Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 ... 10
41
Or Kill Me / Re: Look both ways before you cross
« Last post by LMNO on Yesterday at 07:31:51 pm »
Expect an invoice in the next 60 business days.
42
Or Kill Me / Re: Look both ways before you cross
« Last post by Hoopla on Yesterday at 07:25:26 pm »
Nordic paganism? We're just letting that one slide? It's the preferred religious choice of wankers and scum.

Which is largely how the op reads.

I noted it, however LMNO and Cram are doing much better at verbalizing what I was thinking than I am. So I'm letting them post for me.
43
Were your company early adopters of this current ransomware batch, or late to the party patching against wannacry?
44
Or Kill Me / Re: Look both ways before you cross
« Last post by Junkenstein on Yesterday at 07:23:09 pm »
Nordic paganism? We're just letting that one slide? It's the preferred religious choice of wankers and scum.

Which is largely how the op reads.
45
Or Kill Me / Re: Look both ways before you cross
« Last post by tyrannosaurus vex on Yesterday at 07:14:12 pm »
Ok, right wing. I am firmly against the "welfare state" concept taken to the extreme of the British labour party. I do believe the state has an obligation to the people but it works both ways.
A system in which the able bodied are fit to work but supported by the state is abhorrent to me. I believe in national service, note I do not mean military, the able bodied should serve the state in return for support from the state.

Of course the elderly and the disabled should be supported.

I belueve in more right wing, militant geo-politics but not the reckless "democracy or bust" crap that caused all this mess in the middle east.

Kinda hard to just list right wing beliefs to be honest, could be here all day making a list without context to said belief.

That kind of "national service" is ridiculous. It amounts to useless busywork meted out to the unfortunate just because productivity is somehow morally equated with the right to survive. The reason I say this isn't because we should "reward" laziness but because at our current level of technological achievement, increasing automation has caused general productivity to skyrocket while causing the ability of the average worker to contribute to it to plummet. The result is that we have masses of people who cannot really do anything of economic value because we have automated systems and machines doing a lot of the work. Requiring them to basically dig holes and fill them back up again just to prove they deserve a loaf of bread and a shitty apartment is a waste of resources.

Capitalist economies require growth in order to survive. Traditionally that growth has come from opening new markets, but soon there will be few "new" markets to open. If capitalism expects to survive, it will have to expand existing markets which means increasing the purchasing power of people inside already-capitalist zones even if those people cannot be productive enough to "warrant" that increased purchasing power. Otherwise, what we'll have is a ton of resources being created by increasingly automated systems, but no one who can afford to buy them, causing demand for everything from bread to yachts to first spike uncontrollably and then crash irretrievably.

The answer is obvious, but is anathema to traditionalists who have always (nominally) equated purchasing power with productivity somehow, despite the fact that that has never been the case (the most wealthy people have always been the least productive). Universal basic income which meets the fundamental survival needs of everyone without requiring anything "in return" leads to a workforce that is more healthy, more productive thanks to the availability of ongoing education, and able to purchase goods and services which would otherwise be out of their reach. Additionally, in the near future, failure to provide this baseline standard of living will put a society at a serious disadvantage in a global economy where other nations are doing it. Their people will not have the tools they need to compete with others, and the society will fail.

It's also worth noting that your "right wing" position would put you substantially to the left of just about every single Republican in America. Which is sort of off-putting for me.

In terms of your geopolitical stance, I actually agree that our nationbuilding in the Middle East has been a horrific disaster, but mostly that's because that region was designed intentionally to be unstable except under totalitarian rule by the British Empire a century ago, and it has been exploited, attacked, defamed, and insulted non-stop for that entire period. Ethnic and religious groups have been intentionally divided and provoked to violence specifically in order to prevent them from coalescing into a coherent empire (which they have been very good at for thousands of years). Democracy aside, it was the West that created the mess we have in the Middle East and it didn't start in 2001.
46
Or Kill Me / Re: Look both ways before you cross
« Last post by Fallenkezef on Yesterday at 06:56:06 pm »
Hey Fallenkezef - I applaud your post for its bravery :)


For me, leaning towards the "left wing" doesn't have to do with the high level philosophical debate of Justice vs Equality, or Big State vs Small State... it's more about who do I want to defend?

-I've got gay friends who couldn't get married until a few years ago
-I've got trans friends in Texas who are literally afraid to go to the bathroom in public
-Right after the election, there was a huge uptick in public racism and violence
-Education's getting more expensive and privatized
-Health care is getting more expensive and privatized
-The KKK is recruiting and expanding
-Wealth is more concentrated than ever
-The environment is falling apart


I don't see the "right wing" offering any decent response to any of the above. If they could present a better case, I'd listen. A good answer can potentially come from any group of people.

But in the US, half of the right wing seems like it's working on dismantling the government entirely, and the other half is just itchy to stick it to liberals, even if it means drilling holes in the boat we share.

British politics seems very different from US. It was the right wing government in Britain that legalised gay marriage. I do understand America is far more polarised than Europe
47
Or Kill Me / Re: Look both ways before you cross
« Last post by Fallenkezef on Yesterday at 06:53:25 pm »
Ok, right wing. I am firmly against the "welfare state" concept taken to the extreme of the British labour party. I do believe the state has an obligation to the people but it works both ways.
A system in which the able bodied are fit to work but supported by the state is abhorrent to me. I believe in national service, note I do not mean military, the able bodied should serve the state in return for support from the state.

Of course the elderly and the disabled should be supported.

I belueve in more right wing, militant geo-politics but not the reckless "democracy or bust" crap that caused all this mess in the middle east.

Kinda hard to just list right wing beliefs to be honest, could be here all day making a list without context to said belief.
48
Or Kill Me / Re: Look both ways before you cross
« Last post by Cramulus on Yesterday at 06:48:07 pm »
Hey Fallenkezef - I applaud your post for its bravery :)


For me, leaning towards the "left wing" doesn't have to do with the high level philosophical debate of Justice vs Equality, or Big State vs Small State... it's more about who do I want to defend?

-I've got gay friends who couldn't get married until a few years ago
-I've got trans friends in Texas who are literally afraid to go to the bathroom in public
-Right after the election, there was a huge uptick in public racism and violence
-Education's getting more expensive and privatized
-Health care is getting more expensive and privatized
-The KKK is recruiting and expanding
-Wealth is more concentrated than ever
-The environment is falling apart


I don't see the "right wing" offering any decent response to any of the above. If they could present a better case, I'd listen. A good answer can potentially come from any group of people.

But in the US, half of the right wing seems like it's working on dismantling the government entirely, and the other half is just itchy to stick it to liberals, even if it means drilling holes in the boat we share.
49
Or Kill Me / Re: Look both ways before you cross
« Last post by Fallenkezef on Yesterday at 06:44:02 pm »
It's a 10 hour shift in one cup of tea. I somehow read "right wing beliegs" as right wrong beliefs
50
Or Kill Me / Re: Look both ways before you cross
« Last post by LMNO on Yesterday at 06:40:16 pm »
Firstly, please forgive typos. Can't type for toffee on my phone.

Right and wrong beliefs? That's an interesting one. I have a moral framework based on my religion (Nordic paganism) and personal morality.

This leads to a mixed bag, I support equal rights and came down hard on the side of gay rights and gay marriage, I don't have any of that judeo-christian baggage. However I also favour the death penalty.

Many of my "right and wrongs" are personal. I am against abortion but as a man feel it's none of my damn business. I'd encourage a lass to seek other options but it's her own choice.

This leads to the question, how are you right wing? My right leanings tend to be more economic and geo-political than social.

My point regarding "no platforming" is the precedent set in the far left for censorship of ideas. Today it's holocaust deniers and anti-gay rights protestors. Not exactly a bad idea to be honest, however what next? The far left set the precedent that shutting down "bad" thought and speech is ok.
What happens when they come to power and become those who decide what is "bad"?

The bolded phrases lead me to think you might need to re-read my post.  I don't think I said anything to the effect of "right and wrong beliefs", and if I did make any implications about my personal principles based on my post, I have no idea how you concluded I was right wing.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 ... 10