Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Or Kill Me => Topic started by: Fallenkezef on June 27, 2017, 03:23:33 pm

Title: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Fallenkezef on June 27, 2017, 03:23:33 pm
I have a confession to make, I need to come out of the closet. I am a right wing Discordian.

Yes, as the left preaches, I am a racist, islamaphobic, hate mongering, anti-feminist rapist, fundamentalist eater of babies!

Now as you sharpen your pitch forks and prepare the gallows for me, there may arise some questions. Why a right wing Discordian? HOW can you be a right wing Discordian and what do babies taste like?

I honestly can not see how a person can reconcile the left with Discordian thought. The left destroys free will, free speech and free thinking. How do the left think and act?

Let's start with "no platforming" shall we? You don't like what someone says? Don't like that fact they dare to disagree? Sure, we'll no platform you! Freedom of speech, provided you say what we agree with. So often the left have stopped opposition voices from speaking at debates, university forums and events. they think it's cool and hip to deny ANY thought or word that does not conform with their world view.
Ok, let us look at this again, it is something that really stands out to me about the left. If you disagree with them, they will actively block you from speaking out, they will deny you freedom to express your view, freedom to think and be a certain way because it goes against what they believe. Seriously, watch these buggers in action on youtube, watch how they "no platform" people. Left wing stormtroopers enforcing "correct thought".

Don't like the result of an election or referendum? We'll riot, burn and destroy till we get what we want! We'll demand more referendums till we get the result we want and if the other side don't like it, well that's "undemocratic."

Disagree with freedom of movement? You are racist, doesn't matter your reasons, you are racist, islamaphobic scum.

Are the right much better? In extremis, no better than the left, yet we are sleepwalking into a paradigm shift that is dangerous. I am British and I look at the rise of Corbyn with horror, I look at the rise of the far left, becoming the MAINSTREAM left and wonder when the hammer will fall.

People have this black and white view of the world. Right wing bad, left wing good, make all those evil black hearted fascists into good white knights and the world becomes a better place.

The world becomes a better place when the little black and white pawns become grey!

Wake up and smell the reality, this political bullshit is a circle, you go left far enough and you end up at the same dark, ugly, brutal extreme that you end up if you go too far right.

This, THIS, is the problem we have. Everyone knows what happens if you go too far right, it's hammered into us day in and day out and it's a valid, special warning. yet the consequences of this steady march to the left are just as dark and deadly. To me, to be Discordian is not to replace the grid marked "right" with the grid marked "left", it is to remove the grids entirely.

The signs are all there, if you open your eyes and look for them. Look both ways before you cross people, cross the road looking one way is going to get us all hit by a big freaking bus.

It's chicken by the way, babies taste like chicken.

Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Vanadium Gryllz on June 27, 2017, 03:57:44 pm

I honestly can not see how a person can reconcile the left with Discordian thought. The left destroys free will, free speech and free thinking. How do the left think and act?

Let's start with "no platforming" shall we? You don't like what someone says? Don't like that fact they dare to disagree? Sure, we'll no platform you! Freedom of speech, provided you say what we agree with. So often the left have stopped opposition voices from speaking at debates, university forums and events. they think it's cool and hip to deny ANY thought or word that does not conform with their world view.
Ok, let us look at this again, it is something that really stands out to me about the left. If you disagree with them, they will actively block you from speaking out, they will deny you freedom to express your view, freedom to think and be a certain way because it goes against what they believe. Seriously, watch these buggers in action on youtube, watch how they "no platform" people. Left wing stormtroopers enforcing "correct thought".

I think conflating the population into either 'Left' or 'Right' is a dangerous game. It seems to be happening more and more (or i'm just paying more attention) and it makes dialog difficult.

Quote
Don't like the result of an election or referendum? We'll riot, burn and destroy till we get what we want! We'll demand more referendums till we get the result we want and if the other side don't like it, well that's "undemocratic."

This leads me to believe you read a lot of the right-wing press. The 'day of rage' organised after the election was laughably and predictably pathetic. People have pretty much come to terms with Brexit, whatever those terms may be.

Just as with the Right there are some elements of the Left that are more about causing chaos than furthering their political agendas. They also don't like losing. In an election where nobody wins that's a lot of losers.

Quote
Disagree with freedom of movement? You are racist, doesn't matter your reasons, you are racist, islamaphobic scum.


People can be quick to judge but I have yet to hear an argument against freedom of movement that doesn't play on fear of the other.

Quote

Are the right much better? In extremis, no better than the left, yet we are sleepwalking into a paradigm shift that is dangerous. I am British and I look at the rise of Corbyn with horror, I look at the rise of the far left, becoming the MAINSTREAM left and wonder when the hammer will fall.


Why do you fear Corbyn? I have heard many people, friends and family say this but nobody can give me that concrete of an answer. Just some sort of ambiguous "He would be bad" statement.


Quote
Wake up and smell the reality, this political bullshit is a circle, you go left far enough and you end up at the same dark, ugly, brutal extreme that you end up if you go too far right.

This, THIS, is the problem we have. Everyone knows what happens if you go too far right, it's hammered into us day in and day out and it's a valid, special warning. yet the consequences of this steady march to the left are just as dark and deadly. To me, to be Discordian is not to replace the grid marked "right" with the grid marked "left", it is to remove the grids entirely.


This I can get behind.



Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Hoopla! on June 27, 2017, 04:25:45 pm
I have a confession to make, I need to come out of the closet. I am a right wing Discordian.

Yes, as the left preaches, I am a racist, islamaphobic, hate mongering, anti-feminist rapist, fundamentalist eater of babies!

Now as you sharpen your pitch forks and prepare the gallows for me, there may arise some questions. Why a right wing Discordian? HOW can you be a right wing Discordian and what do babies taste like?

I honestly can not see how a person can reconcile the left with Discordian thought. The left destroys free will, free speech and free thinking. How do the left think and act?

Let's start with "no platforming" shall we? You don't like what someone says? Don't like that fact they dare to disagree? Sure, we'll no platform you! Freedom of speech, provided you say what we agree with. So often the left have stopped opposition voices from speaking at debates, university forums and events. they think it's cool and hip to deny ANY thought or word that does not conform with their world view.
Ok, let us look at this again, it is something that really stands out to me about the left. If you disagree with them, they will actively block you from speaking out, they will deny you freedom to express your view, freedom to think and be a certain way because it goes against what they believe. Seriously, watch these buggers in action on youtube, watch how they "no platform" people. Left wing stormtroopers enforcing "correct thought".

Don't like the result of an election or referendum? We'll riot, burn and destroy till we get what we want! We'll demand more referendums till we get the result we want and if the other side don't like it, well that's "undemocratic."

Disagree with freedom of movement? You are racist, doesn't matter your reasons, you are racist, islamaphobic scum.

Are the right much better? In extremis, no better than the left, yet we are sleepwalking into a paradigm shift that is dangerous. I am British and I look at the rise of Corbyn with horror, I look at the rise of the far left, becoming the MAINSTREAM left and wonder when the hammer will fall.

People have this black and white view of the world. Right wing bad, left wing good, make all those evil black hearted fascists into good white knights and the world becomes a better place.

The world becomes a better place when the little black and white pawns become grey!

Wake up and smell the reality, this political bullshit is a circle, you go left far enough and you end up at the same dark, ugly, brutal extreme that you end up if you go too far right.

This, THIS, is the problem we have. Everyone knows what happens if you go too far right, it's hammered into us day in and day out and it's a valid, special warning. yet the consequences of this steady march to the left are just as dark and deadly. To me, to be Discordian is not to replace the grid marked "right" with the grid marked "left", it is to remove the grids entirely.

The signs are all there, if you open your eyes and look for them. Look both ways before you cross people, cross the road looking one way is going to get us all hit by a big freaking bus.

It's chicken by the way, babies taste like chicken.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean people have to listen to you, and it certainly doesn't mean they have to give you a platform to spout your views. The only time it's censorship is when your government actively attempts to stop you from saying something, otherwise it is the "marketplace of ideas" which is rejecting your views. I used that metaphor specifically you.

Freedom of speech is also the freedom to ignore speech, or react negatively to speech. It works both ways.

And you're hilarious if you don't think the "right" shoots down ideas they don't approve of. Hilarious.

Here's how I look at it, and it's a simple view because I am a simple man... the left, for the most part, have the rights of the disenfranchised at heart. Mind you, I said "for the most part". Whereas the right, for the most part, are in it for themselves.

If that's your bag, have at it, but don't expect people to like it.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: LMNO on June 27, 2017, 05:55:29 pm
I notice the OP is discussing what could be called the framework of ideas.

Side A shuts down and taboos a certain kind of speech, rather than mandating all views be presented.

Idealistically, all views should be acknowledged, discussed, concurred, and resolved.

Where you're falling down is on the last part.  For example, should every discussion on Astrophysics also include equal time for heliocentric flat earth theory?  For every hour's lecture on molecular biology, should there also spend an hour on creationism?

Should every discussion about systemic racism feature a Pros and Cons section about why racism is bad?

Think For Yourself doesn't mean every thought must be built from the void and derived from first principles, just like a quantum equation doesn't need to start with F=ma.

Pragmatically, many - if not most - if not almost all - of the views in the marketplace of ideas are old ones.  They have been acknowledged, they have been discussed, they have been debated, conclusions have been made, and they have been resolved, one way or the other.

And Bayes' Theorem says we only need to update our priors in the presence of new information.

Since you don't state any of your own ideas or beliefs (or strong leanings, or fuzzy logic, or whatever) about things, let's take Gay Rights as a subject.

In the modern culture, homosexuality has been acknowledged for millennia.  Discussions about Homosexuality have been happening for an equal amount of time.  Typically, they fall into the Homophilic and Homophobic (in the Greek sense of the suffix) camps.

"Homosexuals are equal to Heterosexuals because..."
"Homosexuals are not equal to Heterosexuals because..."

Much of the historical argument against Homosexuality has been religious, especially once the false trappings of "civilized decency" and "morality" have been made apparent.  Science soon followed, but when examined closely, the science was also shown to be developing evidence based upon conclusions.

The Religious arguments haven't really changed in a few thousand years.  The scientific arguments have changed in the last 100 years, but they have all faced the same problem, i.e. they're not scientific arguments.  I can't conceivably think of a new, novel, untested, undebated argument against Homosexuality since probably the AIDS crisis, and that wasn't a terribly good one.

So: the idea that Homosexuals are not equal to Heterosexuals has been acknowledged, discussed, debated, and resolved (at least by Side A). 

And: No new ideas have been brought to the argument.

Meaning: Priors do not need to be updated.



The above being true, is there any reason why, for example, a Pride parade should be compelled to lend their "platform" to the Westboro Baptist Church to tell them "God Hates Fags"?




That out of the way Fallenkezef, would you mind sharing your right wing beliefs?  I only ask because your post seems to complain about left wing groups disagreeing with right wing ideas, and the examples you use unfortunately imply that you have a severe lack of compassion in your idea set, and may think certain groups of humans are not equal to others.

I would very much like to be shown the opposite.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Hoopla! on June 27, 2017, 06:20:26 pm
Yeah, what he said.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Fallenkezef on June 27, 2017, 06:33:21 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"?
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: LMNO on June 27, 2017, 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.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Fallenkezef on June 27, 2017, 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
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Cramulus on June 27, 2017, 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.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Fallenkezef on June 27, 2017, 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.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Fallenkezef on June 27, 2017, 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
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on June 27, 2017, 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.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Junkenstein on June 27, 2017, 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.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Hoopla! on June 27, 2017, 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.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: LMNO on June 27, 2017, 07:31:51 pm
Expect an invoice in the next 60 business days.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Hoopla! on June 27, 2017, 07:43:38 pm
Expect an invoice in the next 60 business days.

You accept Bitcoin, right?
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: LMNO on June 27, 2017, 07:53:24 pm
 :spag2:
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 27, 2017, 11:05:53 pm
I have a confession to make, I need to come out of the closet. I am a right wing Discordian.

I stopped right here.  I believe you.  I just don't like you.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 27, 2017, 11:08:45 pm
I am putting "1 day" into the pool before we hear Norse Boi talk about the strength of homogeneous cultures.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on June 27, 2017, 11:16:12 pm
I am putting "1 day" into the pool before we hear Norse Boi talk about the strength of homogeneous cultures.
You're being extra generous today, everything ok?
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 27, 2017, 11:20:44 pm
I am putting "1 day" into the pool before we hear Norse Boi talk about the strength of homogeneous cultures.
You're being extra generous today, everything ok?

I am full of holiday cheer.

By which I mean "half the fucking state will die in DUI wrecks on Tuesday."
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on June 27, 2017, 11:47:44 pm
I am putting "1 day" into the pool before we hear Norse Boi talk about the strength of homogeneous cultures.
You're being extra generous today, everything ok?

I am full of holiday cheer.

By which I mean "half the fucking state will die in DUI wrecks on Tuesday."

I look forward to it. Anything that might thin out the traffic in Phoenix, even a little, is a good thing.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 27, 2017, 11:55:13 pm
I am putting "1 day" into the pool before we hear Norse Boi talk about the strength of homogeneous cultures.
You're being extra generous today, everything ok?

I am full of holiday cheer.

By which I mean "half the fucking state will die in DUI wrecks on Tuesday."

I look forward to it. Anything that might thin out the traffic in Phoenix, even a little, is a good thing.

Sorry, the cops are too busy murdering brown people to clear the wrecks, and you starve to death on Camelback Road.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Fallenkezef on June 28, 2017, 12:15:28 am
This is summat that REALLY fucking annoys me. Racists, neo nazis and an assorted collection of extreme scum hijacked norse stmboligy and turned it into something it's not.

There is nothing about racial "purity" in either edda. All that aryan bullshit is the product of 30's pseudo-science to justify a political ideaology.

Norse paganism is about many different ideas, it's a poly-theistic faith that is no better or worse than any other religion. I follow it because thd old sagas and tales resonate for me. It is so tiresome to bd judged because of some skinhead fuckers who wouldn't know what Gungnir was if you bloody hit them with it.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 28, 2017, 12:19:25 am
it's a poly-theistic faith that is no better or worse than any other religion.

Balls.

:bob:
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Junkenstein on June 28, 2017, 12:21:08 am
Well when you adopt a religion that white power groups are big on, what do you expect exactly? It's not a recent thing.

So  Varg, what myths "resonate" then? Ragnarok? Hanging from trees? The merry antics of Thor? Marvel films? Do tell.

Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 28, 2017, 12:24:03 am
Well when you adopt a religion that white power groups are big on, what do you expect exactly? It's not a recent thing.

So  Varg, what myths "resonate" then? Ragnarok? Hanging from trees? The merry antics of Thor? Marvel films? Do tell.

Yeah, the thralls hanging from trees is so damn uplifting.

It's like the Norse version of Selma, Alabama.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Fallenkezef on June 28, 2017, 12:28:51 am
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.

I'm not Anerican so honestly do not know much about Republicans or Democrats.

I agree with the comments on the middle east. It goes back centuries and British Imperialism created the foundation of the current issues. The communist-western proxy wars also turned the whole damn region into a military playground.

This is one of the problems, we ignore situations that justify the use of force and aggression. A perfect example is Kosovo. Yet use force for foolish adventurism and "regime" change

Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 28, 2017, 12:33:12 am

I'm not Anerican

Oh.  Never mind.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Fallenkezef on June 28, 2017, 12:52:42 am

I'm not Anerican

Oh.  Never mind.

What is going on over there that following a nordic tradition evokes such a reaction? I'm genuinely confused here.

Got off on the wrong foot here, I've been interested in politics and Discordianism for 20 years, since I was 17. Started out as a lefty, a firebrand idealist. Used to post on a similar forum back before iron prison was put published. Got shot down allot and learned a few things.

Over the years I've grown, my views have changed and evolved. Raising a daughter and scared shitless about the future she'll inherit. Maybe my point was lost, maybe I've misunderstood some American cultural/political issues.

Main point is that some of us on the right side of this airplane care as much about free thinking and opening people's minds as those on the left and both sides have closed minded extremists to be wary of
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 28, 2017, 12:57:21 am

I'm not Anerican

Oh.  Never mind.

What is going on over there that following a nordic tradition evokes such a reaction? I'm genuinely confused here.

Got off on the wrong foot here, I've been interested in politics and Discordianism for 20 years, since I was 17. Started out as a lefty, a firebrand idealist. Used to post on a similar forum back before iron prison was put published. Got shot down allot and learned a few things.

Over the years I've grown, my views have changed and evolved. Raising a daughter and scared shitless about the future she'll inherit. Maybe my point was lost, maybe I've misunderstood some American cultural/political issues.

Main point is that some of us on the right side of this airplane care as much about free thinking and opening people's minds as those on the left and both sides have closed minded extremists to be wary of

So, you lost your nerve and went potato?  Okay.

Anyway, the right over here has no fucking interest in free thinking or any of that shit.

Theresa May isn't looking good, either.  Enjoy your Brexit, I am sure it will make everything just GREAT for your kid's future.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Fallenkezef on June 28, 2017, 01:09:08 am

I'm not Anerican

Oh.  Never mind.

What is going on over there that following a nordic tradition evokes such a reaction? I'm genuinely confused here.

Got off on the wrong foot here, I've been interested in politics and Discordianism for 20 years, since I was 17. Started out as a lefty, a firebrand idealist. Used to post on a similar forum back before iron prison was put published. Got shot down allot and learned a few things.

Over the years I've grown, my views have changed and evolved. Raising a daughter and scared shitless about the future she'll inherit. Maybe my point was lost, maybe I've misunderstood some American cultural/political issues.

Main point is that some of us on the right side of this airplane care as much about free thinking and opening people's minds as those on the left and both sides have closed minded extremists to be wary of

So, you lost your nerve and went potato?  Okay.

Anyway, the right over here has no fucking interest in free thinking or any of that shit.

Theresa May isn't looking good, either.  Enjoy your Brexit, I am sure it will make everything just GREAT for your kid's future.

I was one of the 48%. Still enough remainers in the back bench to hopefully cause enough trouble. May is an idiot but Corbyn is little better. I actualy liked him till he threw away his principles to create a manifesto to please everyone.

British politics is polarising, Labour is being taken over by the extreme left who have as little interest in free thinking as the far right and the tories dont know what the bloody hell they represent anymore.

One of the reasons I became more interested in discordianism. Everyone is nailing colours to masts, blindly following ideaologies without really knowing or questioning what they represent. Got me thinking, got me wondering if folk still give a damn. Been lurking for a while, honestly not sure if there are still folk trying to make changes or just building ivory towers of bitter salt.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 28, 2017, 01:22:22 am

I'm not Anerican

Oh.  Never mind.

What is going on over there that following a nordic tradition evokes such a reaction? I'm genuinely confused here.

Got off on the wrong foot here, I've been interested in politics and Discordianism for 20 years, since I was 17. Started out as a lefty, a firebrand idealist. Used to post on a similar forum back before iron prison was put published. Got shot down allot and learned a few things.

Over the years I've grown, my views have changed and evolved. Raising a daughter and scared shitless about the future she'll inherit. Maybe my point was lost, maybe I've misunderstood some American cultural/political issues.

Main point is that some of us on the right side of this airplane care as much about free thinking and opening people's minds as those on the left and both sides have closed minded extremists to be wary of

So, you lost your nerve and went potato?  Okay.

Anyway, the right over here has no fucking interest in free thinking or any of that shit.

Theresa May isn't looking good, either.  Enjoy your Brexit, I am sure it will make everything just GREAT for your kid's future.

I was one of the 48%. Still enough remainers in the back bench to hopefully cause enough trouble. May is an idiot but Corbyn is little better. I actualy liked him till he threw away his principles to create a manifesto to please everyone.

British politics is polarising, Labour is being taken over by the extreme left who have as little interest in free thinking as the far right and the tories dont know what the bloody hell they represent anymore.

One of the reasons I became more interested in discordianism. Everyone is nailing colours to masts, blindly following ideaologies without really knowing or questioning what they represent. Got me thinking, got me wondering if folk still give a damn. Been lurking for a while, honestly not sure if there are still folk trying to make changes or just building ivory towers of bitter salt.

So I am trying to figure out why you are on the right?  Every time someone brings up a right-wing position, you are against it.

Is there any particular thing you actually dislike about liberalism - as it actually exists in practice - or is this just one of those things where you like Richard Spencer's haircut and wish to say "kek" a lot?
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 28, 2017, 01:23:57 am
(It bears mentioning that if you decide to take a loud 3% of liberals as your model, I get to jump back on the Norse Vagr horsie again.)

:hosrie:
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Junkenstein on June 28, 2017, 01:43:22 am
And for the record, I'm in the UK and have travelled a fair bit through Europe. I've never met anyone who has an "interest in nordic paganism" who hasn't turned out to be an utter cretin.


Also for the record, I am in no way responsible for this one and I resent any insinuations to the contrary.

Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 28, 2017, 02:03:59 am
And for the record, I'm in the UK and have travelled a fair bit through Europe. I've never met anyone who has an "interest in nordic paganism" who hasn't turned out to be an utter cretin.


Also for the record, I am in no way responsible for this one and I resent any insinuations to the contrary.

He's next to London, not Manchester, so you're provisionally off the hook...

...Um.  WAIT.

:tgrr:
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Ben Shapiro on June 28, 2017, 03:23:24 am
Mayan/Aztec Paganism > Nordic anything.

You cucks drank fermented honey we drank fermented children's blood with chocolate, and chili powder.

OP is into SCAT, or Indian food lost it's thrill to him.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Hoopla! on June 28, 2017, 05:06:02 am
Mayan/Aztec Paganism > Nordic anything.

You cucks drank fermented honey we drank fermented children's blood with chocolate, and chili powder.

OP is into SCAT, or Indian food lost it's thrill to him.

I love scat. Jon Hendricks is where it's at.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Fallenkezef on June 28, 2017, 05:08:09 am
And for the record, I'm in the UK and have travelled a fair bit through Europe. I've never met anyone who has an "interest in nordic paganism" who hasn't turned out to be an utter cretin.


Also for the record, I am in no way responsible for this one and I resent any insinuations to the contrary.

Sadly, that is too often the case. Tend to stay away from the "Asatru" types due to this. Either they end up as fluffy bunny wiccans or heavy metal fucktards.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 28, 2017, 05:17:08 am

I'm not Anerican

Oh.  Never mind.

What is going on over there that following a nordic tradition evokes such a reaction? I'm genuinely confused here.

Got off on the wrong foot here, I've been interested in politics and Discordianism for 20 years, since I was 17. Started out as a lefty, a firebrand idealist. Used to post on a similar forum back before iron prison was put published. Got shot down allot and learned a few things.

Over the years I've grown, my views have changed and evolved. Raising a daughter and scared shitless about the future she'll inherit. Maybe my point was lost, maybe I've misunderstood some American cultural/political issues.

Main point is that some of us on the right side of this airplane care as much about free thinking and opening people's minds as those on the left and both sides have closed minded extremists to be wary of

So, you lost your nerve and went potato?  Okay.

Anyway, the right over here has no fucking interest in free thinking or any of that shit.

Theresa May isn't looking good, either.  Enjoy your Brexit, I am sure it will make everything just GREAT for your kid's future.

I was one of the 48%. Still enough remainers in the back bench to hopefully cause enough trouble. May is an idiot but Corbyn is little better. I actualy liked him till he threw away his principles to create a manifesto to please everyone.

British politics is polarising, Labour is being taken over by the extreme left who have as little interest in free thinking as the far right and the tories dont know what the bloody hell they represent anymore.

One of the reasons I became more interested in discordianism. Everyone is nailing colours to masts, blindly following ideaologies without really knowing or questioning what they represent. Got me thinking, got me wondering if folk still give a damn. Been lurking for a while, honestly not sure if there are still folk trying to make changes or just building ivory towers of bitter salt.

So I am trying to figure out why you are on the right?  Every time someone brings up a right-wing position, you are against it.

Is there any particular thing you actually dislike about liberalism - as it actually exists in practice - or is this just one of those things where you like Richard Spencer's haircut and wish to say "kek" a lot?

 :jihaad:
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Fallenkezef on June 28, 2017, 07:22:10 am
I'm less against liberalism than I am against British socialism and the rise of the extreme left. A few years ago I'd be considered centrist, these days if you are not a Corbynite you are considered right of Hitler.

In failing to recognise this was a mostly American forum and the different political situation it appears I have rather fucked up and my point has been lost. Live and learn I guess
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Hoopla! on June 28, 2017, 01:11:41 pm
I'm less against liberalism than I am against British socialism and the rise of the extreme left. A few years ago I'd be considered centrist, these days if you are not a Corbynite you are considered right of Hitler.

In failing to recognise this was a mostly American forum and the different political situation it appears I have rather fucked up and my point has been lost. Live and learn I guess

Judging any group by its extremists is sort of a losing game.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on June 28, 2017, 02:29:26 pm
I love Corbyn! Prick is a f'kin werewolf in sheep's clothing. Have a look at his appearances before and after the election. From mumbling history teacher to cocky demagogue in the space of a week. Flushed with success. Tripping on a sudden hit of power that spineless little wankers like that are in no way equipped to handle. In years to come that Glastonbury address could go down as the UK's Nuremberg Rally. There's a monster ready to eat this country and send us into civil war. Serious fun and profit up for grabs. Watch this space.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Fallenkezef on June 28, 2017, 02:31:00 pm
I'm less against liberalism than I am against British socialism and the rise of the extreme left. A few years ago I'd be considered centrist, these days if you are not a Corbynite you are considered right of Hitler.

In failing to recognise this was a mostly American forum and the different political situation it appears I have rather fucked up and my point has been lost. Live and learn I guess

Judging any group by its extremists is sort of a losing game.

It's not about judging by the extremists, it's the bloody extremists taking control. Labour swung from left wing-lite under Blair to extremists holding the reigns. Corbyn doesn't control the unions and far left, they control him.

Any political system requires a balance of left and right, our system is supposed to work along that frame work. Within the parties themselves you have checks and balances. Corbyn was an example of this, a well known rebel within his party as a balance to the centrists.

The balance is out of whack. The tories are at war with each other and the Labour party list any chance of reigning in Corbyn.

I'm not against the left, just because my political spectrum is right doesnt mean I can't respect and understand the importance of the other side of the political spectrum. However the far left is as dangerous as the far right and many are blindly walking into that on little better ideaology than "right bad, left good"

Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: LMNO on June 28, 2017, 04:56:34 pm
In my estimation, the core principle of conservatives is to maintain status quo.

Also in my estimation, the status quo consists of rigid hierarchical power structures, economic inequality, systemic racism, and class inequity.

Therefore, I believe much of conservative thought is designed for the ruling class (the Haves) to hold on to their power over the rest of society (the Have Nots).

A "balance of left and right" (i.e. a balance of conservative and liberal thought) is to agree that the (ine)qualities of the status quo should be at least partially maintained.

At least, that's what my radical progressive mind daydreams about.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on June 28, 2017, 05:14:21 pm
I like how "the extreme leftists are taking control" is a statement that's taken seriously despite the fact that the UK just voted itself out of the EU in a fit of xenophobic ignorance, their prime minister just made a governing deal with a party that would make the KKK blush, and race- and religion-based violence in Britain has spiked 1000% in the last year. Where is all this "extreme left in control" stuff? And that's just the UK. We hear the same shit in America despite the fact that we just elected an autocratic blowhard who surrounds himself with Nazi wankers, Congress is currently debating whether it should fuck all Americans out of safety nets or just most of us, states all over the place are passing laws encouraging discrimination against LGBTQ+ people, and the police have more or less free reign to murder anyone who is sufficiently black with or without cause. And yet, somehow, "the extreme left" is in control.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: LMNO on June 28, 2017, 05:15:37 pm
Well said.

May I yoink?

Also, Big Words?
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Fallenkezef on June 28, 2017, 07:29:15 pm
In my estimation, the core principle of conservatives is to maintain status quo.

Also in my estimation, the status quo consists of rigid hierarchical power structures, economic inequality, systemic racism, and class inequity.

Therefore, I believe much of conservative thought is designed for the ruling class (the Haves) to hold on to their power over the rest of society (the Have Nots).

A "balance of left and right" (i.e. a balance of conservative and liberal thought) is to agree that the (ine)qualities of the status quo should be at least partially maintained.

At least, that's what my radical progressive mind daydreams about.

I can understand your pespective.

The problem is the assumption that the victory of the left is the victory of the "have nots" over the "haves."

In fact, in the political sense, the left and right are simply two groups of "haves" fighting over who gets to control the "have nots". When you look at political history, at least from the British perspective, it doesn't really matter who is in power. Either way you have an elite who abuse the position of power to control the rest of society.

When you get an equal balance of power, such as when you have a hung parliment, THAT is when social change can occur, THAT is when the "haves" are too weak to maintain full control and fulfill their agenda.

An example is the recent Tory/Lib Dem coalition that resulted in the legalisation of gay marriage. A Tory or Labour majority would never pass such a law. The weakness of the coalition government allowed an act of real social change to occur.

The threat of a strong Labour government, controlled by the extreme left is just another set of chains upon the British people as one elite replaces the other.

I must reject the concept that any one political ideaology is superior to the other. Yes I support a more right wing viewpoint but I am not foolish enough to want it to be dominant.

I see the current situation of a weak government holding onto a majority by a thread as a welcome opportunity for the REAL changes to be made as the government becomes so desperate to maintain control that they will allow social changes to happen to keep back bench rebels happy.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: LMNO on June 28, 2017, 07:35:32 pm
Ah.  It sounds like you have a problem with people rather than ideas.

Humans are not concepts.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Fallenkezef on June 28, 2017, 07:36:36 pm
I like how "the extreme leftists are taking control" is a statement that's taken seriously despite the fact that the UK just voted itself out of the EU in a fit of xenophobic ignorance, their prime minister just made a governing deal with a party that would make the KKK blush, and race- and religion-based violence in Britain has spiked 1000% in the last year. Where is all this "extreme left in control" stuff? And that's just the UK. We hear the same shit in America despite the fact that we just elected an autocratic blowhard who surrounds himself with Nazi wankers, Congress is currently debating whether it should fuck all Americans out of safety nets or just most of us, states all over the place are passing laws encouraging discrimination against LGBTQ+ people, and the police have more or less free reign to murder anyone who is sufficiently black with or without cause. And yet, somehow, "the extreme left" is in control.

You make the assumption that brexit is based on xenophobia. While I voted remain I looked at all the arguments and there where many compelling economic and political reasons for both sides.

The remain campaign of labeling all "leavers" as closet racists also backfired as many in this country resented being accused of racism just for supporting brexit.

Brexit was NOT a left-right issue. Jeremy Corbyn, you may know him as the guy in charge of the LEFT wing labour party, was a supporter of LEAVING the EU.

This is the problem with polarisation, you just make the perfect example. You just assume it's left-right and therefore Brexit is a racist, right wing decision.

The country was split evenly, 48% to 52% with leavers and remainers in BOTH political parties and a public who voted NOT on traditional political lines. Many labour strongholds voted for leave while still voting labour.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Fallenkezef on June 28, 2017, 07:38:38 pm
Ah.  It sounds like you have a problem with people rather than ideas.

Humans are not concepts.

Concepts are just tools, double edged swords.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: LMNO on June 28, 2017, 07:42:27 pm
People do not adhere to their assumptive labels.

Your move.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Fallenkezef on June 28, 2017, 07:44:58 pm
People do not adhere to their assumptive labels.

Your move.

Therefore "left" and "right" as good-bad absolutes are false assumptions.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: LMNO on June 28, 2017, 07:48:33 pm
Nope.

Check again.  The ideas behind left and right are attitudes and assumptions about how society and people should be treated.

The politicians may aim towards the goals of left and right, but are imperfect.

Also, the strategies suggested by the left and right may or may not achieve the goals.

The attitudes and assumptions that define the left and right, however, usually do not.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Fallenkezef on June 28, 2017, 07:57:40 pm
Nope.

Check again.  The ideas behind left and right are attitudes and assumptions about how society and people should be treated.

The politicians may aim towards the goals of left and right, but are imperfect.

Also, the strategies suggested by the left and right may or may not achieve the goals.

The attitudes and assumptions that define the left and right, however, usually do not.

I think we have perhaps reached a fundamental difference of opinion.

Now, please correct me if I get the wrong impression, you appear to have a view that "left" and "right" are good-bad concepts.
You assign the left as a "good" thing and the "right" as a bad thing, therefore it can be concluded you believe the left should succeed over the right.

That is what I am understanding from your posts.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Hoopla! on June 28, 2017, 08:00:56 pm
Nope.

Check again.  The ideas behind left and right are attitudes and assumptions about how society and people should be treated.

The politicians may aim towards the goals of left and right, but are imperfect.

Also, the strategies suggested by the left and right may or may not achieve the goals.

The attitudes and assumptions that define the left and right, however, usually do not.

I think we have perhaps reached a fundamental difference of opinion.

Now, please correct me if I get the wrong impression, you appear to have a view that "left" and "right" are good-bad concepts.
You assign the left as a "good" thing and the "right" as a bad thing, therefore it can be concluded you believe the left should succeed over the right.

That is what I am understanding from your posts.

I'm not as familiar with UK politics, but when one side is actively trying to deny basic human rights to large chunks of the population its a little difficult to conceptualize one side not being "bad". Do you disagree that helping people is a good concept?
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Fallenkezef on June 28, 2017, 08:03:14 pm
Nope.

Check again.  The ideas behind left and right are attitudes and assumptions about how society and people should be treated.

The politicians may aim towards the goals of left and right, but are imperfect.

Also, the strategies suggested by the left and right may or may not achieve the goals.

The attitudes and assumptions that define the left and right, however, usually do not.

I think we have perhaps reached a fundamental difference of opinion.

Now, please correct me if I get the wrong impression, you appear to have a view that "left" and "right" are good-bad concepts.
You assign the left as a "good" thing and the "right" as a bad thing, therefore it can be concluded you believe the left should succeed over the right.

That is what I am understanding from your posts.

I'm not as familiar with UK politics, but when one side is actively trying to deny basic human rights to large chunks of the population its a little difficult to conceptualize one side not being "bad". Do you disagree that helping people is a good concept?

Ok, let's clarify this. What do you mean by denying basic human rights? Are you refering to the DUP? Or something else?
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Fallenkezef on June 28, 2017, 08:08:45 pm
I'm going to paint a target on myself here, helping people is a very grey statement.

There is helping people only to harm them. I'm not talking about the trite "better to give them a net than a fish".

I'll take my opposition to the welfare state, the left would say "you don't want to help people you evil capitalist pig!". I'd say, is it really helping someone by making them dependent on the state?

Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Hoopla! on June 28, 2017, 08:09:20 pm
Nope.

Check again.  The ideas behind left and right are attitudes and assumptions about how society and people should be treated.

The politicians may aim towards the goals of left and right, but are imperfect.

Also, the strategies suggested by the left and right may or may not achieve the goals.

The attitudes and assumptions that define the left and right, however, usually do not.

I think we have perhaps reached a fundamental difference of opinion.

Now, please correct me if I get the wrong impression, you appear to have a view that "left" and "right" are good-bad concepts.
You assign the left as a "good" thing and the "right" as a bad thing, therefore it can be concluded you believe the left should succeed over the right.

That is what I am understanding from your posts.

I'm not as familiar with UK politics, but when one side is actively trying to deny basic human rights to large chunks of the population its a little difficult to conceptualize one side not being "bad". Do you disagree that helping people is a good concept?

Ok, let's clarify this. What do you mean by denying basic human rights? Are you refering to the DUP? Or something else?

Health Care. LGBTQ rights. Right to a woman being able to get an abortion in places other than dark alleys. I could go on, but that's a good start.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Hoopla! on June 28, 2017, 08:11:38 pm
I'm going to paint a target on myself here, helping people is a very grey statement.

There is helping people only to harm them. I'm not talking about the trite "better to give them a net than a fish".

I'll take my opposition to the welfare state, the left would say "you don't want to help people you evil capitalist pig!". I'd say, is it really helping someone by making them dependent on the state?

The state's job is to protect its people. That includes protecting them from poverty.

Are you really concerned with these people being dependent on the state, or do you simply consider them parasites?

Say what you will about Ayn Rand, but at least she was honest about how she viewed people she despised.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Fallenkezef on June 28, 2017, 08:24:46 pm
Nope.

Check again.  The ideas behind left and right are attitudes and assumptions about how society and people should be treated.

The politicians may aim towards the goals of left and right, but are imperfect.

Also, the strategies suggested by the left and right may or may not achieve the goals.

The attitudes and assumptions that define the left and right, however, usually do not.

I think we have perhaps reached a fundamental difference of opinion.

Now, please correct me if I get the wrong impression, you appear to have a view that "left" and "right" are good-bad concepts.
You assign the left as a "good" thing and the "right" as a bad thing, therefore it can be concluded you believe the left should succeed over the right.

That is what I am understanding from your posts.

I'm not as familiar with UK politics, but when one side is actively trying to deny basic human rights to large chunks of the population its a little difficult to conceptualize one side not being "bad". Do you disagree that helping people is a good concept?

Ok, let's clarify this. What do you mean by denying basic human rights? Are you refering to the DUP? Or something else?

Health Care. LGBTQ rights. Right to a woman being able to get an abortion in places other than dark alleys. I could go on, but that's a good start.

Ok, the conservative government (right wing) legalised gay marriage in the UK in 2014 and the rights of married gay couples. For instance a gay couple in the armed forces have the same rights and have access to married quarters.
The UK is regarded as the most supportive European country of LGBT rights.

Women's abortion rights are protected in the UK up to 24 weeks and after 24 weeks in several circumstances.

Now, compare this with just 70 years ago when gay men where chemicly castrated.

Now allot of people are making hay about the Tories aligning with the DUP without understanding context.

Northern Ireland is an EXTREMELY religous society chained by judeo-christian ideology. There is no left-right politics there, it's catholic-protestant, republican-loyalist. It is extreme and polarised to an extent unseen in other parts of the UK.
It's taken the daft buggers years to stop shooting at each other (openly)

The Tories did a deal with the DUP to get the ten votes they need, however there was no deal to implement Northern Irish policies (other than not allowing Northern Irish women to have abortions in the rest of the UK on the NHS). To do so would end the Tory government as the back benchers would rebel and sink the whole deal.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Fallenkezef on June 28, 2017, 08:31:16 pm
I'm going to paint a target on myself here, helping people is a very grey statement.

There is helping people only to harm them. I'm not talking about the trite "better to give them a net than a fish".

I'll take my opposition to the welfare state, the left would say "you don't want to help people you evil capitalist pig!". I'd say, is it really helping someone by making them dependent on the state?

The state's job is to protect its people. That includes protecting them from poverty.

Are you really concerned with these people being dependent on the state, or do you simply consider them parasites?

Say what you will about Ayn Rand, but at least she was honest about how she viewed people she despised.

I AM concerned about them being dependent on the state.

It's not about the usual left-right crap "they are parasites spending my hard earned tax money."

The more people who work and put into the economy means the more money available to the state to INVEST into the nation and support the people. Loom at the NHS, it works best when the most people able to work do so and pay national insurance out of their wages into the NHS.

It's not rocket science, more able-bodied people being supported by the state means less money for the state to support the people who REALLY need that support.

Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: LMNO on June 28, 2017, 08:44:28 pm
Might you be mistaking "an individual working" with "GDP productivity"? 

Or possibly mistaking "a dearth of available, well-paying jobs" with the tenets of basic capitalistic theory?
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Fallenkezef on June 28, 2017, 08:55:41 pm
Might you be mistaking "an individual working" with "GDP productivity"? 

Or possibly mistaking "a dearth of available, well-paying jobs" with the tenets of basic capitalistic theory?

No, I'm not one of those narrow minded idiots you see reading the mail who think the unemployed get handed a 10 room mansion.

I was unemployed, spent a year on the dole trying to find work, taught me allot about myself. I could of found work allot sooner but held on for a job that matched my skills and preferences.

Spent a long time thinking about that. Was i selfish for not taking the first job I could get? Did i contribute to the problem or did I make the right choice holding out for a job that matched my skillset and thus securing long term employment?

I've seen both sides of the welfare state in action and have some personal bias. My partner's ex hasn't worked for three years because he prefers NOT to work, hasn't paid a penny to support his daughter and has openly admitted that one of the reasons he doesn't work is because he doesn't want the CSA to take his money.

My mother is on disability and got screwed over by the changes to that benefit, took a long time to appeal and get her the help she needs. I have a lingering anger for mr Hunt due to that.

The system needs to work both ways, an obligation to provide work. Which is why I favour a national service model.

Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Hoopla! on June 28, 2017, 09:00:11 pm
Sorry, this is off topic, but it's driving me nuts. You mean "a lot", not "allot".

Carry on.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Fallenkezef on June 28, 2017, 09:02:26 pm
Sorry, this is off topic, but it's driving me nuts. You mean "a lot", not "allot".

Carry on.

Could be worse, I'm a manc by birth and the missus is from London. She literaly slaps me for the way I pronounce words like bath and book. Drives her up the wall.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on June 28, 2017, 09:14:18 pm
Well said.

May I yoink?

Also, Big Words?

yoink freely, and this is available for Big Words if that's a thing someone wants to do.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on June 28, 2017, 09:31:22 pm
Like I said a few pages ago, the contrived outrage at "able-bodied" people being "dependent" on government handouts is poppycock. Nobody actually wants to live that way, especially when more than half of society spits and curses at them and calls them useless bums. But just saying "oh, those people ought to be working" when there is no labor they could be doing that would make a bit of difference as far as "society" as concerned, is empty pseudo-moralistic bloviating. If they don't have the skills necessary to be "productive" in a meaningful way, then pushing them into busywork just to make them "earn" their existence is stupid.

I don't know how the welfare state works in the UK, but in America, there are reasons why generations of people fall into state-assisted subsistence. We (generally) find ways to keep them from starving to death, but we are so psychotic about it that as soon as people on welfare make a move toward self-sustainability, we pull the welfare rug out from under them and ruin their chances.

For example, if a single mother who receives SSI and food stamps gets a part-time job in order to pay for school to learn a valuable skill and thereby earn her way off of welfare, the money she earns at that job immediately counts against her eligibility for SSI and food stamps, and she has to use it to survive rather than pay for an education. She's effectively forced by our welfare system to remain on welfare forever.

Any argument that makes a big deal over poor people "getting free money for nothing" is an exercise in abject ignorance of the way economies work. People who work for a pittance and barely survive are worse for an economy than people who receive supplemental income from the stat because their labor is entirely spent on survival. Their existence cancels out any contribution they make to GDP because they themselves are consuming every scrap of earnings coming from their labor. Welfare payments, on the other hand, allow such people to consume a more or less equal amount of excess GDP for survival but they can still direct their labor toward becoming a more valuable worker, or an entrepreneur, who can -- eventually -- generate more value in the market than they have consumed through welfare.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Fallenkezef on June 28, 2017, 10:05:11 pm
Like I said a few pages ago, the contrived outrage at "able-bodied" people being "dependent" on government handouts is poppycock. Nobody actually wants to live that way, especially when more than half of society spits and curses at them and calls them useless bums. But just saying "oh, those people ought to be working" when there is no labor they could be doing that would make a bit of difference as far as "society" as concerned, is empty pseudo-moralistic bloviating. If they don't have the skills necessary to be "productive" in a meaningful way, then pushing them into busywork just to make them "earn" their existence is stupid.

I don't know how the welfare state works in the UK, but in America, there are reasons why generations of people fall into state-assisted subsistence. We (generally) find ways to keep them from starving to death, but we are so psychotic about it that as soon as people on welfare make a move toward self-sustainability, we pull the welfare rug out from under them and ruin their chances.

For example, if a single mother who receives SSI and food stamps gets a part-time job in order to pay for school to learn a valuable skill and thereby earn her way off of welfare, the money she earns at that job immediately counts against her eligibility for SSI and food stamps, and she has to use it to survive rather than pay for an education. She's effectively forced by our welfare system to remain on welfare forever.

Any argument that makes a big deal over poor people "getting free money for nothing" is an exercise in abject ignorance of the way economies work. People who work for a pittance and barely survive are worse for an economy than people who receive supplemental income from the stat because their labor is entirely spent on survival. Their existence cancels out any contribution they make to GDP because they themselves are consuming every scrap of earnings coming from their labor. Welfare payments, on the other hand, allow such people to consume a more or less equal amount of excess GDP for survival but they can still direct their labor toward becoming a more valuable worker, or an entrepreneur, who can -- eventually -- generate more value in the market than they have consumed through welfare.

I'm seeing many examples of some fundamental differences in the US and UK. Some things are similar.

One of the women I work with is on part time. She WANTS to work, wants to set an example for her son but if she works more than 12 hours a week she loses her housing benefit but the extra hours she works do not meet the housing benefit she loses. Effectively she is trapped working part time.

I'm not oblivious, the welfare system needs substantial reform so that the right people get the right help.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Hoopla! on June 28, 2017, 10:18:37 pm
What are the right wing views you agree with?
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Cramulus on June 28, 2017, 10:19:12 pm
just a quick note - I am enjoying this thread proportionally to how it's NOT turning into tribal name calling and shit flinging  :p


I've seen both sides of the welfare state in action and have some personal bias. My partner's ex hasn't worked for three years because he prefers NOT to work, hasn't paid a penny to support his daughter and has openly admitted that one of the reasons he doesn't work is because he doesn't want the CSA to take his money.

My mother is on disability and got screwed over by the changes to that benefit, took a long time to appeal and get her the help she needs. I have a lingering anger for mr Hunt due to that.

It's a given that all systems like this will have some "abusers".

But most of the people receiving unemployment benefits aren't like that. Most of them want to get back to work ASAP. The safety net exists so they aren't forced into homelessness or crime while they look for work.

Isn't it worth a few people getting a "free ride" in order to keep a ton of people out of the poverty trap?



The system needs to work both ways, an obligation to provide work. Which is why I favour a national service model.

Hunting for a job is a full time job. Wouldn't people get off welfare faster if they actually had time to job hunt and educate themselves?


Also
I feel like the state could keep people nursing on its teat forever if it was getting all this sweet low-cost labor. If people's service is valuable, then what's the state's incentive to get them off it?

Also
There are countries with no welfare or unemployment benefits.. What happens there, when you lose your job? What happens to the poverty rate and wealth concentration over time?


Also
if you're fiscally conservative, how do you feel about the measurable economic impact of the safety net?


            Source: US Department of Labor (https://www.dol.gov/dol/maps/euc/euc.htm)


This is why welfare was invented by conservatives.

Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 28, 2017, 10:59:03 pm
I'm less against liberalism than I am against British socialism and the rise of the extreme left.


So you are against poor people getting medical care?  Or living under roofs?

Quote
A few years ago I'd be considered centrist, these days if you are not a Corbynite you are considered right of Hitler.

SWEET JESUS, QUIT YOUR FUCKING WHINGING.

Quote
In failing to recognise this was a mostly American forum and the different political situation it appears I have rather fucked up and my point has been lost. Live and learn I guess

Nobody involved in running this board is an American.  There's a Canuck (who happens to be stuck in Arizona), an Irishman, an Australian (stuck in England), and some kind of Belgian freak that never comes around anymore.

Of course, there's LMNO, who "lives" in the Boston area, but he never hits the mod button.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 28, 2017, 11:01:45 pm

It's not rocket science, more able-bodied people being supported by the state means less money for the state to support the people who REALLY need that support.

The perhaps you should ask industrialists to please stop sending jobs to Malaysia.  Or maybe put a few of them up against the wall, pour encourager les autres.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 28, 2017, 11:02:36 pm


You make the assumption that brexit is based on xenophobia.

 :lulz:

This fucking thread.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Junkenstein on June 29, 2017, 12:06:12 am


You make the assumption that brexit is based on xenophobia.

 :lulz:

This fucking thread.

I've spent 6 hours threatening to feed various people into a conveyor belt. Gods, I needed a laugh like this thread is providing.

If you think I may be laughing at you, I assure you, I probably am.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: LMNO on June 29, 2017, 12:12:45 am

Of course, there's LMNO, who "lives" in the Boston area, but he never hits the mod button.

Consider me a Historical Object Lesson. Them that knows what I did, know.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Chucklemaster on June 29, 2017, 12:36:30 am
GDP is useless anyway.
also, this entire thread  :lulz:
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Hoopla! on June 29, 2017, 12:46:34 am


You make the assumption that brexit is based on xenophobia.

 :lulz:

This fucking thread.

I've spent 6 hours threatening to feed various people into a conveyor belt. Gods, I needed a laugh like this thread is providing.

If you think I may be laughing at you, I assure you, I probably am.

Gulp!
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 29, 2017, 12:50:43 am


You make the assumption that brexit is based on xenophobia.

 :lulz:

This fucking thread.

I've spent 6 hours threatening to feed various people into a conveyor belt. Gods, I needed a laugh like this thread is providing.

If you think I may be laughing at you, I assure you, I probably am.

I mean, for fucking real?  Brexit could be argued to not be inherently racist (which, yanno   :lulz: ), but it is by definition xenophobic.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 29, 2017, 12:51:50 am

Of course, there's LMNO, who "lives" in the Boston area, but he never hits the mod button.

Consider me a Historical Object Lesson. Them that knows what I did, know.

Your evil isn't ancient enough.  I have left instructions for my great-grand kiddies to tell the story of what you done.

Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 29, 2017, 12:54:38 am
GDP is useless anyway.
also, this entire thread  :lulz:

GDP/GNP/Average income are all just metrics to distinguish the wealthy from the peons.

Seriously, the median yearly wage in the USA is $65,751, but the mode wage is $18,500.  Which means the rich are really, really fucking raking it in.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Junkenstein on June 29, 2017, 12:58:11 am


You make the assumption that brexit is based on xenophobia.

 :lulz:

This fucking thread.

I've spent 6 hours threatening to feed various people into a conveyor belt. Gods, I needed a laugh like this thread is providing.

If you think I may be laughing at you, I assure you, I probably am.

Gulp!

Rest easy, citizen. I'm laughing with you.

Total number of people in this thread I'm laughing at - 1.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: LMNO on June 29, 2017, 03:30:30 am

Of course, there's LMNO, who "lives" in the Boston area, but he never hits the mod button.

Consider me a Historical Object Lesson. Them that knows what I did, know.

Your evil isn't ancient enough.  I have left instructions for my great-grand kiddies to tell the story of what you done.

YOU UTTER ROTTEN BASTARD
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 29, 2017, 04:04:26 am

Of course, there's LMNO, who "lives" in the Boston area, but he never hits the mod button.

Consider me a Historical Object Lesson. Them that knows what I did, know.

Your evil isn't ancient enough.  I have left instructions for my great-grand kiddies to tell the story of what you done.

YOU UTTER ROTTEN BASTARD

Evil is only really fun if it's got an inch of dust on it.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Fallenkezef on June 29, 2017, 02:11:03 pm
Allot, sorry, a lot of food for thouggt here. Set down and did some homework on American politics, can understand some of the vitriol.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on June 29, 2017, 05:52:53 pm
Yeah shit is fuckin awful here right now.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Chelagoras The Boulder on June 29, 2017, 05:57:01 pm
It really is.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: MMIX on June 29, 2017, 09:19:02 pm
Yeah shit is fuckin awful here right now.

Its pretty shit over this side of the pond too. In no small measure because of the staggering political ignorance of the vast majority of the electorate.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 29, 2017, 11:27:54 pm
Quote
Disagree with freedom of movement? You are racist, doesn't matter your reasons, you are racist, islamaphobic scum.


People can be quick to judge but I have yet to hear an argument against freedom of movement that doesn't play on fear of the other.

What about cheapness? A lot of people pretty openly also seem to be worried that immigrants will benefit from social welfare programs, the cost of which might possibly cause people's taxes to go up a penny
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Vanadium Gryllz on June 30, 2017, 09:01:03 am
Quote
Disagree with freedom of movement? You are racist, doesn't matter your reasons, you are racist, islamaphobic scum.


People can be quick to judge but I have yet to hear an argument against freedom of movement that doesn't play on fear of the other.

What about cheapness? A lot of people pretty openly also seem to be worried that immigrants will benefit from social welfare programs, the cost of which might possibly cause people's taxes to go up a penny

So the immigrants that aren't coming over to steal our jobs are coming over to shit up our social welfare? Still seems based in fear rather than empathy.

I don't know the numbers re how many immigrants end up on welfare vs. in paid work though.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on June 30, 2017, 09:17:17 am
Quote
Disagree with freedom of movement? You are racist, doesn't matter your reasons, you are racist, islamaphobic scum.


People can be quick to judge but I have yet to hear an argument against freedom of movement that doesn't play on fear of the other.

What about cheapness? A lot of people pretty openly also seem to be worried that immigrants will benefit from social welfare programs, the cost of which might possibly cause people's taxes to go up a penny

So the immigrants that aren't coming over to steal our jobs are coming over to shit up our social welfare? Still seems based in fear rather than empathy.


Weel, duh! Fear is how the drones are programmed. Brainwashing by empathy doesn't pack the same punch. Brexit had a large racism contingent, yeah but the majority were just shit scared a terrorist was going to sneak through the channel tunnel and kill them in their sleep. The left served this agenda admirably by screeching "Nazi" at them, in that whiny, sanctimonious voice the left are famous for, thus alienating any swing voters and sealing the deal.

Pretty much the same way the left gifted the US election to Trump. :lulz:
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on June 30, 2017, 03:17:30 pm
Worrying about immigrants draining the welfare half of us don't even want to give to natives is sort of a silly argument anyway. It's always a shallow argument, like trying to outlaw abortion "because murder" while also doing your best to make life hell for the resulting children.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 30, 2017, 03:37:46 pm
Quote
Disagree with freedom of movement? You are racist, doesn't matter your reasons, you are racist, islamaphobic scum.


People can be quick to judge but I have yet to hear an argument against freedom of movement that doesn't play on fear of the other.

What about cheapness? A lot of people pretty openly also seem to be worried that immigrants will benefit from social welfare programs, the cost of which might possibly cause people's taxes to go up a penny

So the immigrants that aren't coming over to steal our jobs are coming over to shit up our social welfare? Still seems based in fear rather than empathy.

Still not based in empathy but I never said it was. I merely said that it's not xenophobia, it's just being cheap. There's an implication with many that they don't want their taxes going to this sort of thing at all, even as concerns people who are already here and were born here
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 30, 2017, 03:47:10 pm
Worrying about immigrants draining the welfare half of us don't even want to give to natives is sort of a silly argument anyway. It's always a shallow argument, like trying to outlaw abortion "because murder" while also doing your best to make life hell for the resulting children.

Existence is categorically better than non existence. It's better to be a living worm than a dead lion.

(The problem with the standard Christian pro-lifer that makes their point nonsensical is that they don't believe that they don't believe in non-existence. They believe that the soul is present from conception, making the entire matter a non-issue)
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Vanadium Gryllz on June 30, 2017, 03:48:47 pm
Are poor people/welfare recipients just another form of outsider?


Existence is categorically better than non existence.


 :cn:
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 30, 2017, 04:05:00 pm
Are poor people/welfare recipients just another form of outsider?

Actually I heard a lot of Republicans are stereotypically poor rednecks (though I forget what the source was on that, so take it with a grain of salt)
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 30, 2017, 04:18:21 pm
Also, can we talk about Islam? All the Abrahamic religions are religions of hate! That's what Abrahamic religion is about! Islam is not an exception! I understand that most actual Muslims are good people, but like Christians and Jews they're good despite their religion, not because of it. They're good because they ignore 90% of what the book has to say just like your everyday Christians and Jews who ignore most of the bible. Why is it ok to shit on Christianity but not on Islam? How is the bible belt worse than the middle east? The bible belt is phenomenally horrendously shitty, but the middle east is shit, and in a perfect world they would both disappear. I get that sometimes it's fundie christians saying it and that they really ought to remove the beam from their own eye first, but it's still accurate.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on June 30, 2017, 05:18:24 pm
Also, can we talk about Islam? All the Abrahamic religions are religions of hate! That's what Abrahamic religion is about! Islam is not an exception! I understand that most actual Muslims are good people, but like Christians and Jews they're good despite their religion, not because of it. They're good because they ignore 90% of what the book has to say just like your everyday Christians and Jews who ignore most of the bible. Why is it ok to shit on Christianity but not on Islam? How is the bible belt worse than the middle east? The bible belt is phenomenally horrendously shitty, but the middle east is shit, and in a perfect world they would both disappear. I get that sometimes it's fundie christians saying it and that they really ought to remove the beam from their own eye first, but it's still accurate.

Centering your argument around religion is the problem. There is no possible future where humanity has completely abandoned ridiculous superstition, so it's only prudent to treat religion as a given. Rather than complain that Christians/Jews/Muslims adhere to a violent and hateful religion, we should emphasize the (many) exceptions to that rule as the enlightened/civilized way to practice those religions. Attacking Islam itself grants sanctuary, however limited or momentary, to the Christian bigot who thinks Islam is a religion of hate and violence. The same goes for attacking Christianity and Judaism. What we should be doing, in my opinion, is to loudly recognize that the source of strife in these areas is not really the religion, but the extremist interpretations of the religion used by political and economic powers for decidedly un-religious purposes.

Islam is not the problem, and neither is Christianity or Judaism. The problem is extremism, which turns out more or less exactly the same in all cases. The only reason we don't have Westboro Baptists running around beheading infidels is because we have a strong secular state that would put an end to that pretty fast. But attacking that sort of violence as some kind of inevitable result of religion only makes it worse.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 30, 2017, 05:29:55 pm
Ok, that makes more sense. But how do we do that? There seem to be a lot of people off-message from that.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Fallenkezef on June 30, 2017, 05:51:46 pm
Ok, that makes more sense. But how do we do that? There seem to be a lot of people off-message from that.

Been thinking about this myself, will put ideas to page afterwork. The short answer is education.

You have guys like Robert Spencer, who have studied islam and are able to put coherent and hard to argue views about how islam is evil and the greatest threat to us ever. Yet there are few counter-arguments supporting the vast majority of muslims living peaceful lives.

The argument that every muslim is a terrorist waiting to happen, best get rid of them now is getting more and more support. Needs to be stopped before the logical conclusion
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Chelagoras The Boulder on June 30, 2017, 06:09:02 pm
Quote
Disagree with freedom of movement? You are racist, doesn't matter your reasons, you are racist, islamaphobic scum.


People can be quick to judge but I have yet to hear an argument against freedom of movement that doesn't play on fear of the other.

What about cheapness? A lot of people pretty openly also seem to be worried that immigrants will benefit from social welfare programs, the cost of which might possibly cause people's taxes to go up a penny

So the immigrants that aren't coming over to steal our jobs are coming over to shit up our social welfare? Still seems based in fear rather than empathy.

Still not based in empathy but I never said it was. I merely said that it's not xenophobia, it's just being cheap. There's an implication with many that they don't want their taxes going to this sort of thing at all, even as concerns people who are already here and were born here
Actually would like to point out, it's a common misconception that immigrants are ending up on welfare. Speaking as someone who works in mental health and works with population that need help getting benefits, most immigrants wouldnt qualify for welfare, because they wouldnt have the basic forms or information necessary to even TRY to apply for it. They'd have to become naturalized citizens before they could even fill out the paperwork, so this whole point is moot anyhow. And before someone says they could fudge papers, keep in mind lots of immigrants come over to work fields and whatnot and forgery is a pretty hefty felony to risk just to be able to pick strawberries. The immigrant population as a whole generally keeps its nose cleaner on average because they usually fear that any ciminal offense will get them thrown back over the border.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 30, 2017, 06:42:09 pm
Quote
Disagree with freedom of movement? You are racist, doesn't matter your reasons, you are racist, islamaphobic scum.


People can be quick to judge but I have yet to hear an argument against freedom of movement that doesn't play on fear of the other.

What about cheapness? A lot of people pretty openly also seem to be worried that immigrants will benefit from social welfare programs, the cost of which might possibly cause people's taxes to go up a penny

So the immigrants that aren't coming over to steal our jobs are coming over to shit up our social welfare? Still seems based in fear rather than empathy.

Still not based in empathy but I never said it was. I merely said that it's not xenophobia, it's just being cheap. There's an implication with many that they don't want their taxes going to this sort of thing at all, even as concerns people who are already here and were born here
Actually would like to point out, it's a common misconception that immigrants are ending up on welfare. Speaking as someone who works in mental health and works with population that need help getting benefits, most immigrants wouldnt qualify for welfare, because they wouldnt have the basic forms or information necessary to even TRY to apply for it. They'd have to become naturalized citizens before they could even fill out the paperwork, so this whole point is moot anyhow. And before someone says they could fudge papers, keep in mind lots of immigrants come over to work fields and whatnot and forgery is a pretty hefty felony to risk just to be able to pick strawberries. The immigrant population as a whole generally keeps its nose cleaner on average because they usually fear that any ciminal offense will get them thrown back over the border.
I know that, and you know that, but the right doesn't that know that, and that's why they don't like people coming here.

EDIT:
That and the converse paranoid worry that immigrant workers will take all the jobs and there won't be any jobs left for americans (or insert your first world nation here), despite the fact that many of the jobs anyone coming here illegally are going to take are menial ones that nobody wants anyways because they pay terribly and are even less prestigious than working at McDonalds

EDIT:
Always keep in mind the Epistle to the Paranoids (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/76.php) and Hanlon's Razor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor).
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Chelagoras The Boulder on June 30, 2017, 09:02:10 pm
Fair enough.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Vanadium Gryllz on June 30, 2017, 10:22:05 pm
I didn't know that - so thanks, Chelagoras  :)
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 02, 2017, 05:52:21 pm
Another problem with the left is the Newspeak, as it pertains to both minorities and transsexuals. In regard to the former, the euphemism treadmill needs to stop. I'm not talking about actual slurs like n***** and s*** and c****, obviously you shouldn't those. I'm talking about the fact that they apparently changed the PC tern for black people so many times that they have actually run out of euphemisms and had to go back to "colored people"; yet they insist on pretending it's a new term just because they switched the order of the words around to "people of color". That's a sign that something is seriously wrong.

As for transsexuals, you're not Big Brother, you don't get to dictate what the words of the english language mean. You can't change what "male" and "female" or "man"  and "woman" mean, and certainly don't get to rewrite history to say that they've always referred to some kind of nebulous internal identity; at best you could argue truthfully that that's always been part of it, but even with that said it's never been the biggest part of it, physical sex has always held the controlling share. If a man wants to live as a woman, fine, more power to them, that doesn't affect me (or anyone) as such , but living as a woman doesn't make them a woman, and the mere fact of wanting to live as a woman certainly doesn't, and if they insist I change the way I speak and the way the english language has always been spoken to accomodate them then it begins to affect me. The most I'm willing to offer is to use eurotrash pronouns from the romance languages, which have a precedent for not matching sex

Furthermore in a perfect world the idea of living as a man or living as a woman would be meaningless as the experiences, expectations, and norms would be identical for both. Anyone who clings to living as a man or living as a woman as something to be grasped is a stumbling block on the path to this perfected world.

With that in mind I do therefore side with trans people on most issues, albeit not for the same reasons they take that side. For example I oppose that ridiculous law requiring people to use the restroom corresponding to their sex on the grounds that it is sex based discrimination. Just about any place where trans issues come up there is some kind of sex based inequality or non-uniformity going on, despite the fact that outside of medicine and relationships (the only two areas where parts ever come up) there's never any reason for such non-uniformity to exist (and there's never a reason anywhere for the inequality)
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 02, 2017, 06:13:14 pm
The left's positions on cultural isolationism are baffling and often contradictory. We need to be more worldly and accepting and knowledgable of other cultures and there needs to be a dialog between races and ethnicities BUT woe unto you if you adopt any tools or dress or practices from other cultures because then you're guilty of cultural appropriation which is apparently bad some nebulous reason. Further more apparently the best way to preserve rare and dying languages isn't to simply codify them in a comprehensive dictionary, you need to keep up a population of native and primary speakers, because mutual unintelligibility is apparently a good thing; that'll be helpful for understanding between peoples. And apparently if there's no pure blooded members of an ehtnicity left or nobody that practices all of it's traditions that's tantamount to that group dying out, even if there's thousands or millions of people partly descended from that group and/or follow or have adopted some of it's traditions; apparently that doesn;t count. Does that mean that the klan's and the third reich's conception of race is more or less correct then? Because the focus on pure blood and uncontaminated culture sounds awfully similar.

What we really need is a buffet style approach to culture, mix and match as much as you want however you want, no matter who you are or what your origin
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 03, 2017, 12:48:59 am
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.

Like straight serious Norse Paganism, or like the syncretic tounge-in-cheed Norse paganism of the Church of the SubGenius (Praise JehOdin! Praise Loki-Nhgh!)
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Chelagoras The Boulder on July 03, 2017, 01:34:13 am
I actually know enough serious non-Nazi Norse pagans to view it as just another flavor of paganism, same as wiccans or occultists. Obviously, I still acknowledge that Neo-Nazis  have co-opted Odinism as a means to spread hatred, but seeing as co-opting a faith to spread their faith seems to be a tactic of most hate groups, I don't give grief to anyone who unironically just thinks the Norse gods are cool and have some pretty fun stories, in the same way I don't write off my Christian friends just cuz the KKK is religiously Christian.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on July 03, 2017, 01:38:59 am
http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-incredible-chevalier-deon-who-left-france-as-a-male-spy-and-returned-as-a-christian-woman

Quote
“I think what makes d’Eon so historically significant and such an important pioneer for today is not what he did but the extent to which he thought about it and gave ideas to it,” he said. In d’Eon’s philosophy and to some extent, the philosophy of 18th century European society, gender is not essential, it is fluid; one can make a decision about where to land in a kind of continuum, not only of gender but of morality as well. “This whole discussion we’ve been having the past 6 months about which bathrooms people should use and where we’re groping towards is that a person should use the bathroom they feel most comfortable with, society shouldn’t be making that decision for them, this is right out of 1750s thinking,” says Kates.

But, yeah, totally new issue people are making up  :roll:
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 03, 2017, 01:44:06 am
again, there shouldn't be seperate bathrooms at all, that's sex based discrimination and it's also inefficient
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 03, 2017, 01:50:44 am
I actually know enough serious non-Nazi Norse pagans to view it as just another flavor of paganism, same as wiccans or occultists. Obviously, I still acknowledge that Neo-Nazis  have co-opted Odinism as a means to spread hatred, but seeing as co-opting a faith to spread their faith seems to be a tactic of most hate groups, I don't give grief to anyone who unironically just thinks the Norse gods are cool and have some pretty fun stories, in the same way I don't write off my Christian friends just cuz the KKK is religiously Christian.
It's not that. I find non-tongue-in-cheek greco roman paganism weird too. How does one get involved with that? It's obviously not the immense societal pressures that cause people to get involved with Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or Judaism.

And why do people take Wicca more seriously than Scientology? they were both invented around the same time and involve a whole bunch of revisionist history; the only difference is that Scientology is kind of original whereas Wicca is pieced together from mismatched pieces of discredited religions like some kind of theological Frankenstein's monster
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Chelagoras The Boulder on July 03, 2017, 02:17:05 am
You forget, so was Discordianism. And Scientology was created by an asshole whose stated objective was to make up bullshit to make money and amass power.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Chelagoras The Boulder on July 03, 2017, 02:20:47 am
As for Wicca, it's kinda hard to practice religions from that long ago when the Catholic Church made it their business to wipe almost every primary source of information about it. Hence the stitching together of whatever is available.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 03, 2017, 03:53:22 am
Another problem with the left is the Newspeak,

That isn't the left.  Ask them.  They themselves will tell you they are not the left.

Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 03, 2017, 03:54:24 am

And why do people take Wicca any religion more seriously than Scientology?

FTFY.

Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 03, 2017, 04:59:11 am
You forget, so was Discordianism.

Yeah, but Discordianism and SubGenius are open about it
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Fallenkezef on July 03, 2017, 08:39:54 am
I actually know enough serious non-Nazi Norse pagans to view it as just another flavor of paganism, same as wiccans or occultists. Obviously, I still acknowledge that Neo-Nazis  have co-opted Odinism as a means to spread hatred, but seeing as co-opting a faith to spread their faith seems to be a tactic of most hate groups, I don't give grief to anyone who unironically just thinks the Norse gods are cool and have some pretty fun stories, in the same way I don't write off my Christian friends just cuz the KKK is religiously Christian.

That's pretty much it.

I have a valknut tattoo I can't show around certain people without them thinking I'm a neo-nazi, which really pisses me off.

For my part, Norse paganism is about accepting the consequences of your actions. Accepting that you are fucked, the world is out to knock you down so stop fucking whining about it, get up and get on with life. The sagas have some damn cool stories and moral metahphors and Odin is a fascinating deity with many different t facets that appeal to me.

However wiccans REALLY annoy me. I respect their right to believe what they want, just always strikes me as cherry picking whatever gods you feel like without actualy knowing what they represent. Most of them are just christians in denial who think they can replace the holy trinity with random celtic gods and nobody will notice.

But if it works for them, it works for them.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 03, 2017, 06:23:13 pm
I actually know enough serious non-Nazi Norse pagans to view it as just another flavor of paganism, same as wiccans or occultists. Obviously, I still acknowledge that Neo-Nazis  have co-opted Odinism as a means to spread hatred, but seeing as co-opting a faith to spread their faith seems to be a tactic of most hate groups, I don't give grief to anyone who unironically just thinks the Norse gods are cool and have some pretty fun stories, in the same way I don't write off my Christian friends just cuz the KKK is religiously Christian.

That's pretty much it.

I have a valknut tattoo I can't show around certain people without them thinking I'm a neo-nazi, which really pisses me off.

For my part, Norse paganism is about accepting the consequences of your actions. Accepting that you are fucked, the world is out to knock you down so stop fucking whining about it, get up and get on with life. The sagas have some damn cool stories and moral metahphors and Odin is a fascinating deity with many different t facets that appeal to me.

However wiccans REALLY annoy me. I respect their right to believe what they want, just always strikes me as cherry picking whatever gods you feel like without actualy knowing what they represent. Most of them are just christians in denial who think they can replace the holy trinity with random celtic gods and nobody will notice.

But if it works for them, it works for them.

1.  I can't say for England, but that sort of tattoo over here means only one thing. 

2.  Nobody knows what ANY God represents.  They could tell us literally anything, and we'd have to believe it.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 03, 2017, 06:36:32 pm
I recently watched a documentary called "Hypernormalization"... coming off of that, I'd say that "right and left" in any real sense of the word seems to have been replaced with two fake positions, both of which are looking to manage the stability of the system, rather than truly improve anything. On the "left" the management is attempting to normalize as much as possible so that subgroups don't become so disenfranchised that they flip out and revolt. On the "right" the management is attempting to keep everything in stasis.

The documentary was pretty depressing since it focused on the idea that all politics starting in the late 70's basically gave up trying to make the world a better place.  :horrormirth:
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 03, 2017, 06:45:17 pm
I recently watched a documentary called "Hypernormalization"... coming off of that, I'd say that "right and left" in any real sense of the word seems to have been replaced with two fake positions, both of which are looking to manage the stability of the system, rather than truly improve anything. On the "left" the management is attempting to normalize as much as possible so that subgroups don't become so disenfranchised that they flip out and revolt. On the "right" the management is attempting to keep everything in stasis.

The documentary was pretty depressing since it focused on the idea that all politics starting in the late 70's basically gave up trying to make the world a better place.  :horrormirth:

American turn it's back on the future when they threw Carter out in favor of Reagan.

What's hilarious, though is that both sides think their representatives aren't crazy enough.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Chelagoras The Boulder on July 03, 2017, 06:52:15 pm
I actually know enough serious non-Nazi Norse pagans to view it as just another flavor of paganism, same as wiccans or occultists. Obviously, I still acknowledge that Neo-Nazis  have co-opted Odinism as a means to spread hatred, but seeing as co-opting a faith to spread their faith seems to be a tactic of most hate groups, I don't give grief to anyone who unironically just thinks the Norse gods are cool and have some pretty fun stories, in the same way I don't write off my Christian friends just cuz the KKK is religiously Christian.

That's pretty much it.

I have a valknut tattoo I can't show around certain people without them thinking I'm a neo-nazi, which really pisses me off.

For my part, Norse paganism is about accepting the consequences of your actions. Accepting that you are fucked, the world is out to knock you down so stop fucking whining about it, get up and get on with life. The sagas have some damn cool stories and moral metahphors and Odin is a fascinating deity with many different t facets that appeal to me.

However wiccans REALLY annoy me. I respect their right to believe what they want, just always strikes me as cherry picking whatever gods you feel like without actualy knowing what they represent. Most of them are just christians in denial who think they can replace the holy trinity with random celtic gods and nobody will notice.

But if it works for them, it works for them.

1.  I can't say for England, but that sort of tattoo over here means only one thing. 

2.  Nobody knows what ANY God represents.  They could tell us literally anything, and we'd have to believe it.
Eh, I try to give my norse friends the benefit of the doubt. just because the symbols look similar doesn't mean they mean the same thing. A wolf's cross is a wolf's cross, a swastika is a swastika.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 03, 2017, 06:56:25 pm
I recently watched a documentary called "Hypernormalization"... coming off of that, I'd say that "right and left" in any real sense of the word seems to have been replaced with two fake positions, both of which are looking to manage the stability of the system, rather than truly improve anything. On the "left" the management is attempting to normalize as much as possible so that subgroups don't become so disenfranchised that they flip out and revolt. On the "right" the management is attempting to keep everything in stasis.

The documentary was pretty depressing since it focused on the idea that all politics starting in the late 70's basically gave up trying to make the world a better place.  :horrormirth:

American turn it's back on the future when they threw Carter out in favor of Reagan.

What's hilarious, though is that both sides think their representatives aren't crazy enough.

The documentary really focused on Kissenger as being the main architect of the change... it does a nice job of cause/effect tying Kissenger's treatment of Asad in Syria leading to the creation of suicide bombers, Hezbollah, the messes with Lybia, the Iraq War, the foreign fighters in Iraq after the war, Putin, Trump and a "reality" where no one is sure what is and isn't true. I'm sure the documentary is biased itself, but it was a pretty wild ride through the past 40 years.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Fallenkezef on July 04, 2017, 03:47:14 pm
I recently watched a documentary called "Hypernormalization"... coming off of that, I'd say that "right and left" in any real sense of the word seems to have been replaced with two fake positions, both of which are looking to manage the stability of the system, rather than truly improve anything. On the "left" the management is attempting to normalize as much as possible so that subgroups don't become so disenfranchised that they flip out and revolt. On the "right" the management is attempting to keep everything in stasis.

The documentary was pretty depressing since it focused on the idea that all politics starting in the late 70's basically gave up trying to make the world a better place.  :horrormirth:

This is basicly what I'm getting at.

It's a big con job. People are convinced that if they vote left the world will be a better place, the thing is nobody in the upper echelons of the left give a shit.

The thing is, people have started to realise this so they are going to the extremes in search of change, far left and far right. The problem being is extremists don't want to change the world, they just want to watch it burn.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Fallenkezef on July 04, 2017, 03:56:33 pm


1.  I can't say for England, but that sort of tattoo over here means only one thing. 

2.  Nobody knows what ANY God represents.  They could tell us literally anything, and we'd have to believe it.

For me, Odin is represented in the Prose and Poetic Eddas. The sagas appeal to me as does the philosophy.

Do i believe that there is a literal Valhalla? That I honestly do not know, I'd like to think so. However I'm too much the free thinker to see it as much more than metaphor and cultural record. It's a rejection of christian hypocrisy in many ways.

The problem with the neo-nazis is they are just bloody idiots, blindly copying himmler's made-up occultism and thinking it's real. The dumb fuckers don't even realise the difference between nazi germanic occultism and norse for fucks sake.

Yet it gives those of us who follow traditional norse beliefs a really bad name.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Ben Shapiro on July 04, 2017, 06:11:28 pm


You make the assumption that brexit is based on xenophobia.

 :lulz:

This fucking thread.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 05, 2017, 01:16:24 am

And why do people take Wicca any religion more seriously than Scientology?

FTFY.

The big religions at least have something that looks like edivence to the untrained eye: to wit the appeal to tradition and the argumentum ad populum. Scientology and Wicca have neither of these, both were invented (just barely) within living memory and neither is very popular outside of Hollywood.

(and neopaganism lacks the argumentum ad populum)
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2017, 01:42:08 am

And why do people take Wicca any religion more seriously than Scientology?

FTFY.

The big religions at least have something that looks like edivence to the untrained eye: to wit the appeal to tradition and the argumentum ad populum. Scientology and Wicca have neither of these, both were invented (just barely) within living memory and neither is very popular outside of Hollywood.

(and neopaganism lacks the argumentum ad populum)

Wicca exists so that grown-ass adults can stand around in a public park "casting a circle" while passers-bye laugh at them.

Much like most religions, except that they - like Southern Baptists - are silly enough to do it outdoors.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on July 05, 2017, 04:37:11 am
Wicca is how you say "I want to believe on magic but I'm scared of LSD" in interpretive dance.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2017, 05:38:02 am
Wicca is how you say "I want to believe on magic but I'm scared of LSD" in interpretive dance.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 :lulz:
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Cramulus on July 05, 2017, 07:29:59 pm
Hey Fallenkezef  - if you haven't escaped yet, would still love to know your opinion on the stuff in my last post ITT...

while the stats I provided are US-focused, I'm pretty sure the story is similar elsewhere.

I've seen both sides of the welfare state in action and have some personal bias. My partner's ex hasn't worked for three years because he prefers NOT to work, hasn't paid a penny to support his daughter and has openly admitted that one of the reasons he doesn't work is because he doesn't want the CSA to take his money.

My mother is on disability and got screwed over by the changes to that benefit, took a long time to appeal and get her the help she needs. I have a lingering anger for mr Hunt due to that.

It's a given that all systems like this will have some "abusers".

But most of the people receiving unemployment benefits aren't like that. Most of them want to get back to work ASAP. The safety net exists so they aren't forced into homelessness or crime while they look for work.

Isn't it worth a few people getting a "free ride" in order to keep a ton of people out of the poverty trap?



The system needs to work both ways, an obligation to provide work. Which is why I favour a national service model.

Hunting for a job is a full time job. Wouldn't people get off welfare faster if they actually had time to job hunt and educate themselves?


Also
I feel like the state could keep people nursing on its teat forever if it was getting all this sweet low-cost labor. If people's service is valuable, then what's the state's incentive to get them off it?

Also
There are countries with no welfare or unemployment benefits.. What happens there, when you lose your job? What happens to the poverty rate and wealth concentration over time?


Also
if you're fiscally conservative, how do you feel about the measurable economic impact of the safety net?


  • According to the Census Bureau estimates, unemployment insurance kept 3.2 million Americans from falling below the poverty line in 2010 alone.
  • A study commissioned by the Labor Department under the Bush administration showed that for every dollar spent on unemployment benefits, two dollars are pumped back into the economy.
  • The Council of Economic Advisors estimates that in 2009 and 2010, GDP was boosted by 0.8% and 800,000 more jobs were created as a result of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed.
            Source: US Department of Labor (https://www.dol.gov/dol/maps/euc/euc.htm)


This is why welfare was invented by conservatives.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Ziegejunge on July 05, 2017, 07:31:51 pm
Chiming in to add, as non-politically as possible, that I too am a fan of Norse mythology. I identify with it closely to a certain extent, and while I doubt I'll ever sincerely practice the faith in a meaningful way, I do derive a lot of meaning from the myths and stories.

Applied practically, the current culmination is that both of our dogs have tags with the Vegvísir (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegv%C3%ADsir) on them. ("If this sign is carried, one will never lose one's way in storms or bad weather, even when the way is not known".) We love our doggies to an almost irrational extent, so expressing that love in arguably irrational ways doesn't seem too incongruous.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on July 05, 2017, 08:35:37 pm
I can identify with a ton of shit, from Gautama Buddha to the cast of Silicon Valley, doesn't mean I'm retarded enough to describe myself as a Buddhist or a f'kin Bachmanian tho. Anyone who does, I reserve the right to fuck with mercilessly.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Fallenkezef on July 05, 2017, 09:00:17 pm
Hey Fallenkezef  - if you haven't escaped yet, would still love to know your opinion on the stuff in my last post ITT...

while the stats I provided are US-focused, I'm pretty sure the story is similar elsewhere.

I've seen both sides of the welfare state in action and have some personal bias. My partner's ex hasn't worked for three years because he prefers NOT to work, hasn't paid a penny to support his daughter and has openly admitted that one of the reasons he doesn't work is because he doesn't want the CSA to take his money.

My mother is on disability and got screwed over by the changes to that benefit, took a long time to appeal and get her the help she needs. I have a lingering anger for mr Hunt due to that.

It's a given that all systems like this will have some "abusers".

But most of the people receiving unemployment benefits aren't like that. Most of them want to get back to work ASAP. The safety net exists so they aren't forced into homelessness or crime while they look for work.

Isn't it worth a few people getting a "free ride" in order to keep a ton of people out of the poverty trap?



The system needs to work both ways, an obligation to provide work. Which is why I favour a national service model.

Hunting for a job is a full time job. Wouldn't people get off welfare faster if they actually had time to job hunt and educate themselves?


Also
I feel like the state could keep people nursing on its teat forever if it was getting all this sweet low-cost labor. If people's service is valuable, then what's the state's incentive to get them off it?

Also
There are countries with no welfare or unemployment benefits.. What happens there, when you lose your job? What happens to the poverty rate and wealth concentration over time?


Also
if you're fiscally conservative, how do you feel about the measurable economic impact of the safety net?


  • According to the Census Bureau estimates, unemployment insurance kept 3.2 million Americans from falling below the poverty line in 2010 alone.
  • A study commissioned by the Labor Department under the Bush administration showed that for every dollar spent on unemployment benefits, two dollars are pumped back into the economy.
  • The Council of Economic Advisors estimates that in 2009 and 2010, GDP was boosted by 0.8% and 800,000 more jobs were created as a result of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed.
            Source: US Department of Labor (https://www.dol.gov/dol/maps/euc/euc.htm)


This is why welfare was invented by conservatives.

Not ignoring you, had a ton of work dumped on my lap. i will respond properly, with thought out answers when i get some time.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Cramulus on July 05, 2017, 09:31:49 pm
thanks dude! I know how it is.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 06, 2017, 02:03:41 am
What we really need is a welfare system that drops off gradually. Like for every five cents you make above a certain minimum they strike three cents off your assistance, that way there's never a situation where a pay increase can leave you making more than two cents less than you were before (and even that only happens on a one cent increase that pushes you to a multiple of five).
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 06, 2017, 03:34:44 am
I can identify with a ton of shit, from Gautama Buddha to the cast of Silicon Valley, doesn't mean I'm retarded enough to describe myself as a Buddhist or a f'kin Bachmanian tho. Anyone who does, I reserve the right to fuck with mercilessly.

:mittens:
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 06, 2017, 03:36:58 am
What we really need is a welfare system that drops off gradually. Like for every five cents you make above a certain minimum they strike three cents off your assistance, that way there's never a situation where a pay increase can leave you making more than two cents less than you were before (and even that only happens on a one cent increase that pushes you to a multiple of five).

What we need is fucking basic income.

You can't run a consumer economy when nobody can fucking buy anything, and robots can do most peoples' jobs better than the people can.

And the funniest part is, a robust consumer economy is literally the only chance the species has, because we have closed the door to any other option more or less permanently.  We are running downhill on ice, and the moment we lose our nerve, we're some cop's really, really bad night at the bar.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Ziegejunge on July 06, 2017, 06:44:04 pm
I can identify with a ton of shit, from Gautama Buddha to the cast of Silicon Valley, doesn't mean I'm retarded enough to describe myself as a Buddhist or a f'kin Bachmanian tho. Anyone who does, I reserve the right to fuck with mercilessly.

 :mittens:
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 06, 2017, 09:46:42 pm
Don't like the result of an election or referendum? We'll riot, burn and destroy till we get what we want! We'll demand more referendums till we get the result we want and if the other side don't like it, well that's "undemocratic."

Are you talking about Brexit of Trump? Because Trump wasn't elected, he was appointed to the presidency by the electoral college after losing the election by more than two million votes. AFAIK you're right about Brexit though.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 06, 2017, 10:08:19 pm
Another problem with the left is that in places, certainly not everywhere but it places, multiculturalism and diversity have been been deformed into an essentially reactionary caricature of themselves. You can't do or use anything associated with another culture because that's "cultural appropriation", and to a lesser extent ethnic people are discouraged from acting too white. It's as if isolation and segregation was the goal. Multiculturalism doesn't mean multiple distinct and isolated cultures happening to be in the same place, it means multiple cultures interacting and eventually fusing into a single huge superculture.

Also, (pro vided that the matter doesn't relate to women's rights or gay rights) other cultures are cut a lot of undue slack to do backwards and barbaric things in places where a white person would be rightly called out on it. They are also given more slack to have been backwards in the past. A lot of the peoples conquered during the age of european imperialism were indeed barbaric compared to the europeans; we just can't see it because the olden europeans are in turn barbaric compared to us, and the gulf between them and us is much larger than the gulf between them and those they conquered; but some of those people they conquered (the Aztecs for instance) still practiced human sacrifice and shit like that, that kind of thing needed to be stopped.

EDIT:
I apologize for the rough disjointed nature of this post, I had to submit it without having the chance to tidy it up or  fully write out my thoughts because my break ended
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Hoopla! on July 06, 2017, 10:15:29 pm
Oh, I don't know... I can think of one of two people I wouldn't mind sacrificing.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 06, 2017, 11:34:15 pm
Another problem with the left is that in places, certainly not everywhere but it places, multiculturalism and diversity have been been deformed into an essentially reactionary caricature of themselves. You can't do or use anything associated with another culture because that's "cultural appropriation", and to a lesser extent ethnic people are discouraged from acting too white. It's as if isolation and segregation was the goal. Multiculturalism doesn't mean multiple distinct and isolated cultures happening to be in the same place, it means multiple cultures interacting and eventually fusing into a single huge superculture.

Also, (pro vided that the matter doesn't relate to women's rights or gay rights) other cultures are cut a lot of undue slack to do backwards and barbaric things in places where a white person would be rightly called out on it. They are also given more slack to have been backwards in the past. A lot of the peoples conquered during the age of european imperialism were indeed barbaric compared to the europeans; we just can't see it because the olden europeans are in turn barbaric compared to us, and the gulf between them and us is much larger than the gulf between them and those they conquered; but some of those people they conquered (the Aztecs for instance) still practiced human sacrifice and shit like that, that kind of thing needed to be stopped.

EDIT:
I apologize for the rough disjointed nature of this post, I had to submit it without having the chance to tidy it up or  fully write out my thoughts because my break ended

Anyway, I remember a while back on some forum or another, I forget where, saying that wouldn't it be great if in the future absolutely everyone was mixed race (like really mixed, like part black, part white, part asian, part jewish, part misc. indigenous peoples mixed, not half-ass mixed like part french part irish or something) and (in addition to realtively sensible things like "never gonna happen", and "people would find something else to hate each other for) there were some really fucked up responses to the effect that the races shouldn't be totally mixed, and they didn't come from white supremicists; Nobody got called out on this, despite the fact that if it had been in the context of keeping the white race pure it almost certainly would have; apparently it's ok for non-white people to be anti-miscegenation.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 07, 2017, 01:49:51 am
Another problem with the left is that in places, certainly not everywhere but it places, multiculturalism and diversity have been been deformed into an essentially reactionary caricature of themselves. You can't do or use anything associated with another culture because that's "cultural appropriation", and to a lesser extent ethnic people are discouraged from acting too white. It's as if isolation and segregation was the goal. Multiculturalism doesn't mean multiple distinct and isolated cultures happening to be in the same place, it means multiple cultures interacting and eventually fusing into a single huge superculture.

Also, (pro vided that the matter doesn't relate to women's rights or gay rights) other cultures are cut a lot of undue slack to do backwards and barbaric things in places where a white person would be rightly called out on it. They are also given more slack to have been backwards in the past. A lot of the peoples conquered during the age of european imperialism were indeed barbaric compared to the europeans; we just can't see it because the olden europeans are in turn barbaric compared to us, and the gulf between them and us is much larger than the gulf between them and those they conquered; but some of those people they conquered (the Aztecs for instance) still practiced human sacrifice and shit like that, that kind of thing needed to be stopped.

EDIT:
I apologize for the rough disjointed nature of this post, I had to submit it without having the chance to tidy it up or  fully write out my thoughts because my break ended

Anyway, I remember a while back on some forum or another, I forget where, saying that wouldn't it be great if in the future absolutely everyone was mixed race (like really mixed, like part black, part white, part asian, part jewish, part misc. indigenous peoples mixed, not half-ass mixed like part french part irish or something) and (in addition to realtively sensible things like "never gonna happen", and "people would find something else to hate each other for) there were some really fucked up responses to the effect that the races shouldn't be totally mixed, and they didn't come from white supremicists; Nobody got called out on this, despite the fact that if it had been in the context of keeping the white race pure it almost certainly would have; apparently it's ok for non-white people to be anti-miscegenation.

Poor white folks.  They always get the shitty end of the stick.   :cry:
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 07, 2017, 02:11:10 am
Another problem with the left is that in places, certainly not everywhere but it places, multiculturalism and diversity have been been deformed into an essentially reactionary caricature of themselves. You can't do or use anything associated with another culture because that's "cultural appropriation", and to a lesser extent ethnic people are discouraged from acting too white. It's as if isolation and segregation was the goal. Multiculturalism doesn't mean multiple distinct and isolated cultures happening to be in the same place, it means multiple cultures interacting and eventually fusing into a single huge superculture.

Also, (pro vided that the matter doesn't relate to women's rights or gay rights) other cultures are cut a lot of undue slack to do backwards and barbaric things in places where a white person would be rightly called out on it. They are also given more slack to have been backwards in the past. A lot of the peoples conquered during the age of european imperialism were indeed barbaric compared to the europeans; we just can't see it because the olden europeans are in turn barbaric compared to us, and the gulf between them and us is much larger than the gulf between them and those they conquered; but some of those people they conquered (the Aztecs for instance) still practiced human sacrifice and shit like that, that kind of thing needed to be stopped.

EDIT:
I apologize for the rough disjointed nature of this post, I had to submit it without having the chance to tidy it up or  fully write out my thoughts because my break ended

Anyway, I remember a while back on some forum or another, I forget where, saying that wouldn't it be great if in the future absolutely everyone was mixed race (like really mixed, like part black, part white, part asian, part jewish, part misc. indigenous peoples mixed, not half-ass mixed like part french part irish or something) and (in addition to realtively sensible things like "never gonna happen", and "people would find something else to hate each other for) there were some really fucked up responses to the effect that the races shouldn't be totally mixed, and they didn't come from white supremicists; Nobody got called out on this, despite the fact that if it had been in the context of keeping the white race pure it almost certainly would have; apparently it's ok for non-white people to be anti-miscegenation.

Poor white folks.  They always get the shitty end of the stick.   :cry:

That's exactly what I'm talking about there. That's a non-sequitur, an ad-homenim, and (if you believe in racial equality) hypocritical. Being disadvantaged doesn't give you the right to be a jackass any more than being advantaged does. A white guy who hates asians, an asian who hates blacks, and a black who hates whites are all equally bad, because all races are equal and interchangable.

It's the same with (serious) neopaganism, it's just as bullshit as christianity but liberals let it slide because it doesn't currently have a big enough following to actively cause trouble; that doesn't mean it's good or even just not bad, that just means it's small.


Edit:
But mostly your response a strawman. My point was clearly that opposing mixed relationships and mixed race people would be bad regardless of who was saying it, but you turned it completely in the opposite direction to try and make it look like I was saying that white people should be allowed to oppose mixed relationships and mixed race people
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 07, 2017, 02:17:24 am
Another problem with the left is that in places, certainly not everywhere but it places, multiculturalism and diversity have been been deformed into an essentially reactionary caricature of themselves. You can't do or use anything associated with another culture because that's "cultural appropriation", and to a lesser extent ethnic people are discouraged from acting too white. It's as if isolation and segregation was the goal. Multiculturalism doesn't mean multiple distinct and isolated cultures happening to be in the same place, it means multiple cultures interacting and eventually fusing into a single huge superculture.

Also, (pro vided that the matter doesn't relate to women's rights or gay rights) other cultures are cut a lot of undue slack to do backwards and barbaric things in places where a white person would be rightly called out on it. They are also given more slack to have been backwards in the past. A lot of the peoples conquered during the age of european imperialism were indeed barbaric compared to the europeans; we just can't see it because the olden europeans are in turn barbaric compared to us, and the gulf between them and us is much larger than the gulf between them and those they conquered; but some of those people they conquered (the Aztecs for instance) still practiced human sacrifice and shit like that, that kind of thing needed to be stopped.

EDIT:
I apologize for the rough disjointed nature of this post, I had to submit it without having the chance to tidy it up or  fully write out my thoughts because my break ended

Anyway, I remember a while back on some forum or another, I forget where, saying that wouldn't it be great if in the future absolutely everyone was mixed race (like really mixed, like part black, part white, part asian, part jewish, part misc. indigenous peoples mixed, not half-ass mixed like part french part irish or something) and (in addition to realtively sensible things like "never gonna happen", and "people would find something else to hate each other for) there were some really fucked up responses to the effect that the races shouldn't be totally mixed, and they didn't come from white supremicists; Nobody got called out on this, despite the fact that if it had been in the context of keeping the white race pure it almost certainly would have; apparently it's ok for non-white people to be anti-miscegenation.

Poor white folks.  They always get the shitty end of the stick.   :cry:

That's exactly what I'm talking about there. That's a non-sequitur, an ad-homenim, and (if you believe in racial equality) hypocritical. Being disadvantaged doesn't give you the right to be a jackass any more than being advantaged does. A white guy who hates asians, an asian who hates blacks, and a black who hates whites are all equally bad, because all races are equal and interchangable.

It's the same with (serious) neopaganism, it's just as bullshit as christianity but liberals let it slide because it doesn't currently have a big enough following to actively cause trouble; that doesn't mean it's good or even just not bad, that just means it's small.


Edit:
But mostly your response a strawman. My point was clearly that opposing mixed relationships and mixed race people would be bad regardless of who was saying it, but you turned it completely in the opposite direction to try and make it look like I was saying that white people should be allowed to oppose mixed relationships and mixed race people

At some point you are expecting me to stop mocking you and start debating?

Let me know how that works out.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 07, 2017, 03:59:45 am
I'll just go on assuming that you don't have a valid argument then
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on July 07, 2017, 04:06:43 am
If you spend your time worrying about what minorities do and say with respect to white people as if that's where you need to spend your energy, while disregarding the mountain of shit white people continue to do to minorities, you're gonna have a bad time. It's like getting pissed off because some feminists "hate men", as if alleviating that sore spot is somehow going to bring balance to a system that's already heavily weighted against them. It's utterly ignorant.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 07, 2017, 05:01:01 am
If you spend your time worrying about what minorities do and say with respect to white people as if that's where you need to spend your energy, while disregarding the mountain of shit white people continue to do to minorities, you're gonna have a bad time. It's like getting pissed off because some feminists "hate men", as if alleviating that sore spot is somehow going to bring balance to a system that's already heavily weighted against them. It's utterly ignorant.

At no point did I say to disregard the mountain of racist shit that racist whites do, I just said not to disregard the racist shit that racist non-white people do. I can summarize my position as two rules:

1.) When white people say/do stupid racist shit, call them out on it
2.) When non-white people say/do stupid racist shit, call them out on it

These rules are in no way mutually exclusive

And I'm not saying to waste your energy seeking out and correcting bad behavior by the people who aren't in power and aren't in a position to do much harm, but if it happens to be right there in front of you say something. (or at least don't waste your energy criticizing the person who does say something)

Also, just because the group currently in power doesn't deserve it and doesn't use it well that doesn't mean that the group not in power does and will. History is littered with revolutions and regime changes that did no good. The tsardom's out and the soviet union's in, the soviet union;s out and Putin's in; same shit different day. A roman emperor has a vision, the religious landscape of europe changes, no longer will the christians be persecuted by the the pagans, now the pagans will be persecuted by the christians.  And of course there's the endless parade of near interchangable dictators in many parts of the third world

Edit:
To quote Romeo & Juliet, "A plague on both your houses"
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 07, 2017, 05:06:49 am
I'll just go on assuming that you don't have a valid argument then

 :lulz:

You've been taking Libertarian classes, right?
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on July 07, 2017, 05:12:16 am
If you spend your time worrying about what minorities do and say with respect to white people as if that's where you need to spend your energy, while disregarding the mountain of shit white people continue to do to minorities, you're gonna have a bad time. It's like getting pissed off because some feminists "hate men", as if alleviating that sore spot is somehow going to bring balance to a system that's already heavily weighted against them. It's utterly ignorant.

At no point did I say to disregard the mountain of racist shit that racist whites do, I just said not to disregard the racist shit that racist non-white people do. I can summarize my position as two rules:

1.) When white people say/do stupid racist shit, call them out on it
2.) When non-white people say/do stupid racist shit, call them out on it

These rules are in no way mutually exclusive

And I'm not saying to waste your energy seeking out and correcting bad behavior by the people who aren't in power and aren't in a position to do much harm, but if it happens to be right there in front of you say something. (or at least don't waste your energy criticizing the person who does say something)

Also, just because the group currently in power doesn't deserve it and doesn't use it well that doesn't mean that the group not in power does and will. History is littered with revolutions and regime changes that did no good. The tsardom's out and the soviet union's in, the soviet union;s out and Putin's in; same shit different day. A roman emperor has a vision, the religious landscape of europe changes, no longer will the christians be persecuted by the the pagans, now the pagans will be persecuted by the christians.  And of course there's the endless parade of near interchangable dictators in many parts of the third world

Edit:
To quote Romeo & Juliet, "A plague on both your houses"

That sure is a long-winded way of saying "I'm not racist, but brown people should probably watch their step around me".
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 07, 2017, 05:17:32 am
If you spend your time worrying about what minorities do and say with respect to white people as if that's where you need to spend your energy, while disregarding the mountain of shit white people continue to do to minorities, you're gonna have a bad time. It's like getting pissed off because some feminists "hate men", as if alleviating that sore spot is somehow going to bring balance to a system that's already heavily weighted against them. It's utterly ignorant.

At no point did I say to disregard the mountain of racist shit that racist whites do, I just said not to disregard the racist shit that racist non-white people do. I can summarize my position as two rules:

1.) When white people say/do stupid racist shit, call them out on it
2.) When non-white people say/do stupid racist shit, call them out on it

These rules are in no way mutually exclusive

And I'm not saying to waste your energy seeking out and correcting bad behavior by the people who aren't in power and aren't in a position to do much harm, but if it happens to be right there in front of you say something. (or at least don't waste your energy criticizing the person who does say something)

Also, just because the group currently in power doesn't deserve it and doesn't use it well that doesn't mean that the group not in power does and will. History is littered with revolutions and regime changes that did no good. The tsardom's out and the soviet union's in, the soviet union;s out and Putin's in; same shit different day. A roman emperor has a vision, the religious landscape of europe changes, no longer will the christians be persecuted by the the pagans, now the pagans will be persecuted by the christians.  And of course there's the endless parade of near interchangable dictators in many parts of the third world

Edit:
To quote Romeo & Juliet, "A plague on both your houses"

That sure is a long-winded way of saying "I'm not racist, but brown people should probably watch their step around me".

That's a strawman.

A less misleading version would go "...everyone should watch their step..." (though I must cede that "brown people" is a proper subset of "everyone" so the statement as written is technically true, albeit no more so that if it had said "...white people had better watch their step..."
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 07, 2017, 05:23:01 am
I honestly don't get how this is so hard for people to understand.

I'm starting to believe that the left may be almost as stupid and thickheaded as the right. None of you seem to posess the capacity for any sort of rational thought or dialog, only unthinking knee-jerk responses based on stereotypes that don't even apply to the situation at hand.

What is so hard to understand about the idea that fighting against evil doesn't automatically make you good? Which side were the good guys in the battle of stalingrad? If your answer was "the soviet union" or "the nazis" you are incorrect. The correct answer was "nobody".

Here's another one for you
Q. Who were the bad guys in the Battle of Stalingrad?
A. The Soviet Union and the Nazis
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: rong on July 07, 2017, 05:46:03 am
I honestly don't get how this is so hard for people to understand.

I'm starting to believe that the left may be almost as stupid and thickheaded as the right. None of you seem to posess the capacity for any sort of rational thought or dialog, only unthinking knee-jerk responses based on stereotypes that don't even apply to the situation at hand.

What is so hard to understand about the idea that fighting against evil doesn't automatically make you good? Which side were the good guys in the battle of stalingrad? If your answer was "the soviet union" or "the nazis" you are incorrect. The correct answer was "nobody".

Here's another one for you
Q. Who were the bad guys in the Battle of Stalingrad?
A. The Soviet Union and the Nazis

the premise on the left is that white people are the devil and deserve to punished.  since they are the "smart" side, if you refuse to accept their premise, then you are "dumb" and not worth talking to
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 07, 2017, 05:47:29 am
NOW WITH 20% MORE MRA!

:banana:
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 07, 2017, 05:56:58 am
I honestly don't get how this is so hard for people to understand.

I'm starting to believe that the left may be almost as stupid and thickheaded as the right. None of you seem to posess the capacity for any sort of rational thought or dialog, only unthinking knee-jerk responses based on stereotypes that don't even apply to the situation at hand.

What is so hard to understand about the idea that fighting against evil doesn't automatically make you good? Which side were the good guys in the battle of stalingrad? If your answer was "the soviet union" or "the nazis" you are incorrect. The correct answer was "nobody".

Here's another one for you
Q. Who were the bad guys in the Battle of Stalingrad?
A. The Soviet Union and the Nazis

the premise on the left is that white people are the devil and deserve to punished.  since they are the "smart" side, if you refuse to accept their premise, then you are "dumb" and not worth talking to

The thing is that I don;t even disagree with that. I believe that all races are equally the devil.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: rong on July 07, 2017, 06:06:32 am
Then why do you want to talk to them?
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 07, 2017, 06:16:41 am
Because they seem to be saying that only white people are the devil. Which needs to be corrected because it's racist.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: rong on July 07, 2017, 08:11:10 am
NOW WITH 20% MORE MRA!

:banana:
(https://pics.me.me/there-is-no-such-thing-as-gender-gender-exists-on-19791248.png)
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: LMNO on July 07, 2017, 01:44:26 pm
Just dropping in to say you're confusing prejudice and bias with racism.



But please do carry on providing amusement.  I especially like how you call out people making Strawmen against you while simultaneously presenting poorly understood generalizations about "the left".
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Hoopla! on July 07, 2017, 01:46:55 pm
In a perfect world, sure... everyone should be nice to each other and nobody should be making assumptions about any race. But you know very well that isn't true, and that isn't the world we live in. Not even close. Utopian shit is utopian.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Hoopla! on July 07, 2017, 01:47:12 pm
Obviously didn't direct that at you, LMNO.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Cramulus on July 07, 2017, 04:28:54 pm
Another problem with the left is that in places, certainly not everywhere but it places, multiculturalism and diversity have been been deformed into an essentially reactionary caricature of themselves. You can't do or use anything associated with another culture because that's "cultural appropriation", and to a lesser extent ethnic people are discouraged from acting too white. It's as if isolation and segregation was the goal. Multiculturalism doesn't mean multiple distinct and isolated cultures happening to be in the same place, it means multiple cultures interacting and eventually fusing into a single huge superculture.

I would agree insofar that there are some people on the left that are getting a little carried away. I don't, however, think those cats are really driving the party van. Also, the sanctimony and protectionism of the left is really not in the same class of harm as its mate on the right... Nobody's getting harmed by "PC" language like people get harmed by racist/sexist/transphobic/etc language.

I'm unsure if I agree with your take on the end goal of Multiculturalism.
 
There's a Zizek talk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkkpOBvZLr8) where he gets into the problems of multiculturalism... he's not against multiculturalism itself, but thinks the current incarnation of it (which is anchored in tolerance) is insufficient to confront the systemic elements of injustices like racism and sexism.

He gives an example from MLK Jr- King didn't advocate tolerance. He didn't think that racism was really a problem of blacks not being tolerated by whites. He addressed racism in terms of economic exploitation, legal rights, etc.

MLK wanted blacks and whites to coexist. He didn't want them to fuse into one. He didn't call for blacks to embrace white culture or vice versa. My understanding is that he thought that in an ideal society, we could live next door and still retain our ethnicity and identity.

Quote
Also, (pro vided that the matter doesn't relate to women's rights or gay rights) other cultures are cut a lot of undue slack to do backwards and barbaric things in places where a white person would be rightly called out on it. They are also given more slack to have been backwards in the past. A lot of the peoples conquered during the age of european imperialism were indeed barbaric compared to the europeans; we just can't see it because the olden europeans are in turn barbaric compared to us, and the gulf between them and us is much larger than the gulf between them and those they conquered; but some of those people they conquered (the Aztecs for instance) still practiced human sacrifice and shit like that, that kind of thing needed to be stopped.

The word Barbaric has a lot of baggage. It implies that a cultures exist on a hierarchy of advancement, and that some cultures are more advanced than others and therefore have some kind of authority over the "barbarians". (and let's specify we're not talking about technology, but cultural practices and values)

I think "civilized" is an honorific you hang on your favorite values. In the US, we think cold beer is awesome. In other places, it's normal to drink it at room temperature. My friends think warm beer is barbaric. Really they are just putting their personal tastes on a pedestal.

I do think it's shitty how women are treated in a lot of middle eastern countries (for example). Our western concept of feminism has a lot of trouble coexisting with their traditional, patriarchal conception of femininity. But what are we supposed to do about that? Invade them and force them to accept all our sweet-ass western values (hard power)? Start building McDonalds and give everybody a Netflix subscription (soft power)?  Or do we accept that it's not our place to force them to the table of western values? it's their culture, maybe we should let them work it out on their own.

There are limits, of course -- bigass human rights violations do demand international intervention.

 
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on July 07, 2017, 05:42:12 pm
I'm having trouble with the idea that "everyone merges into the same culture, same ethnicity, homogeneous glob" is equivalent to "don't shit on people who date and/or have kids with people of other ethnicities/skin tones."

Don't get me wrong, a lot of the other shit is stupid, too, but this one is extra dumb.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 08, 2017, 02:21:28 am
I'm having trouble with the idea that "everyone merges into the same culture, same ethnicity, homogeneous glob" is equivalent to "don't shit on people who date and/or have kids with people of other ethnicities/skin tones."

Don't get me wrong, a lot of the other shit is stupid, too, but this one is extra dumb.

This thread is a festival.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: rong on July 08, 2017, 02:24:45 am
Just dropping in to say you're confusing prejudice and bias with racism.



But please do carry on providing amusement.  I especially like how you call out people making Strawmen against you while simultaneously presenting poorly understood generalizations about "the left".
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/787/356/d6f.jpg)
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 08, 2017, 02:44:00 am
rong soooooo edgy.   :kingmeh:
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: rong on July 08, 2017, 02:48:43 am
Just dropping in to say you're confusing prejudice and bias with racism.



But please do carry on providing amusement.  I especially like how you call out people making Strawmen against you while simultaneously presenting poorly understood generalizations about "the left".
(http://www.highlandernews.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ops.meme_.nba_-1024x768.jpg)
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Chelagoras The Boulder on July 08, 2017, 07:34:55 am
Well, at least his name checks out.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 08, 2017, 06:11:18 pm
I'm having trouble with the idea that "everyone merges into the same culture, same ethnicity, homogeneous glob" is equivalent to "don't shit on people who date and/or have kids with people of other ethnicities/skin tones."

That is what would happen over time if mixed couples became the norm. If you're not ok with that than you're only ok with mixed couples as long as there's not a lot of them
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on July 08, 2017, 06:29:17 pm
I'm having trouble with the idea that "everyone merges into the same culture, same ethnicity, homogeneous glob" is equivalent to "don't shit on people who date and/or have kids with people of other ethnicities/skin tones."

That is what would happen over time if mixed couples became the norm. If you're not ok with that than you're only ok with mixed couples as long as there's not a lot of them

I don't think you understand how culture *or* melanin work.
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: LMNO on July 08, 2017, 06:31:26 pm
Well, at least his name checks out.

:potd:
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Ben Shapiro on July 08, 2017, 11:07:51 pm
Rong is my hero!
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Fallenkezef on July 14, 2017, 05:09:54 pm
I'm away for a couple of weeks and miss all the fun
Title: Re: Look both ways before you cross
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 14, 2017, 05:13:55 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrTGgpWmdZQ