Total posts: 115
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
1. Laws are systemically set up against indigenous Americans, but pervasive cultures of racism in powerful institutions like policing also count as systemic racism. Trying to point out individuals ignores that groups can develop cultures and these cultures inherently lead to issues.
2. Yeah, there are barriers because indigenous Americans are less likely to trust government institutions. I wonder why. On top of that, the state is essentially ignoring these issues. There isn't attempts to solve this problem as a pervasive issue.
3. That is a part of systemic racism. Systemic racism is saying that there are cultural, socioeconomic, institutional, and/or legal barriers to full equality. For example, if every business is allowed and does bar access to a certain race, there isn't a direct law that harms that race, but they are still systemically discriminated against.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WeaverofFate
I watch all kinds of channels. I'm always looking for high quality content, regardless of genre.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Generally,
I think it's just a matter of some people have masculine traits and some have feminine traits and these define a personality. This personality can then be tied to sexuality in any way. For example, I would say I have some feminine traits, despite being a straight cis-male. I don't think that indicts any kind of behavior or preference in a woman who dates me, but simply, that there are character traits that can be found attractive or not.
Also, Polytheist Witch,
I don't know why I found it so funny, but the idea that men have penises and women "don't have penises" instead of having vaginas is hilarious.
Created:
I think that there is a social impact that is happening that creates an incentive for people to stay home and has caused millions to become more isolated, however, I also think that in regard to labor, I was really hopeful that Covid would cause people to wake up and spur serious movement. Calls for hazard pay and better pay during the labor shortage, I thought would translate into union activity or worker protection legislation, but literally nothing came of it. Very disappointing.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Why would your life change in a simulation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I would say it's a lot easier to say "anything that's required" from cozy in a chair. I doubt any soldier fighting in a war would want to bring back the horrible gases of WWI or the execution and torture of civilians and soldiers we saw in Nanking. The generals might, cozy in their armchair, knowing they'll never see gas or atrocity, so not being afraid of it.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't know, when my girlfriend asks to share food with me, I like it. Usually, it seems to me, it's an excuse to sit next to me or something like that. I don't need a full meal anyways.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
You can identify as whatever you want; however if you're going to transmute and apply well-defined terms, it's going to be a painstaking process to convince me that these descriptions should be abandoned and adopt your newly formed language.
What's the purpose of language?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vici
1. Africa had thriving societies and kingdoms that actually worked as the basis for trade with Europe. This was the triangular trade, after all, and they armed coastal kingdoms to do slave raids on kingdoms further inland.
2. The industrial revolution happened in England before the rest of the world because of a series of factors. This is what gave the benefit of modern technology, though this happened after the abolishment of slavery, so the timeline being suggested here doesn't even make sense.
Created:
Posted in:
Do you have a list of Youtube channels you recommend?
Created:
Posted in:
Honestly, you really don't need to know anything besides male, female, and non-binary. Cis and trans men go by he/him. Cis and trans women go by she/her. Non-binary people may accept either of those, prefer they/them, or some variation of neopronouns, tho I've never experienced anyone who wants to go by those in real life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Indigenous Americans are the most disproportionately shot by police because there is systemic racism in the system, but indigenous Americans aren't enough of the population to get any mobilization behind them. It's the same reason there is missing indigenous American women that go missing all the time and nothing is done. Also, in regard to the idea that there isn't a conspiracy to genocide all indigenous Americans, I would argue that it hasn't been a conspiracy since "kill the Indian, save the man" was policy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WeaverofFate
I see you have Hearts of Iron IV, but what do you think of Stellaris?
Created:
Posted in:
College is worth it if you have a plan. For example, I want to be a public school teacher. I got a political science bachelors and I'm doing alternative teacher certification now to apply for teaching jobs through the next year.
If you don't have a plan, going to college will put you in a lot of debt for nothing.
Created:
Of course it should.
In regards to sexual education, this would help lower the amount of STIs that are spread, especially as certain acts that can spread STIs are never taught as such.
Historically, regardless of if you agree with the LGBTQ+ community, they've been a social movement that has had huge impacts on our politics, demographics, and legal system over the last couple decades, and tracing that lineage is important.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Wasn't the origin of modern education factory training?
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
1a. Five laws a year? Is that practical? What five laws passed during the last congressional session make the cut, and why does each of the other five not?
1b. Quoting the Constitution is useless. First, promote the general welfare has been stretched to mean everything. Second, it's about interpretation, which the court rules on. Them quoting why they get to pass it doesn't matter unless someone contests it and then the courts decide.
2. How do you measure freedom? I'm assuming you don't mean unlimited anarchy where there is essentially no state is good, so what's the benchmark?
3a. The lockdowns saved lives and "promoted the general welfare". How do you weigh that against "freedom", especially when it isn't quantifiable.
3b. In regards to your grocery example, wasn't that time supposed to be used for deep cleaning the store? Assuming that's true, is there a difference between a mistake and maliciousness?
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
1. When there are 1,228 enacted laws in the last congressional session of two years, or more than one a day, how do we measure which ones do what with certainty?
2. Is life the only thing that can be measured as valuable?
3. So, the passage of COVID lockdowns led to suicides. The repeal of lockdowns led to COVID deaths. How do you weigh those against one another? Or more generally, how do you weigh lose-lose situations in general?
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
How do you measure if a bill kills people?
Created:
-->
@Lemming
So work in the system for democracies but revolt against more centralized power structures, not as a hard an fast rule, but a guiding idea?
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
So, do you think that bad policies shouldn't be fixed through legalistic reform, but through revolution to purge leadership? Who would replace it?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
So, would you call civil war/revolution over unjust wars?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
So, would you rebel against a Supreme Court decision you don't like?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
That's fair. From what I understand, you would fight through legal processes one hundred percent and accept democracy/institutions verdict even if they label you wrong and that's all I was trying to figure out.
In regard to what institutions, it doesn't matter. My question isn't in regard to specific policy, but if you think it's ever justified to resist the state. You say no if I'm understanding you right
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
No, I understand police act autonomously. The beating of Tyre Nichols proves that police act as autonomous agents regardless of legislative decision. That is a whole separate issue in of itself.
However, you seem to be pro 2A, so let's use that as an example. If the police were arresting you for owning a gun because legislators passed a law banning all guns and judges had been putting people in prison for owning guns, should you resist the police?
When I say institutions, I mean the many levels and departments of government.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Police are the force that defends institutions and their goals. This means that if you have an authoritarian regime that arrests political dissidents with no trial, I don't understand how following the polices orders is good if you don't get a chance to fight back. If you are defending American institutions only, then I'm clarifying that.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
So, you think that the institutions are always trustworthy and fix every issue? Like, there's no reason to ever fight the institution writ large?
Created:
I was in a current events thread and this came up as a core prior question to the issue of a police shooting. However, the question in a vacuum is a good one and I was directed to create this thread.
Classic liberal thought, from what I understand, is that a government is only legitimate if it does its job in protecting liberty/property, and a tyrannical government would, therefore, be ethically able to be brought down. The counter, however, would be the argument that the government knows what is best or that reforming institutions is better than radical revolution. This is a general starting point, but I want to see what other people have to say about it.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
I'll start the thread, but it's not a red herring. It's important. Your argument is you can't question the police. This means that you support every authoritarian regime that uses police to silence political dissidence and commit human rights violations. That's directly important to this issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
1. The government isn't a corporation, and therefore isn't appealing to the concept of a consumer. Someone else in this thread said it causes respiratory issues. Assuming their right, this means that there is a public good to banning something that causes harm, especially when any benefit (being able to cook food) is negated by electric stoves that do it just as well.
2. Solves respiratory issues. That's good.
3. Same as first point. An addition, however, is that they do matter, but less than respiratory issues.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Before I waste my time answering everything you said, are we just playing a game of semantics? Like, it seems the question of "what is communism" is more about trying to see how far we can stretch a label as opposed to meaningful theoretical conversation, no?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Do you think we're on track for another major realignment?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
This is a general value question, but do you think citizens have a duty and/or right to stand up, violently or otherwise, against tyrannical or unjust governments?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
1. Birthrates level out with human development. Education, income, and healthcare make birthrates go down naturally, as is shown with all first world nations. This means that even if you did think overpopulation was a legitimate issue, you'd support human development, like healthcare.
2. Earth's limited resources is because of unsustainable ways of engaging in extraction, production, and consumption. We could create sustainable economies, and those kinds of shifts are better than simple leaving the rock.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
They believed that the working class, or "proletariat," would overthrow capitalist societies through a revolution and establish a classless, stateless communist society.
You describe the dictatorship of the proletariat, but the issue with your description is that only works if the entire world transitions at the same time. If North Korea doesn't have a totalitarian state that devotes so much time to the military, then the US would regime change. This means that, unless the world becomes communist at the same time, communist nations have to remain, at the very least, under the dictatorship of the proletariat until global communism is achieved. As Lenin with the vanguard correctly identified, this then has to be authoritarian to combat against reactionary elements, internally (white army) and externally (the literal invasions that happened right after the revolution).
Marx kept the commune small
Any example of this in the text? I would argue that, even if he defends worker councils, there's no reason this can't federate into a national democracy.
Yes, Lenin exploited the utopian labels of Communism to implement his fascist dictatorship.
1. Lenin is, if not a communist, not a fascist. These are literal polar opposites in cultural and economic practice.
2. Lenin is the perfect instantiation of communism. When turning any theory into praxis, there is differences that have to be made. To take an idea in the abstract, implement it in the world, and act like it isn't the exact same, well, yeah. The material conditions of Russia weren't accounted for by Marx because he couldn't consider every social location. On top of this, Lenin was just propping up the dictatorship of the proletariat to protect against reactionaries.
- Oxymoron. The Soviets themslves were not particularly democratic during the few months Lenin permitted them to live.
The CIA admitted that the Soviet Union was much more democratic than they propagandized, even saying Stalin (leagues more authoritarian than Lenin) was merely the leader of a strong party. The soviets (worker councils) elected leaders that went to regional areas and it federated up. Lenin built this system during his rule because he was doing what the dictatorship of the proletariat did, establish communism in a transition phase.
If you think Marx was shooting for one world government, then you haven't understood the first thing Marx wrote.
1. Marx is not the end all be all. Liberals don't read Hobbes and then ignore the rest of the work that has been created in the philosophy, and to treat communism/leftism the same way ignores how ideas grow and get better.
2. Looking at the ideas of Marx, the dictatorship of the proletariat can not be transitioned to a stateless society until after global communism is achieved, otherwise, there are still reactionary threats to the organization.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
What do you think causes political realignments?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
@Conservallectual
@Best.Korea
Best.Korea,
Government decides what to produce. Government observes what is necessary to produce desired product.
How does the government fully understand what is needed for the economy? Prices that are developed through supply and demand help best divert resources as needed to create the best allocation of resources. How does the government respond to shortages or over production without prices to use as a metric?
Government gathers workers, gives them means of production and resources and tells them to work.
The government doesn't just give the means of production to the workers. If it did, that would look like council communism under Tito's Yugoslavia or the Kurdistan Worker's Party. The idea under more totalitarian leftism like Maoism or Juche is that the state is the conglomeration of the workers, being the dictatorship of the proletariat, and therefore them owning the means of production is the workers owning the means of production.
Most importantly, it conserves resources while protecting society from imperialist agression and ensures morality and good life.
My friend, North Korea is a satellite state of China. Juche, while being able to be, at best, a defense partner with China against the West, and, at worst, a militarized puppet of China, is unable to resist imperialism. The Bandung Conference and Non-Aligned Movement both prove that ideology and imperialism are separate issues.
oromagi,
The nature of government specified by the theory of Communism is the village council.
No? Communism, looking past different instantiations, is that an authoritarian state, which is a representative of the proletariat/working class, takes ownership of the means of production. Marx created communism under the idea of a "dictatorship of the proletariat". Lenin turned this into the vanguard party in the Soviet Union, with a strong one-party state to protect the federated democratic system they had in place. These have always been nationalist descriptions for how to structure society, hoping to turn individual nation states into a one world communist government eventually.
Conservallectual,
Cuba, the commie country I am most familiar with still uses horse & buggy as a regular form of transportation
Western sanctions that stop the importation of vehicles will do that to any nation. This doesn't show a flaw of communism, but the damage imperialism and bullying from the first-world can cause on smaller nations. Sanctions also explain poor wifi, air conditioning, and food supplies.
However, it is important to note that Cuba has been able to keep classic 50's cars running forever, showing an innovation that it is important to note. The level of intelligence and education that can also be seen in Cuban doctors that are so amazing that they are sent as aid to disasters proves that communism cannot be called a complete failure.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
USA should become Juche Songun Socialist State. However, Americans oppose to that because Juche has a principle of self defense.
I think that Americans are opposed to Juche for two reason.
1. Capitalist cultural hegemony, as Gramsci described it, where all cultural work is created to facilitate capital and continue its own existence and justification.
2. Juche is a vehemently racist ideology. There's a lot of differences between it and other forms of leftism/communism, and it's Korean supremacy is a major one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Eh, no nation would ever default the US's debt or challenge our currency. Liberal free trade has made the interconnectivity of markets too interconnected to every challenge it, especially for such a prominent figure in international trade like the US.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Calling everyone who has a disagreement with you a liar is probably bad for dialogue. However, is there evidence that they intentionally lied as opposed to unintentionally were wrong?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Overpopulation is a non-issue. We should maintain healthcare to maintain a health and happy population.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
So, instead of trying to work towards ending paramilitarism in general, you hope to militarize the right to combat the left?
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Do you support paramilitary groups or think they're bad?
Created:
I feel like the there is an important divide between "feminism being falsifiable" and people asking if feminism should be falsifiable. In open dialogue spaces, such as here, all ideas should be falsifiable and every idea should be able to be critiqued. In a feminist space, people who ask questions like that should possibly not be tolerated depending on the culture of the space for two major reasons.
1. If a space is created to talk about issues from a certain framework, then people who question the framework itself shouldn't engage in the space. That is not the purpose of that space and understanding different spaces have different purposes is crucial.
2. As Mao Zedong said "A revolution is not a dinner party" You have no obligation to work or engage in dialogue with ideas you disagree with. If anti-racist organizations and activists are approached by neo-nazis, they have no obligation to work with them or engage in dialogue with them, as they are the utter enemy. In the same way, feminist spaces have no incentive to work with or engage in dialogue with non-feminists, as they remain neutral in the face of patriarchy, and therefore passively greenlight patriarchal violence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
So you say a majority of fatherlessness comes from the impoverished. This proves that solving for poverty solves for these other issues. You then say the government keeps them in poverty. Doesn't this mean that there are factors directly working against children and preventing them from success?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Therefore, you won’t know if you did something wrong until you are told.
He asked the officer and the officer didn't tell him. That's the problem. If there is no establishment of what is done wrong, then why should he listen. Do you believe that citizen should listen to the state, even when it's unjust?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Thank you! It's nice to meet you!
1. Both sides obviously try to protect themselves from scandal. I don't think this is the root of growing partisan divide, however. I think the cause is a two-party, race to the bottom, single district, representative democracy. The foundational way our democracy works disincentivizes the moderate/non-conservative or non-progressive politics.
2. Sure, accountability in democracy would be nice, but in a two-party system, that is a secondary issue. Both sides will commit scandals, because a progressive isn't going to shift to the Republican party because of scandal, just as a conservative won't shift to the Democratic party. This means that the greatest way to keep liberal democracy must be keeping both parties sharing similar goals and a joint sense of purpose.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
I would argue this is bad. We can see what happens with non white societies. They all basically turn into 3rd world shitholes.
I mean, each country has a unique history and set of circumstances that makes it what it is. The argument that race is what makes nations affective or not ignores 3rd world white nations like the Balkans and Eastern Europe, and 1st world non-white nations, like Japan, South Korea, and the United Arab Emirates. My counterpoint that would be a more accurate answer would be colonization and racialized foreign policy. Eastern Europe was colonized by the USSR, and therefore, have had resources extracted for so long that they are now behind on the global economic and human development axis. Same with the Balkans, while Japan was an imperial power and benefitted from that. On top of that, rebuilding efforts after WWII were racialized and colonies were not party to the program.
I have read quite a bit of Jewish periodicals and they seem to all think making European countries, more diverse helps them.
The difference is Jewish cabal or a mostly progressive identity group being progressive. Without a specific example of Jewish writers who are pushing for this, I have no reason to buy there is a global conspiracy.
We can also see that maybe Democrats are to blame for some of it as well.
Yeah, but is there any evidence that they are intentionally trying to kill out the white race and replace them, writ large, or just that they're pro immigration because of progressive politics and trying to win on that voting bloc.
I think John Locke resolves all of that with his theory of negative and positive rights.
Are you saying that we have negative rights against other individuals/institutions? Is this to be enforced by the state? If someone comes in my home and says something I dislike, am I unable to tell them to stop since it is my property? What about my business? What about my online platform?
Lastly, in regard to big tech, conservatives got 9 billion interactions compared to 5 billion for liberals, and conservatives are much more likely to be amplified by the algorithm. This is because conservatives are much more likely to be controversial on online spaces that is more likely dominated by young people, which leads to them having more interactions, which leads to greater amplification.
Created: