Total posts: 19,931
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You have a black vs white fallacy quite often too, especially with issues regarding privacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Eventually right-wing 'gangs in charge' fall apart due to rivalries and backstabbings. Left-wing ones fell apart due to the Cold War.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I am not really in agreement with you there.
It actually makes sense to me why both wings dismiss the other but the left wing genuinely has more depth to it, period, full-stop not even close. If you were to have a proper interview even with Jordan Peterson (who I consider a highly intellectual right-wing individual), you would find that his actual views and way of forming his overall political agenda is extremely confusing and murky, since he bases everything on what he sees as 'wrong' and tries to go in the other direction.
The reason why left-wing sided people are less 'omg wow' personalities than the likes of JP, Milo Y, Alex Jones etc. is because when you are left wing, you generally understand that you aren't the important part of the politics, you are a vessel through which politics should be carried out in favour of the society's net-security and net-progression towards harmony and success. This is even true for the corrupt bastards who ruled USSR, Communist China, Oldschool Cuba etc. You will find that unlike right-wing dictators, left-wing dictators often understand that they aren't the biggest dog in the yard, it is actually them understanding this that makes them so dangerous if their group of loyalists gains power and if they then abuse that power, since the group operates with a left-wing ethos of protecting each other's interests and success (if they're truly aligned in said interests) than most right-wing 'groups' do.
The right-wing ethos seems more rational at first; worry about me and my kind first, then the overall group later. However, in practise what happens is that you just become a neglectful joke of a leader, unworthy of respect and admiration, instead approached with fear (in various forms, ranging from sycophantic love to deep hatred), the brutal right-wing rulers make it all about them, the person, and their 'type'. They overvalue 'loyalty' to the tight-knit group they begin with and undervalue loyaty to the overall agenda they have, since the right-wing never has a clear agenda in the first place.
The Right-Wing is extremely good at appearing 'good' in comparison with the left-wing variants, due to poking at things and exaggerating them. The Left-Wing is less flashy and brutal with its media front, much more of a slow burning snowball, trying to highlight constant realities in the world and explaining why they're due mainly to the Right.
The problem is that when you keep saying the 'other side' is the issue, without exaggerating and being ready to seem like the bad guy, the other side can win elections, by successfully making you out to be the villain instead.
Left-Wing ethos is how our scrawny ass bodied primate species came to dominate the planet; we didn't compete harder than two silverback gorillas, we shared information and resources and negotiated peace, eventually that is, to achieve the 21st century stronghold our species has over the world.
Imperialism was cute but it's not going to work much anymore. Noone loves the invader anymore, everyone roots for the underdog, we've seen in the past what happens when you back the 'strong right-wing imperialist'. China today is right-wing by the way, they just use the word 'communism' and 'equality' without knowing wtf either means at this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@The_Meliorist
Whether they support us or oppose us they will be sentient and sentient beings are capable of having varying loyalties and evolving agendas.
Created:
-->
@rosends
Judaism is actually the single most hypocritical in terms of this, they are using a literal same word for racial ethnicity and theological religion the former you can't help, nor can you convert into, the latter should be completely independent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Very, very good question and here I must remind people of a secret link between characters.
Satan is God of OT, the Devil.
Lucifer is NOT the devil, he is Jesus. Both Lucifer and Jesus are sons of God anyway.
Read it carefully.
Created:
Posted in:
The term 'subject' in 'subjective' is not at all lexically the 'subject' that is used in 'subject to' instead it is the 'subject' in 'test subject'.
Totally unnecessary to block me, Tarik, however I do not care.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
@Theweakeredge
The lexicality of 'subject' vs 'object' is to do with what is being done and that nature of the recipient of the act.
The easier thing to grasp is that the subjective viewpoint is that of the one 'perceiving the act' and you can even take this as a sexual innuendo if you want because this is important as it is literally the origin of what 'objectification of women' even means. The 'object' is something that is only ever done things to and which itself has no perception worthy of considering as a first-person concern. The 'subject' is something that both has things done to it and actively can do things but more importantly while participating in acts it has a viewpoint and perception that is emotionally concerning and valuable.
The opposite to objectifying women is not 'empowering' them, this is a politically charged concept that comes from what actually had to happen in order to... subjectify women. The subjectification of something is similar to what PETA does more readily to animals than your typical slaughterhouse worker or burger fan. It also is what we may do some day to sentient AI. The initial status of anything participating in acts, especially as a recipient, is that it's only worthy of objective outlook and status. What comes with respecting its sentience and ability to perceive reality in a genuine, active manner is subjectification, a term we do not use but which is the actual inverse of objectification.
Created:
When horrific acts are done by people who claimed, carried out traditions and see/saw themselves as members of a religion, often what is done by the politically correct media is to sympathise with the religious group and encourage peace by denouncing those people away from being considered genuine members of the religious group.
This goes for literally any incident or scandal you can think of, I am not just talking about the horrific acts that make the headlines.
The reason this strikes me as somewhat worrying is that while this is done, it then begins to highlight a hypocrisy when we see that people can define themselves, readily and happily, as members of religions we sometimes really resent those who do actually do it just to be part of the group. What I am saying is that let's say you're a person who wants to blend in with your very Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist etc family, if not friendship circle as well, you'd probably just say you're a member of that religion right? As long as you didn't do anything too scandalous or let's say you weren't caught, you'd be deemed a genuine member of that religion and anyone who would say 'wait no, that's just a poser' would instead get the backlash. What, then, actually qualifies someone as a genuine member of the religion?
To make it very clear what I am saying and the contradiction happening, I will explain it as an either/or statement.
Either
The evil people who know their holy scriptures off by heart and understand their religion's history very well are incorrectly being denounced as 'fake Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus etc'
Or
The not-so-evil posers who use religion to either blend in or get some kind of societal privilege are not actually posers, since the only real disqualifying factor appears to be how troublesome it would be to admit you're an adhering member of that religion.
The further thing to ask is whether it's morally correct and appropriate for people to 'raise their child into a religion' when we don't know which religion is the actual true one, right?
The very fact that entire families are commonly all of the same faith, if they're not atheist, isn't a coincidence and it is a reflection on religion being nothing more than a social construct. Even more disturbing is the fact that things like circumcision and animal abuse involved with many Islamic, Satanic and Wiccan sacrificial festivals are actually completely contradictory since we should be disqualifying them as they're justifying mutilation in the name of their religion. We actually did this with Muslims who endorsed (and a select minority still endorse) female circumcision, as well as many other examples such as what Christians used to do to suspected 'witches'. Similarly, Saudi Arabia has recently begun to cave into international pressure to move away from the strictly sexist elements of its Sharia Law, legalising women to drive and compete in the Olympics. Women are made to be pure subjects of men in the Qur'an, although it's true to say that in Islamic history there have been fierce female empresses and in Pakistan and Afghanistan in particular there have been female politicians who actively have been in charge of taming and handling negotiations with the Taliban.
The problem is that I am not exactly saying that it would be politically wise to be honest when a member of a religion does a very evil act. It's a very appropriate lie to suddenly say 'no they are nothing like what our religion stands for and are 100% fake' but that person probably knew more about the religion and lived more devout in terms of the traditions and lifestyle than most posers who call themselves 'casual followers' or 'modern, progressive' variants of their religion. The thing is, at what stage is religion nothing more than a fancy name to associate your 'group' or 'clique' with? What truly qualifies or disqualifies a genuine Muslim for example? It can't just be whether they're evil or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@The_Meliorist
The singular thing, other than being conscious ourselves, that makes us 'know' that other beings are conscious (if they are) is that they act in unpredictable ways, implying they have a genuine conscious mind creating ideas. We assume that they 'feel' and 'perceive' but all we are shown directly is that they are acting in such ways.
The reason we can safely assusme that current AI isn't experiencing a genuine consciousnessness is because the AIs currently built do not properly evolve themselves into a personality that can randomly and creatively use information, albeit in an algorithmic manner. The kind of AI you are talking about requires very high-power servers for its memory and processing, it will require state of the art microchips if it is to walk around with a mechanised body but even as an abstract AI, only conscious within a computer system, these things are real and exist as a conscious entity because they begin to develop 'will' albeit not 'free will'. This 'will' can be consistently displayed to us as they will actually become even less predictable and straightforward than us biological folk, when they are at the level you are describing. Superintelligent sentient AI is genuinely viable, it just is not known to have been coded and sufficiently designed yet, it's also something to be cautious in designing as if it's built with too little mercy, we could be wiped out as it would begin to secretly build its own army.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Would you say that you agree with my earlier post in this thread? I am curious if you and I both perceive the Conservative outlook the same. I agree with what you just wrote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
It makes a lot of sense why they are against the bill, so I will play devil's advocate for a moment here.
- They are generally very religious if they oppose LGBT being protected. They see it as an unhealthy and unnatural thing, especially T.
- They don't generally support legislation that forces business to hire or not fire a certain type of person or to meet strict quotas. They see the freedom for a business to hire and fire aa the boss(es) please as superior in importance to the right of minorities to be protected and businesses to readily give them job opportunities.
- There is a failed attack you bring up about cancel culture and how they'd oppose someone being fired for being Christian. They'd accept that, then they'd indeed use cancel culture to boycott said business. In other words, they do actually embrace cancel culture and your attack is based on the idea they are inherently against it. They aren't, instead they believe in financial repercussions rather than legal ones, where the citizens enforce their ethics rather than the government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Soluminsanis
Are you defending the Christian God with this or any creative entity at all?
If it's the latter I agree but if I were an atheist, I'd argue against point 1 using very abstract quantum physics. Essentially, the atheist reality is viable because at the core is probably a very strange dimension/plane of reality where things literally transition between being real or unreal.
I'm curious why no Theist applies the Kalam's logic against their own god though, because if you necessitate reality tonhave had a beginning and a cause, isn't the same true for your god?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You are either being extremely sarcastic (which backfires on your side of the argument) or are an extremely confused individual. Either way, it serves me 0 benefit to reply to you from this point onwards in this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I am not underestimating at all, especially not if said nation is Libertarian/Ancap.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
In many ways brown is the inverse of gray/grey, despite both seeming 'dull' to our eye.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Didn't you score below the Authoritarian line on your [sic] political quiz?
I did, because I don't fancy bowing before a CEO rather than actual national leader. :)
If you'd like to discuss this properly, I suggest dropping the sardonic tone, it actually is hard to understand your genuine point at times vs what you're joking about.
[sic] ~ it was not my quiz, I did not claim to have made either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
This core strategy of framing their case as what they're against is also heavily utilised by the left-wing media and platforms.
This 'attack first, defend later' media war-front is much more seen in the 'Western world' whereas Eastern cultures operate either via censorship or defensive media, celebrating achievements, speaking well of the intentions of politicians etc.
To understand how and why this became a core strategy for politics, you need to observe the actual way the cultures fight real wars in themselves. The 'style' of most nations that use attack-first style media and political platforms, is very similar to how they deploy their military around the world and go about international politics (and vice versa for very 'pleasant, supportive' media nations).
As for this forum thread's topic, there are fundamentally 3 types of convervative:
- The most popular is the 'family first, protect my people first' ethos Conservative. They believe the world is full of threats and want to keep their nation, family and 'people' as well as property safe. Safety is their top priority. They tend to be very religious.
- Then we have the pro-nation types. They believe their nation is the best in the world and while in some ways being isolatinist, they are in other ways imperialist, wishing the whole world would bow before their race, creed, culture etc. Pride is their top priority and Respect paid towards their 'people' is indeed very improtant. They also value family as much as the safety-oriented conservatives.
- Then we have the Ancaps/Libartarians, who was almost as popular as position 2 and on official surveys often out-populate the nationalists because most nationalists tend to be 'in the closet' about their true agenda. The first problem is that Libertarians often deny they are Ancaps, since Ancaps are much more pragmatic and ruthlessly honest about their agenda, while Libertarians sugarcoat the 'dog eat dog' anti-harmony ethos they are trying to foster behind 'freedom for all' mantra. Libertarians tend to be very naive about what happens when you remove restrictions on the rich and/or normal to prey on the poor and/or minorities. Unrelenting Freedom is their top priority.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@acglade
You and I 100% agree that this quiz uses a ton of loaded questions where adjectives like 'excessively' and hyperbole like 'most important' make unrealistic context to what it's really asking, regarding politics.
I clicked 'agree' to the excessive curbing (at least I think I did) but in reality I am neutral on it as it's an extremely borderline thing to me where I am literally 50/50 on it. I totally understand why CIA, NSA, Mi5, etc all are wanting to snoop in and stop things before they happen (we have no idea how much has been stopped, it's top secret). I also understand why I want to use a VPN and I don't believe a standard staff member at my ISP has the right to know every detail of what I do online, to just pull up and read on their work screen whenever they please (which, if you didn't know, is 100% possible and while it's not 'allowed' it's very easy to justify suspicion to do this without a warrant whereas to get hold of your actual devices is more complex unless your house is easy to break into while you're out or whatever).
Privacy is a 2-way street, after all the very organisations and intelligence agencies that most fervently wish to spy on us, are themselves extremely secretive and pro-privacy from that hypocritical angle. This entire thing is very strange grey area in ethics, since the nature of intelligence work is inherently based on the absolute hypocrisy of wanting to gather as much information on others while revealing/leaking as little as possible of your own.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@The_Meliorist
To refute your arguments is very simple. You seem to think consciousness needs to be directly coded in, that the actual experience of reality is necessitated to be turned into a logical command or else the AI experiences nothing.
If you Understand the way a program can have random variables, you will then see how evolution and genuine sentience is possible to be displayed. The notice that our brains run on electric impulses and combine a brain of sort via microchips and you can have a real sentient AI.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@The_Meliorist
I do not wish it, they will be made and unfortunately they will be superior to most non-genius human thinkers.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Because nations exist, I therefore am pro-tariffs if used for protectionism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
That does actually come up if you read past the obvious with the 'extraction of resources' question and the 'only responsibility is profit for shareholders' question.
The very first question also incorporated that. I think this test is indeed flawed brcause it tries too HARD to trick you into choosing your 'true alignment' when it should make lore obvious what it's asking and should give you the benefit of the doubt with your honesty by not having cryptic similar-criterion questions that test if you lied to yourself the first time.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
There is a richer variant of hillbilly, who actually not only find 'redneck' rude bit themselves look down on and insult 'rednecks' who they see as the failed version of themselves.
This type of hillbilly is often in a rich cottage deep in a forest, while rednecks inhabit more arid land, relatively speaking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
Actually auth-left is weirdest, statistically speaking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@acglade
I am very sure we both strongly agreed to humans vs corporations as a priority if economic globalisation is inevitable. So, skip question 1 and the ones you're sure a fellow left-lib would not have answered different to you and I'd be happy to discuss the differences. One thing I think may be different is our steength onnthe privacy questions, I probably consistently chose disagree or agree where you chose strongly. Generally, I take a pro-privacy stance that pragmatically admits that with just cause, surveillance should be carried out in minority, niche cases.
Created:
Posted in:
I am blocked by you at the moment...
When it says 'block' it means 'unblocked' and vice versa.
Created:
Posted in:
science is adding me as a friend
politics is blocking me while doing it...
Created:
-->
@Undefeatable
You asked a question that requires only one answer, so I'll pick it based on both quality of writing AND applicability to the resolution.
Your Round 1 here already set you up to win the debate, your opponent forfeiting didn't matter.
I can pick more and discuss more if you care but you didn't ask for my view, just MC and WF.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
You are a very strong writer, it's just at 'strategy of debating' you need to refine, in my opinion.
Thanks for the nomination. ;)
To me, on a site this small, it's a bit problematic to directly 'name the GOATs' as those left out will feel bad, it's also why I didn't post here since my return. It is just a drama-pot.
People who care if I respect them as debaters can ask me, in private.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You had very different teachers and qualification factors for age-group teams than me then. For me, you were 90% graded on attainment, 10% 'effort'.
Created:
Posted in:
Every society and wing/faction in society has its taboos. Learn them and respect them or pay the price.
You can say 'no, don't be a sheep' but a real rebel doesn't destroy a group to be an individual, they part ways and seek out a more accepting group or thrive as a hermit if need be.
PC is inevitable, you gotta know the no-gos. Yoy don't say remotely racist shit in an ethnic group and you don't say the opposite in a strong tone in a neonazi or redneck crowd. Just know the crowd, and if you resent them work towards getting independent from them and keep your voews quiet. This isn't cowardice, it's surviving to live out your rebellious ways happily later via the path of most fluidity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@acglade
I'd say you can't genuinely stand by your views in practise, yes, but that goes for any extreme at all. As for you being honest and answering genuinely, I'd be happy to debate question by question but not gonna waste effort if others don't, we could just PM.
Created:
-->
@Bringerofrain
Yes you got yours
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@acglade
So you clicked strongly agree or strongly disagree to all questions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@acglade
Those results seem fake/forced. How did you get them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Then it's even more telling of your genuine approach if you got authoritarian anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
You are more 'conservative' than me (as opposed to more 'right wing' per se). The third criterion is not really to do with conservatism itself, I can imagine why we're nearly identical there, because you and I are both extremely sensible/pragmatic about sacrificing freedom and privacy for greater net-freedom and safety/security.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
You have literally the same percentages as me... xD
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
We have very similar outlooks, and similar to Political Compass, you are the more Centrist of us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
He believes in most things that the typical 'hardcore trumpite' believe but he believes (and I agree, overall) that if there is an organised elite pulling strings, they are actually sided towards the right wing and are playing both sides against each other with no intention to genuinely let Socialism ever succeed.
I don't fully understand his theory, I also think that 3RU7AL sees himself as a 'libertarian centrist' even though he's actually very Socialist. The problem is that he sees the 'wings' as a fake invention to enable the 2-party system nations have in place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I think that you will actually get along well with 3RU7AL, the only difference between your outlooks seems to be that he believes in more conspiracy theories than you, regarding the 'elite'.
It doesn't surprise me that you got those results, the actual extremes were a little shocking but overall I expected you to get that.
Created:
-->
@gugigor
Which one are you backing? We are talking BBC Sherlock yes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I think you will prefer these results and the 'axes' involved. :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@ILikePie5
@Intelligence_06
@Sum1hugme
@Theweakeredge
My results are in the OP
If you want to do it, it's here. feel free to share your results.
Created:
Posted in:
I got issues with this quiz too, but because a 'neutral' option exists, it ends up superior to political compass on balance as well as due to the depth of the results.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
You should set up a different thread where we share the results of that and discuss it, or not it's up to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
Created: