the Right, following the alt-right, tea party, and evangelists.

Nah, think you got that mixed around. The right has had this level of ultra conservatives for a long time, this isn't a new thing. Its the left in the last 5-10 years that steadily gotten worse and at the same level of authoritarian. Extremist left is as much a thing now as extremist right.

the difference is the left complain and deny it more if you bring up the fact they have this side to their political establishment.

Quote from: Munch on March 17, 2018, 11:45:24 AM
Nah, think you got that mixed around. The right has had this level of ultra conservatives for a long time, this isn't a new thing. Its the left in the last 5-10 years that steadily gotten worse and at the same level of authoritarian. Extremist left is as much a thing now as extremist right.

the difference is the left complain and deny it more if you bring up the fact they have this side to their political establishment.

Britain is different than the US.  Britain has always had a stronger Left, because you never broke free (or had the opportunity to) from your past, like the US did.  Britain follows a middle path between German authoritarianism and French anarchy.  Having Corbin as the head of the Laborites, would be like Bernie being the head of the DNC (instead of being a cat's paw to the neocon Ds).

The US has been very authoritarian for most of its modern history.  The real Left was put in check in 1918-1938, and then in check again 1948-1968.  War forced concessions.  With the end of the old Cold War, the Left here is increasingly irrelevant.  Bending a little left, was necessary, to prevent manipulation by facism and the Soviet Union.  Otherwise we might still have direct racial segregation.  Back then it was the Soviet Union, at least in propaganda, which was progressive with minorities and women.

How about the conservative mentality?



https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201612/fear-and-anxiety-drive-conservatives-political-attitudes

Quote"A 2008 study(link is external) published in the journal Science found that conservatives have a stronger physiological response to startling noises and graphic images. This adds to a growing body of research that indicates a hypersensitivity to threatâ€"a hallmark of anxiety. But why exactly would those that scare more easily tend to support conservative views? One social psychologist from the University of Central Arkansas, Paul Nail, has a pretty interesting answer:

“Conservatism, apparently, helps to protect people against some of the natural difficulties of living. The fact is we don’t live in a completely safe world. Things can and do go wrong. But if I can impose this order on it by my worldview, I can keep my anxiety to a manageable level.” This could explain the two parties’ different stances on gun control. It only makes sense that those who startle more easily are also the ones that believe they need to own a gun.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeBkX7zJKBM

Quote from: Munch on March 17, 2018, 11:45:24 AM
Nah, think you got that mixed around. The right has had this level of ultra conservatives for a long time, this isn't a new thing. Its the left in the last 5-10 years that steadily gotten worse and at the same level of authoritarian. Extremist left is as much a thing now as extremist right.

the difference is the left complain and deny it more if you bring up the fact they have this side to their political establishment.

Again, I think this  comes down to what country you are in. In America, this is simply not true. In Europe it certainly may be, but here it is not... and the thing is, "liberals" as you talk to on forums are generally going to be American.

Doesn't the word "liberal" have a different meaning in Europe than in America?



[edit] I just found this:

Liberal? Are we talking about the same thing? (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-10658070)

Quote from: Unbeliever on March 17, 2018, 03:16:57 PM
Doesn't the word "liberal" have a different meaning in Europe than in America?



[edit] I just found this:

Liberal? Are we talking about the same thing? (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-10658070)

Liberal essentially just means that you're for liberty of the individual as large as it can get without it intruding on the liberty of others.

Liberalism is fundamentally pro-individualism. Therefore 'progressives' are not liberals, since they are collectivists.

Republicans exploit the conservative fear to manipulate the voters:

QuoteWith Trump reportedly “fuming” and ready to fire more staffers, the author who ghostwrote for Trump explains how Trump has always used fear with people around him and why “fear is what’s narrowing us” and “putting us in this contracted state.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ3xTEwmWe8

Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 17, 2018, 03:31:48 PM
Liberal essentially just means that you're for liberty of the individual as large as it can get without it intruding on the liberty of others.

Liberalism is fundamentally pro-individualism. Therefore 'progressives' are not liberals, since they are collectivists.

Well what do you know, it makes people calling me a dirty liberal even more wrong.

Quote from: Munch on March 17, 2018, 11:45:24 AM
Nah, think you got that mixed around. The right has had this level of ultra conservatives for a long time, this isn't a new thing. Its the left in the last 5-10 years that steadily gotten worse and at the same level of authoritarian. Extremist left is as much a thing now as extremist right.

the difference is the left complain and deny it more if you bring up the fact they have this side to their political establishment.

Well, we will have to disagree on that.  *I* consider that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are on the extreme left of the Democratic Party but that they aren't exactly communists, while half the Republican Party are so far Right the difference between them and Nazis is hard to distinguish.

And I basically comparing current positions of both parties as compared to 1980.

Quote from: Cavebear on March 17, 2018, 10:59:10 PM*I* consider that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are on the extreme left of the Democratic Party

I dunno about Warren, but the American public largely supports Sanders' positions (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/12/bernie-sanders-says-americans-back-his-agenda-and-hes-mostly-right/?utm_term=.991e3707a3a0).  Apparently, a lot of Americans are extreme left.  Or American politics are skewed right.

I mean, Obama took the Heritage Foundation's idea and ran with it and he's the biggest commie pinko who ever lived and his legislation is an intolerable extreme far-left stain on this country - the worst thing to happen to this country since slavery (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2013/10/11/ben-carson-obamacare-worst-thing-since-slavery/?utm_term=.2e52e1147f76).  Think about what that says about the realm of acceptable opinions - overton's window.

Republicans can float absolutely nutso people like Bachmann and Ted Cruz and Trump with little consequence, we all just kind of accept that's how conservatives operate now.  What otherwise would be seen as extreme is the new normal.  Hell, when you get a Republican that recognizes global warming as real and doesn't want a theocracy, these are "reasonable" people now.  When you look at things through that lens, Sanders and Warren sure look extreme.

Quote from: Hydra009 on March 17, 2018, 11:51:05 PM
I dunno about Warren, but the American public largely supports Sanders' positions (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/12/bernie-sanders-says-americans-back-his-agenda-and-hes-mostly-right/?utm_term=.991e3707a3a0).  Apparently, a lot of Americans are extreme left.  Or American politics are skewed right.

I mean, Obama took the Heritage Foundation's idea and ran with it and he's the biggest commie pinko who ever lived and his legislation is an intolerable extreme far-left stain on this country - the worst thing to happen to this country since slavery (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2013/10/11/ben-carson-obamacare-worst-thing-since-slavery/?utm_term=.2e52e1147f76).  Think about what that says about the realm of acceptable opinions - overton's window.

Republicans can float absolutely nutso people like Bachmann and Ted Cruz and Trump with little consequence, we all just kind of accept that's how conservatives operate now.  What otherwise would be seen as extreme is the new normal.  Hell, when you get a Republican that recognizes global warming as real and doesn't want a theocracy, these are "reasonable" people now.  When you look at things through that lens, Sanders and Warren sure look extreme.

Wow, you are sort of all over the political map there, LOL!

Well, I am sort of Centrist but any Republican would consider me a commie and a lot of Democrats would consider me a Rightist.  I'm just too practical and analytical for either side really.

The line describing the political spectrum is getting longer at both ends and I'm trying to find a spot where the both sides can agree on ANYTHING!

Quote from: Cavebear on March 18, 2018, 01:05:09 AM
Wow, you are sort of all over the political map there, LOL!

Well, I am sort of Centrist but any Republican would consider me a commie and a lot of Democrats would consider me a Rightist.  I'm just too practical and analytical for either side really.

The line describing the political spectrum is getting longer at both ends and I'm trying to find a spot where the both sides can agree on ANYTHING!

Likes for you ;-)  If one is in the center, one has a clearer view of the nutso extremists.

Quote from: Cavebear on March 18, 2018, 01:05:09 AM
Wow, you are sort of all over the political map there, LOL!

Well, I am sort of Centrist but any Republican would consider me a commie and a lot of Democrats would consider me a Rightist.  I'm just too practical and analytical for either side really.

The line describing the political spectrum is getting longer at both ends and I'm trying to find a spot where the both sides can agree on ANYTHING!

Ralph Nader has been working to build a left/right alliance for some time now. I don't know much about his progress, but at least he's trying. He wrote a book that I haven't read yet:

Unstoppable: The Emerging Leftâ€"Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unstoppable:_The_Emerging_Left%E2%80%93Right_Alliance_to_Dismantle_the_Corporate_State)

Quote from: Unbeliever on March 18, 2018, 05:25:12 PM
Ralph Nader has been working to build a left/right alliance for some time now. I don't know much about his progress, but at least he's trying. He wrote a book that I haven't read yet:

Unstoppable: The Emerging Leftâ€"Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unstoppable:_The_Emerging_Left%E2%80%93Right_Alliance_to_Dismantle_the_Corporate_State)

America's Corbyn?  Bwahaha.

Quote from: Unbeliever on March 18, 2018, 05:25:12 PM
Ralph Nader has been working to build a left/right alliance for some time now. I don't know much about his progress, but at least he's trying. He wrote a book that I haven't read yet:

Unstoppable: The Emerging Leftâ€"Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unstoppable:_The_Emerging_Left%E2%80%93Right_Alliance_to_Dismantle_the_Corporate_State)

There are times when I think Ralph Nader is/was one of the most valuable people on the planet, and other times when I think he is a complete idiot!  He is kind of random.

I don't think he is trying to construct a left/right alliance, so much as a rebellios challenging one.  Which isn't bad in itself, but not as useful as he could be.  He is mostly too angry to do much in national political events, and given any political influence, he would be a lot like Trump.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 07, 2018, 05:22:53 PM
A social democracy by by definition is capitalist. You probably already know this, but I just want to clear up confusion among anyone here who has any sort of sympathies for socialism:

Socialism and capitalism are antithetical to eachother, and none of the northern european countries are examples of socialism - they're all capitalist.

Examples of socialism are shitholes like venezuela, where government has seized the means of production. Currency controls, price controls, complete control of the economy by the government. That's socialism.

Socialism is a slippery easel word that can mean anything or nothing much.  A scare word to hustle fools all too often.  We tried laissez faire capitolism, anything goes during the industrail revolution.  It was a horror, a bust.  Some nations tried it's opposite, communism, another bust. In the early 20th century, capitalism with little government "interference" was a resounding failure.  We should have learned our lesson. Government is a necessary evil.  This is what the less sophisticated call socialism.  We turned away from a good government to neo-liberalism, back to the gilded age!  And what do we get with that?  Supply side idiocy.  Vast deficits.  Income inequality.  Stagnant wages for working Americans.  If fighting this stupidity is labelled socialism, let's have more socialism. Want to see how this low tax above all, little regulation idea leads?  Look at those wonderful states that follow that creed!  Kansas, Lousiana, Alabama, Mississippi.  The wonderful world of the hookworm belt.  Venezuala?  We will get down to that level if we keep voting in GOP politicans with hard-ons for Ayn Rand.

Quote from: Cheerful Charlie on March 20, 2018, 03:09:55 PM
If fighting this stupidity is labelled socialism, let's have more socialism.

That's that thing - social policies are not socialism. Socialism means one thing and one thing only - it refers to the government (the people) seizing the means of production from the corporations. That is socialism.

Socialists - that is; people who are for socialist states - intentionally muddy the waters and convince well-meaning, forward-thinking liberals that the more social policies a nation has, the closer it is to socialism. Because liberals are generally for social policies, they begin to think that socialism is good - not knowing what socialism is actually referring to.

Marxists have always used the bleeding-hearts of liberals to usher in their ideals. The term, 'useful idiot' was coined by marxists, and refers to liberals. Once marxists get in power, and the liberals are no longer useful, they have another funny phrase - it's, "liberals get the bullet, too."

Be a liberal. I'm all for liberty, and myself self-identify as liberal.

But don't be a useful idiot.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 20, 2018, 03:59:57 PM
That's that thing - social policies are not socialism. Socialism means one thing and one thing only - it refers to the government (the people) seizing the means of production from the corporations. That is socialism.

Socialists - that is; people who are for socialist states - intentionally muddy the waters and convince well-meaning, forward-thinking liberals that the more social policies a nation has, the closer it is to socialism. Because liberals are generally for social policies, they begin to think that socialism is good - not knowing what socialism is actually referring to.

Marxists have always used the bleeding-hearts of liberals to usher in their ideals. The term, 'useful idiot' was coined by marxists, and refers to liberals. Once marxists get in power, and the liberals are no longer useful, they have another funny phrase - it's, "liberals get the bullet, too."

Be a liberal. I'm all for liberty, and myself self-identify as liberal.

But don't be a useful idiot.

As long as people know what they're talking about, you can call liberalism 'dog-fuckingism' and it wouldn't make a difference. If people are using and understanding 'socialism' in a way that does not fit your definition, then it is hardly being a useful idiot. It means that, once again, a term has escaped the original coiners and become wild. What you call 'socialist' has apparently split off into what I would call 'communist', whereas 'socialist' has been reappropriated to mean a leaning to more social policy.

Liberal progressive people are sour to capitalism because they see capitalism NOT WORKING to deliver on their own prosperity. Keeping to your rigid definitions won't help. They don't hate capitalism because they are being bamboozled by your true-scottsman socialists â€" it's because they see hypercapitalists run rampant over general prosperity to create a privileged pseudo-royalty. This is what really triggers revolutions; it's the masses getting tired of the oligarcy's shit. The only solution is to fix our shit and make capitalism work for everyone, and that seems to necessitate regulation.

When you see me advocating for nationalized industry, then you can call me a useful idiot.

Quote from: Cheerful Charlie on March 20, 2018, 03:09:55 PM
Socialism is a slippery easel word that can mean anything or nothing much.  A scare word to hustle fools all too often.  We tried laissez faire capitolism, anything goes during the industrail revolution.  It was a horror, a bust.  Some nations tried it's opposite, communism, another bust. In the early 20th century, capitalism with little government "interference" was a resounding failure.  We should have learned our lesson. Government is a necessary evil.  This is what the less sophisticated call socialism.  We turned away from a good government to neo-liberalism, back to the gilded age!  And what do we get with that?  Supply side idiocy.  Vast deficits.  Income inequality.  Stagnant wages for working Americans.  If fighting this stupidity is labelled socialism, let's have more socialism. Want to see how this low tax above all, little regulation idea leads?  Look at those wonderful states that follow that creed!  Kansas, Lousiana, Alabama, Mississippi.  The wonderful world of the hookworm belt.  Venezuala?  We will get down to that level if we keep voting in GOP politicans with hard-ons for Ayn Rand.

Chavez and Maduro ... like their predecessor Castro are followers of Marx, not Ayn Rand.  Not that I agree with Ayn Rand either.

I am sure you will cut a fine figure as an apparatchik in the new Leftist regime.  Commissar for the Internet perhaps?

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on March 20, 2018, 06:05:46 PM
As long as people know what they're talking about, you can call liberalism 'dog-fuckingism' and it wouldn't make a difference. If people are using and understanding 'socialism' in a way that does not fit your definition, then it is hardly being a useful idiot.

That's not what I said - at all. People who are pro-socialist-states (ie socialists) view liberals as useful idiots - because these liberals are easily convinced to support ideals which are antithetical to liberalism.

QuoteIt means that, once again, a term has escaped the original coiners and become wild. What you call 'socialist' has apparently split off into what I would call 'communist', whereas 'socialist' has been reappropriated to mean a leaning to more social policy.

If you're going to call people who are pro-even-one-social-policy a socialist, then what are you going to start calling socialists? Oh, you'd call them communists, you say? Well since a socialist state requires a government, what are you going to start calling communists - which is defined as being fundamentally without a governing body?

QuoteLiberal progressive people are sour to capitalism because they see capitalism NOT WORKING to deliver on their own prosperity.

What? Liberalism is pro-capitalism. Capitalism naturally exists without government collectivism. Liberalism is fundamentally pro-individualism, therefore capitalism is a natural consequence of liberal ideals.

Not only that, but the most prosperous nations on earth have always been, currently are, and will always be, capitalist economies. 

And not only that, but you don't speak for all liberals. Myself and all my friends are liberals. We are all pro-capitalism.

Oh, but you'd rather redefine liberalism, too, right? Go to r/socialists or r/communism right now and talk to, you know, actual socialists and communists. Ask them what they think about liberals. To them, there is virtually 0 difference between liberals and fascists. They don't consider themselves aligned with liberals. They consider liberals useful idiots who get put into the gulag as soon as they've served their purpose. Why? Because while a marxist can confuse a liberal enough to be able to use them to bring about their ends, they cannot completely remove that liberals sense that personal liberty is something to be preserved.

The fact is; I don't see liberals turned sour to capitalism. I see people who call themselves liberals but who hold ideals antithetical to liberalism, sour to capitalism. I see people who don't know the etymology behind terms using the terms exactly as the people who seek to socially engineer them would like them to use those terms.

You are literally arguing that we allow the marxist tactic of hegemony over language with purpose to confuse us, to confuse us. That's... pretty retarded.

And to add:

Capitalism with 'social policies' is still capitalism. And a socialist state (a state where the people have seized the means of production from the private corporations) is not fundamentally related to 'social policy' in any way shape or form.

So I agree that as long as you know what people are actually talking about, letting semantics get in the way is pointless.

Quote...what are you going to start calling communists...

Just to answer one small part, since I'm not really interested in getting involved in an argue over semantics changing...

I would probably start calling them (as you define them [or rather as they are text-book defined]) a relic of the past, since they already are something very close to non-existent. While countries like China, N. Korea are certainly still "communists", N. Korea is more relevantly a dictatorship and China is an interesting fusion of capitalism, communism and corruption.

It's like the word progressive, since that keeps getting brought up; 25+ years ago, that word meant something extremely different. Now it means what we all think. Definitions change... and as communism becomes less and less relevant, it loses it's meaning as a set political doctrine and gains one that mostly just stands for corrupt, dictatorial Leninism. Blame the Soviets and Chinese for destroying it's meaning, not us.

"what are you going to start calling communists - which is defined as being fundamentally without a governing body? "

That is a fantasy definition in Marxist theory ... never happened.  Technically that would be called anarchism.  And Lenin considered anarchists to be his biggest enemy, given that a woman anarchist nearly succeeded in assassinating him.  So a Feminist Anarchist then, in her case.

All 20th century real communism, is a socialist dictatorship, rather than a socialist democracy.  And it does involve the end of private property as in China or the USSR, but not in Hitler's Germany.  Nazism was socialist, but not communist.

Socialism can mean politically progressive regulation of a capitalist economy (not necessarily democratic).  If Hitler had been progressive, then he would have been a hero, since he never proposed the elimination of private property, nor suppressing traditional religion (as Stalin, Mao etc did).  Had Hitler been progressive and democratic ... then he would have been the greatest modern German ... greater than Bismarck.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 20, 2018, 08:04:51 PM

I would probably start calling them (as you define them [or rather as they are text-book defined]) a relic of the past, since they already are something very close to non-existent.

The state of being a communist isn't defined by being pro-communism while at the same time residing in a communist nation. To be a communist means to only be the former of those two things - for communism.

People who want to bring about communism - that is; communists - are abundant as ever, dude.

And even if they weren't, that doesn't change the definition of communism.

Quote from: Baruch on March 20, 2018, 11:10:45 PM
"what are you going to start calling communists - which is defined as being fundamentally without a governing body? "

That is a fantasy definition in Marxist theory ... never happened.  Technically that would be called anarchism.  And Lenin considered anarchists to be his biggest enemy, given that a woman anarchist nearly succeeded in assassinating him.  So a Feminist Anarchist then, in her case.

All 20th century real communism, is a socialist dictatorship, rather than a socialist democracy.  And it does involve the end of private property as in China or the USSR, but not in Hitler's Germany.  Nazism was socialist, but not communist.

Socialism can mean politically progressive regulation of a capitalist economy (not necessarily democratic).  If Hitler had been progressive, then he would have been a hero, since he never proposed the elimination of private property, nor suppressing traditional religion (as Stalin, Mao etc did).  Had Hitler been progressive and democratic ... then he would have been the greatest modern German ... greater than Bismarck.

Communists define communism as stateless. I know statelessness is a fantasy. It's a fantasy communists will continue to hold to for as long as they exist. Every time communists gain government and fail to abolish it like their ideology tells them to, the next generation of communists just denounce them as "not real communists." Communists are retarded, you see.

QuotePeople who want to bring about communism - that is; communists - are abundant as ever, dude.

I haven't seen much evidence of that. I see people who are in favour of turning certain sectors into textbook communist programs (chiefly medical and social programs, education, things of that nature), but I cant say I am aware of anyone of any real social statue who advocates the government taking over all industry (such as manufacturing and distribution of goods) and running it through the state. Infact, I cant think of particularly anyone of no social statue who thinks that as well.

Statistically the number of people who live under a communist regime has dropped since the 90s, and that is including China which is at best a de jure communist state but in reality is way too complex to say it's this-or-that. Historically there have been communist parties that actually made waves in the United States, such as factions of the Union movement and the Chicano movement, but afaik no major social movement is currently spearheaded by communists. So I have to call bs on them being more prevalent now than in the 70s-90s, and certainly bs on them being more abundant than they were in the early 1900s.

QuoteAnd even if they weren't, that doesn't change the definition of communism.

No, but societies do change the definitions of words, and it is changing.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 20, 2018, 11:53:47 PM
I haven't seen much evidence of that. I see people who are in favour of turning certain sectors into textbook communist programs (chiefly medical and social programs, education, things of that nature), but I cant say I am aware of anyone of any real social statue who advocates the government taking over all industry (such as manufacturing and distribution of goods) and running it through the state. Infact, I cant think of particularly anyone of no social statue who thinks that as well.

Go on tumblr and search, "communism." Go on r/communism, or r/socialists. Go on leftypol.

There are huge communities of communists.

You failing to observe certain aspects of objective reality doesn't mean those aspects are non-existent.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 21, 2018, 12:03:28 AM
Go on tumblr and search, "communism." Go on r/communism, or r/socialists. Go on leftypol.

There are huge communities of communists.

You failing to observe certain aspects of objective reality doesn't mean those aspects are non-existent.

Right, and I could go on r/classical libertarians and discover a community of classical libertarians. That doesn't mean that because I didn't have access to that community before the internet that the number of libertarians has actually increased, it just means they have a way to be more vocal about their existence and interact amongst each other. Amplitude =/= volume or mass. Particularly when that amplitude is vibrating across the internet and not the real world.

Tumblr is not "the real world". Leftypol is not "the real world". Nor is any other chatroom. The only time these chatrooms have any relevance in the real world is when they decide to meet each other and that is predominately to interact with each other and not the environment around them.

I'm talking about relevant communists... communists who are enacting social change, who are influencing public opinion, who are making an difference with their sway on politicians... people who vote for communists, or publicly campaign for communists. I could call myself an whatever I like on a chatroom, but at the end of the day if I am not taking actions in the real world to enact whatever position I push online, then they are just words on a computer screen and are what your online persona is, not you as an individual.

Communism holds significantly less political and social power in the real world than it does on the internet; failing to observe a reality that may exist on the internet does not translate to failing to observe something in the real world that does. I love the internet, but I have no delusions that tumblr, youtube comments, this forum, whatever are somehow equal to or as real as something said or done in the real world. And the reality in the real world is that if you identify as a communist... you are utterly irrelevant to society. It's as purposeful as identifying yourself as a furry. Sure, it might gain you points within your niche community, but otherwise people are just going to give you a strange look and walk by.

This is where I usually have to remind people of the differences between conservatism, socialism, liberal, and progressive.

Conservatism means keeping things as they were "in the good old days".  Which was not always good for a lot of people.  But some traditional practices have general benefits.  Think "barn-raisings"

Socialism means the government taking private goods for well-intentioned general distribution. Think "health care for all". 

Liberalism means (and I will get some flak here from conservatives) the government is intended to pass regulations controlling  capitalistic excesses and promote "the general welfare" of the downtrodden.

Progressive means that new ideas should be explored with the understanding that some may work and some not (FDR was progressive, not liberal) and that as society changes, laws and regulations must change or be enacted.

I am a Progressive, and utterly unashamed of it.  As society changes, our laws must change to adapt to that.

And I will give you an example guaranteed to burn holes in some peoples' brains.    The 2nd amendment has to be changed.  There are many reasons and I won't bore you with them.  But we are no longer a "musket militia" society, and that is sufficient for a change.

Not asking any specific questions, just saying something...

(https://www.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2018-03/204869_5_.jpg)

Quote from: Cavebear on March 21, 2018, 01:04:57 AM
This is where I usually have to remind people of the differences between conservatism, socialism, liberal, and progressive.

Conservatism means keeping things as they were "in the good old days".  Which was not always good for a lot of people.  But some traditional practices have general benefits.  Think "barn-raisings"

Socialism means the government taking private goods for well-intentioned general distribution. Think "health care for all". 

Liberalism means (and I will get some flak here from conservatives) the government is intended to pass regulations controlling  capitalistic excesses and promote "the general welfare" of the downtrodden.

Progressive means that new ideas should be explored with the understanding that some may work and some not (FDR was progressive, not liberal) and that as society changes, laws and regulations must change or be enacted.

I am a Progressive, and utterly unashamed of it.  As society changes, our laws must change to adapt to that.

And I will give you an example guaranteed to burn holes in some peoples' brains.    The 2nd amendment has to be changed.  There are many reasons and I won't bore you with them.  But we are no longer a "musket militia" society, and that is sufficient for a change.

Not asking any specific questions, just saying something...

You are so 1970 (I am so 1975) ... go figure! ;-)  We only know what was burned into our skulls when we were 20.

Quote from: pr126 on March 21, 2018, 05:05:24 AM
(https://www.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2018-03/204869_5_.jpg)

Controlled opposition.  Have house from Clintons, will travel (in luxury).  Corbin is probably controlled opposition too ... one of those people/sheep crosses.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 20, 2018, 11:48:59 PM
Communists define communism as stateless. I know statelessness is a fantasy. It's a fantasy communists will continue to hold to for as long as they exist. Every time communists gain government and fail to abolish it like their ideology tells them to, the next generation of communists just denounce them as "not real communists." Communists are retarded, you see.

Communists are like all other -ists ... compulsive liars and dictators.  Lure in the sheep, shear them and butcher them.  Back in the old days of 1880-1920, anarchism was a fad, like Facebook, and all the -ists wanted to get on the bandwagon.  Nobody actually wants smaller government, they all want bigger government for themselves, and to punish their enemies.  Marx stole the stateless idea, from the ideas of that French hippie, Rousseau.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 21, 2018, 12:45:11 AM
Right, and I could go on r/classical libertarians and discover a community of classical libertarians. That doesn't mean that because I didn't have access to that community before the internet that the number of libertarians has actually increased, it just means they have a way to be more vocal about their existence and interact amongst each other. Amplitude =/= volume or mass. Particularly when that amplitude is vibrating across the internet and not the real world.

Tumblr is not "the real world". Leftypol is not "the real world". Nor is any other chatroom. The only time these chatrooms have any relevance in the real world is when they decide to meet each other and that is predominately to interact with each other and not the environment around them.

I'm talking about relevant communists... communists who are enacting social change, who are influencing public opinion, who are making an difference with their sway on politicians... people who vote for communists, or publicly campaign for communists. I could call myself an whatever I like on a chatroom, but at the end of the day if I am not taking actions in the real world to enact whatever position I push online, then they are just words on a computer screen and are what your online persona is, not you as an individual.

Communism holds significantly less political and social power in the real world than it does on the internet; failing to observe a reality that may exist on the internet does not translate to failing to observe something in the real world that does. I love the internet, but I have no delusions that tumblr, youtube comments, this forum, whatever are somehow equal to or as real as something said or done in the real world. And the reality in the real world is that if you identify as a communist... you are utterly irrelevant to society. It's as purposeful as identifying yourself as a furry. Sure, it might gain you points within your niche community, but otherwise people are just going to give you a strange look and walk by.

Woah there Shiranu.. You're getting ahead of the site word salad chefs here. But you are correct. Being a self proclaimed Bengals fan doesn't in fact make me a paid employee of the Cincinnati Bengals. Just because I might post on a Bengals fan website doesn't automatically turn me into an NFL player any more than someone posting on a sub topic of a much larger site claiming to be a socialist or communist is the leader of the Soviet Union..It kind of reminds me of the anti drug warriors going online to proclaim that the entire nation and every citizen of the nation is somehow going to become a heroin addict and we're all going to overdose tomorrow morning if all the dope dealers aren't executed immediately..
In other words the squeaky wheel gets the grease and since it's getting so much grease it must obviously be where you put all the gasoline..

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on March 21, 2018, 08:26:01 PM
Woah there Shiranu.. You're getting ahead of the site word salad chefs here. But you are correct. Being a self proclaimed Bengals fan doesn't in fact make me a paid employee of the Cincinnati Bengals. Just because I might post on a Bengals fan website doesn't automatically turn me into an NFL player any more than someone posting on a sub topic of a much larger site claiming to be a socialist or communist is the leader of the Soviet Union..It kind of reminds me of the anti drug warriors going online to proclaim that the entire nation and every citizen of the nation is somehow going to become a heroin addict and we're all going to overdose tomorrow morning if all the dope dealers aren't executed immediately..
In other words the squeaky wheel gets the grease and since it's getting so much grease it must obviously be where you put all the gasoline..

If you want to overthrow your government and create communism then you are a communist. In the same vein, if you currently reside within a communist society and want to destroy it, you are not a communist.

It is self-evidently absurd to think that the former doesn't necessarily mean you are a communist, but that the latter does.

And even if there was not one person in existence in favor of communism, that doesn't suddenly make using the identifier, 'communist' and arbitrarily start shifting it around with other identifiers. That makes 0 sense.

Not to mention Shiranu's funny implication that people on the internet aren't 'real' people that exist in the world.

So you're vying to be the greasy, squeaky wheel, huh? Congratulations.

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on March 21, 2018, 09:24:04 PM
So you're vying to be the greasy, squeaky wheel, huh? Congratulations.

It's so telling when you engage someone with argument and instead of defending their position in kind they do literally anything else. It's almost like you cannot defend your position because it's not an accurate description of reality.

How about the fact that I just don't really care to argue with you?  I'm a real bastard that way, but oh well.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 20, 2018, 08:04:51 PM

I would probably start calling them (as you define them [or rather as they are text-book defined]) a relic of the past,

And here is the retarded contention that started this ^

Imagine having your shitty position put into such an inescapable corner that you literally contend that it's okay to arbitrarily shift definitions around because one of the terms you're doing it to don't really have many people who believe in it any more. Somehow if you have the belief that communists don't exist, that makes it okay to call people who like social safety nets socialists, and then socialists communists.

Yeah...

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on March 21, 2018, 09:33:41 PM
How about the fact that I just don't really care to argue with you?  I'm a real bastard that way, but oh well.

>goes to a discussion board
>vagueposts
>"instead of vagueposting and stroking your ego lets get into specifics and have a discussion on this, you know, discussion board"
>woah thats asking for a lot m8

(https://archive-media-0.nyafuu.org/vp/image/1477/02/1477029516261.jpg)

QuoteNot to mention Shiranu's funny implication that people on the internet aren't 'real' people that exist in the world.

That wasn't my implication. My point was that speaking your opinion on an internet chatforums is not taking action, any more than sitting around telling someone you should bake a cake makes you a cake baker if you never actually go and bake a cake. Without action, you can call yourself whatever you want... a communist, a baker, an apache attack helicopter... but if you don't take any action off the computer that indicates you are one of these things... you might as well be nothing. "You" as a communist or baker are just ones and zeros and flickering pixels on a meaningless screen somewhere.


To keep it political - If I called myself a democrat, and shared that here... and then never voted democrat in my life and didn't support any democratic campaigns, than I am not really a democrat. No one would think I was.

But I don't believe the personas we wear online are real people either, if you really want to know.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 21, 2018, 09:37:09 PM
And here is the retarded contention that started this ^

Imagine having your shitty position put into such an inescapable corner that you literally contend that it's okay to arbitrarily shift definitions around because one of the terms you're doing it to don't really have many people who believe in it any more. Somehow if you have the belief that communists don't exist, that makes it okay to call people who like social safety nets socialists, and then socialists communists.

Yeah...

Meh, you are going to land on the wrong side of society and history, so be mad about that all you want. No skin off my back.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 20, 2018, 07:33:14 PM
That's not what I said - at all. People who are pro-socialist-states (ie socialists) view liberals as useful idiots - because these liberals are easily convinced to support ideals which are antithetical to liberalism.

While this might be true in certain cases, there might be other forces that drive this trend that have nothing to do with people you would call socialist.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 20, 2018, 07:33:14 PM
If you're going to call people who are pro-even-one-social-policy a socialist, then what are you going to start calling socialists?

You missed the point here. These terms we use to describe peoples' political leanings are relative. I would take a socialist to be a person who thinks that more social policies than currently are in place are in order. It doesn't mean that if you're for even one social policy, then you're automatically a socialist in a political climate.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 20, 2018, 07:33:14 PM
Oh, you'd call them communists, you say?

No, I call people who are for nationalized industries and the accompanying communist style control economy communist.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 20, 2018, 07:33:14 PM
Well since a socialist state requires a government, what are you going to start calling communists - which is defined as being fundamentally without a governing body?

Oh, don't be obtuse, Gil. The classic socialist states you are obviously referring to have been traditionally been called 'communists,' and that is what I've been calling these kinds of societies all my life. You're committing the genetic fallacy by insisting that they be called 'socialists' due to its entemology when it is obvious that it's not how people are using the term.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 20, 2018, 07:33:14 PM
What? Liberalism is pro-capitalism.

This is not how 'liberal' has been traditionally used in the US. At least, not in my lifetime.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 20, 2018, 07:33:14 PM
Capitalism naturally exists without government collectivism.

Actually, it's barter economies that tend to 'naturally exist' in this state.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 20, 2018, 07:33:14 PM
Liberalism is fundamentally pro-individualism, therefore capitalism is a natural consequence of liberal ideals.

Again, not how 'liberal' has been used in the US.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 20, 2018, 07:33:14 PM
Not only that, but the most prosperous nations on earth have always been, currently are, and will always be, capitalist economies. 

Agreed.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 20, 2018, 07:33:14 PM
And not only that, but you don't speak for all liberals. Myself and all my friends are liberals. We are all pro-capitalism.

Again, according to your definition of what 'liberal' means.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 20, 2018, 07:33:14 PM
Oh, but you'd rather redefine liberalism, too, right?

It's already been redefined, moron, at least in the US. Mostly by the conservative twits who wanted to actually take rights away, by defining them in a way that brings them closer to the communists that were the bugbear of the Cold War era.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 20, 2018, 07:33:14 PM
Go to r/socialists or r/communism right now and talk to, you know, actual socialists and communists. Ask them what they think about liberals. To them, there is virtually 0 difference between liberals and fascists. They don't consider themselves aligned with liberals. They consider liberals useful idiots who get put into the gulag as soon as they've served their purpose. Why? Because while a marxist can confuse a liberal enough to be able to use them to bring about their ends, they cannot completely remove that liberals sense that personal liberty is something to be preserved.

Who cares if 'real communists' and 'real socialists' think we're useful idiots? The important part is to not be one. Thing is, you can't defend personal liberties unless you're willing to bust the heads of individuals who violate the personal liberties of others. It's simply an inescapable fact of human nature that you're always going to have people who are selfish pricks willing to screw people over for their own gain. That's why people invented governments in the first place.

Furthermore, liberalism, as a practical exercise, is going to overlap somewhat with socialism and communism and marxism as you define it.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 20, 2018, 07:33:14 PM
The fact is; I don't see liberals turned sour to capitalism. I see people who call themselves liberals but who hold ideals antithetical to liberalism, sour to capitalism.

So? Ideals of personal liberty do not necessarily imply that you must be capitalist. Capitalism is just an economic system â€" a way of distributing goods and services. It has nothing to do with individual liberty, at least directly. A true post-scarcity economy could be the most liberal you've ever seen, yet would not even have the smallest whiff of capitalism in it because goods and services would literally be too cheap to sell.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 20, 2018, 07:33:14 PM
I see people who don't know the etymology behind terms using the terms exactly as the people who seek to socially engineer them would like them to use those terms.

This is literally the definition of engaging in a genetic fallacy. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy)

Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 20, 2018, 07:33:14 PM
You are literally arguing that we allow the marxist tactic of hegemony over language with purpose to confuse us, to confuse us. That's... pretty retarded.

I was born with all of these terms already muddled in the way I described. That ship's already sailed. The only thing you can do is be clear on what you believe.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 21, 2018, 09:37:09 PM
And here is the retarded contention that started this ^

Imagine having your shitty position put into such an inescapable corner that you literally contend that it's okay to arbitrarily shift definitions around because one of the terms you're doing it to don't really have many people who believe in it any more. Somehow if you have the belief that communists don't exist, that makes it okay to call people who like social safety nets socialists, and then socialists communists.

Yeah...

I've read the previous arguments and not been quite sure what was actually being argued.  But if you are saying that people like to shift arguments around to protect their worldview, I agree.  And I also agree that when someone takes an argument that there should be social safety nets and  turns that into socialism and then communism, that is entirely inaccurate.

For example, I don't see the point in poor children being in taught in under-funded schools and expecting them to be able to compete for a college education and the better jobs that come with that.  And that makes me a Communist?

Hakurei - "A true post-scarcity economy could be the most liberal you've ever seen, yet would not even have the smallest whiff of capitalism in it because goods and services would literally be too cheap to sell."

That is what Marx meant by communism ... aka an advanced technical/cultural version of Native American or Polynesian society (Rousseau's favorites).  But this is just Tahiti syndrome, which wasn't so good for Capt. Bligh.  Not going to happen.  Yes, the definition of Lenin/Stalin/Mao etc is the only one worth paying attention to.

This is also how Christians describe Heaven.  Except John of Patmos imagined a rather uncomfortable gold Borg cube with gem incrustation.

Quote from: Baruch on March 23, 2018, 06:22:24 AM
That is what Marx meant by communism ... aka an advanced technical/cultural version of Native American or Polynesian society (Rousseau's favorites).  But this is just Tahiti syndrome, which wasn't so good for Capt. Bligh.  Not going to happen.  Yes, the definition of Lenin/Stalin/Mao etc is the only one worth paying attention to.

This is also how Christians describe Heaven.  Except John of Patmos imagined a rather uncomfortable gold Borg cube with gem incrustation.

And I was clearly using "true post-scarcity society" as a hypothetical, to illustrate that liberalism (as Gil defines it) and capitalism aren't as wedded to each other as he imagines. After all, I recognize all economies as means to an end, rather than ends in of themselves.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on March 23, 2018, 07:58:00 PM
And I was clearly using "true post-scarcity society" as a hypothetical, to illustrate that liberalism (as Gil defines it) and capitalism aren't as wedded to each other as he imagines. After all, I recognize all economies as means to an end, rather than ends in of themselves.

There is no benefit in trade other than fair trade.

Quote from: Cavebear on March 23, 2018, 11:30:59 PM
There is no benefit in trade other than fair trade.

There is no fair trade, without communism worldwide under Chinese single party leadership.  Hope you invest in yuans.  Xi is now a Chinese god, the Jade Emperor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlBOnXXw-T4

The Monkey King represents "everyman".  China can only be brought down, by its own people, when they choose to resist maniac hubris.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on March 23, 2018, 07:58:00 PM
And I was clearly using "true post-scarcity society" as a hypothetical, to illustrate that liberalism (as Gil defines it) and capitalism aren't as wedded to each other as he imagines. After all, I recognize all economies as means to an end, rather than ends in of themselves.

Liberalism and capitalism are not wedded.  Though, I suspect they are somewhat at odds, but can be balanced in a democracy with some regulation.  And, quite frankly, I like the results.  But the goal of capitalism is to control production, wages and sales and that is not good for the populace.  So capitalism has to be controlled to some degree by government for the benefit of the workers.

If the government represents the workers, better than the unions.  But the unions are castrated, and the government is in the hands of Deep State nut jobs and banksters.  So no, the oligarchy doesn't want regulation, and isn't being regulated, since about 1981.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on March 23, 2018, 07:58:00 PM
And I was clearly using "true post-scarcity society" as a hypothetical, to illustrate that liberalism (as Gil defines it) and capitalism aren't as wedded to each other as he imagines. After all, I recognize all economies as means to an end, rather than ends in of themselves.

May I ask how define the goals of each marketplace (or anti-marketplace)?

Quote from: Cavebear on March 29, 2018, 11:03:09 PM
May I ask how define the goals of each marketplace (or anti-marketplace)?

Adam Smith was a British monarchist and imperialist.  He was shilling for a better British Empire.  And specifically shilling for Glasgow drug lords (tobacco, sugar, rum, slaves).  Think apologist for a Columbian cartel.  There are no free markets, because there is no free lunch.  Markets are always government controlled entities, going back to ancient times.  And they exist for government purposes, not some hidden hand, unless we mean the Koch brothers.

Quote from: Baruch on March 24, 2018, 10:57:07 AM
There is no fair trade, without communism worldwide under Chinese single party leadership.  Hope you invest in yuans.  Xi is now a Chinese god, the Jade Emperor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlBOnXXw-T4

The Monkey King represents "everyman".  China can only be brought down, by its own people, when they choose to resist maniac hubris.

I like goku better.

Vegeta was a soy-boy conspirator ;-)

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on March 22, 2018, 09:41:43 PM
While this might be true in certain cases, there might be other forces that drive this trend that have nothing to do with people you would call socialist.
You missed the point here. These terms we use to describe peoples' political leanings are relative. I would take a socialist to be a person who thinks that more social policies than currently are in place are in order. It doesn't mean that if you're for even one social policy, then you're automatically a socialist in a political climate.
No, I call people who are for nationalized industries and the accompanying communist style control economy communist.
Oh, don't be obtuse, Gil. The classic socialist states you are obviously referring to have been traditionally been called 'communists,' and that is what I've been calling these kinds of societies all my life. You're committing the genetic fallacy by insisting that they be called 'socialists' due to its entemology when it is obvious that it's not how people are using the term.
This is not how 'liberal' has been traditionally used in the US. At least, not in my lifetime.
Actually, it's barter economies that tend to 'naturally exist' in this state.
Again, not how 'liberal' has been used in the US.
Agreed.
Again, according to your definition of what 'liberal' means.
It's already been redefined, moron, at least in the US. Mostly by the conservative twits who wanted to actually take rights away, by defining them in a way that brings them closer to the communists that were the bugbear of the Cold War era.
Who cares if 'real communists' and 'real socialists' think we're useful idiots? The important part is to not be one. Thing is, you can't defend personal liberties unless you're willing to bust the heads of individuals who violate the personal liberties of others. It's simply an inescapable fact of human nature that you're always going to have people who are selfish pricks willing to screw people over for their own gain. That's why people invented governments in the first place.

Furthermore, liberalism, as a practical exercise, is going to overlap somewhat with socialism and communism and marxism as you define it.
So? Ideals of personal liberty do not necessarily imply that you must be capitalist. Capitalism is just an economic system â€" a way of distributing goods and services. It has nothing to do with individual liberty, at least directly. A true post-scarcity economy could be the most liberal you've ever seen, yet would not even have the smallest whiff of capitalism in it because goods and services would literally be too cheap to sell.
This is literally the definition of engaging in a genetic fallacy. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy)
I was born with all of these terms already muddled in the way I described. That ship's already sailed. The only thing you can do is be clear on what you believe.

A caveat to this post: I'm not going to engage any of the content of your post here. Therefore, it wouldn't be wrong for you to accuse me of deliberately ignoring information which may contradict my position. Maybe I am doing that, sure.

Now, an explanation for why I won't be engaging any of the content in this specific post: its format is, for lack of a better term, fucking retarded. Be more succinct. I respect both myself and the art of debate too much to engage bullshit like that.

If you get what I'm saying, and you feel so inclined, reiterate your post. I will be happy to reponde to its content, then.

(Seriously I used to format like that when I was 12. You know why I did it? Because rather than an attempting frame the interaction as an exchange of ideas that hopefully leads one or the other to a better understanding - I preferred creating as many instances of me being 'right' as was possible with the contents of my oppositions post. So I'd split it into as many different instances as possible, and attempt to '1-up' each instance.

Much healthier is to attempt understand what ones opponent is actually saying, and then responding only to the things which one divulges are both 1) relevant and 2) things which one understands him/her to actually believe. If I were to reduce what I'm trying to say here to its basic: Always try to only get to the 'meat' of the disagreement - be weary of creating pointless areas of contention.)

Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 07, 2018, 06:36:58 AM
A caveat to this post: I'm not going to engage any of the content of your post here. Therefore, it wouldn't be wrong for you to accuse me of deliberately ignoring information which may contradict my position. Maybe I am doing that, sure.

Now, an explanation for why I won't be engaging any of the content in this specific post: its format is, for lack of a better term, fucking retarded. Be more succinct. I respect both myself and the art of debate too much to engage bullshit like that.

If you get what I'm saying, and you feel so inclined, reiterate your post. I will be happy to reponde to its content, then.

(Seriously I used to format like that when I was 12. You know why I did it? Because rather than an attempting frame the interaction as an exchange of ideas that hopefully leads one or the other to a better understanding - I preferred creating as many instances of me being 'right' as was possible with the contents of my oppositions post. So I'd split it into as many different instances as possible, and attempt to '1-up' each instance.

Much healthier is to attempt understand what ones opponent is actually saying, and then responding only to the things which one divulges are both 1) relevant and 2) things which one understands him/her to actually believe. If I were to reduce what I'm trying to say here to its basic: Always try to only get to the 'meat' of the disagreement - be weary of creating pointless areas of contention.)

If you don't respond to her post, I will respond to yours and it won't be polite.   Her post was rational and deserves a response from you.

I'll go by the avatar until the individual makes it clear.

Hakurei Reimu is definitely male ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on March 24, 2018, 10:57:07 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlBOnXXw-T4

Wow, those guys really take their Quidditch seriously!

Quote from: Unbeliever on April 13, 2018, 02:36:16 PM
Wow, those guy really take their Quidditch seriously!

The Chinese trade war is just starting.  Got fried rice?