Total posts: 755
-->
@Greyparrot
It's a hypothetical. It's not supposed to have real world relevance.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Holy shit it's a hypothetical about how heirarchy doesn't neccesarily correlate with economic freedom, or that state intervention doesn't neccesarily correlate with a lack of economic freedom. You completely missed the point in order to call me a Marxist.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I disagree.
Say you're the leader of a state. Your economy is based on coal. You have CEO's presiding over various coal companies where their workers are forced to work an average of 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, with little protection from danger or the diseases that come with overexposure to coal. Death is everywhere and malnourishment, dehydration, and suffering are pervasive. CEOs only have to pay their workers a couple of cents. If the workers don't like it, they can always move to another coal company with similar CEOs and similar conditions.
You have two options:
1: Continue the current "free" mode of society, where you, as a fiscal Libertarian, refuse to intervene at all in the economy
or
2: Force CEOs to give their workers protections from danger and disease, raise the wage so that every worker can feed themselves, ban 10+ hour workdays, and ensure that appropriate supplies of water and food are given so that workers don't die. In addition, give workers small, comparitively weak Labor Unions where they can negotiate various terms with the CEOs.
Now, assume that these policies generally help the workers. Answer honestly: is option 1 more "free" than option 2? I say no; to be honest, option 2 is likely more free. But option 2 won't always be more free; if the said leader of the state chose to turn the economy into a Communist dictatorship, we may be as chained, if not more, than we were before. But the point I'm getting at is that it is rare that a removal of power goes on in economics (or, more accurately, rarer than Austrian school types like to think), and thus, compared to our expectations, a removal of freedom is rare. More accurately, it can be said that power and freedom are transferred. In option 1, the CEOs have more freedom and power than others. In the second, the government and the workers have more power and freedom. So I think it's safe to conclude that any free society isn't inherently heirarchical, and any heirarchical society isn't inherently free. Option 1 was more heirarchical and less free, and option 2 was less heirarchical and more free.
As a postscript, I saw you talk about castes and their relationship to heirarchy. I think what you fail to realize is that right-wing politics predate concepts of capitalism and freedom. The term right, as we know it, originates in France, where supporters of the Monarchy sat on the right side of the parliament or whatever. If you know anything about Monarchist pre-revolutionary French society and how it was organized, you know it wasn't very free for anyone in the lower class (which was most of the population). It was definitely heirarchical tho.
Castes, feudalism, fascism, etc. are all concepts that fly in the face of freedom but are, and are recognized as, right-wing due to their heirarchical structure. And heirarchy, along with the preservation of social institutions (these two intersect often) make up right-wing politics. The whole freedom thing was just a rebranding campaign, and it is reflected in the right's views towards gays, abortion, immigration, and trade.
sorry 4 the rant
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Hierarchy is an universal part of all politics. It is inescapable. It is either the society on top or it is the individual. Some one has to be in charge.
Not what heirarchy means. Prioritizing a certain set of values isn't heirarchy. Deliberately putting groups of people in social structures/positions that are above other people is heirarchy.
Of course it is a traditional social structure. It is the fundamental building block of society. Destroy the family and you destroy society. However it is impossible to destroy it - so the Left have done as much as they can to redefine it - so that it is no longer recognizable by the traditional conservative.
Don't get why this wildly subjective statement is relevant.
Capitalism is not a right wing structure. True, it is not Left wing eithe
Capitalism is a right wing structure, or at least it is in it's more unristricted forms. Free Market Capitalism allows (and to a degree reinforces) people doing better than others, and is fine with some dying so that the rich can have a few hundred more dollars. Socialism pushes for egalitarianism and thus, to varying degrees, rejects heirarchy.
The NAZI fascists are socialist.
They weren't. In fact, they engaged in an extensive level of privitization.
but that is because socialism is both left wing and right wing.
...
As are the Left wing progressives - the issue is big government - not left wing or right wing per se.
Nope. Right wingers, with their love of immigration restriction, federal abortion bans, federal gay marriage bans, etc are participating in just as much "big government" as the leftists.
Capitalism cannot function in right wing ideology.
Not in the extreme right, or at least some sections of it. But the right mostly accepts capitalism.
The left is elitism personafied. The next left I meet who does not act and talk like an elitist will be the first one. It is the nature of left wing progressive politics.
Some leftists have a superiority complex I guess. But superiority complex doesn't equal elitism which doesn't equal heirarchy. It just means you think you're right.
Also, talking to leftists and analyzing how they act is not a good indicator of what their ideological beliefs are.
Created:
-->
@Vader
That's a fair example, but that can be equally the same if power is given in the wrong hands as well. If we look at the Soviet Union, millions of people died in their care because of a strong national government
Okay the initial claim is that conservatives are protecting freedom because they oppose state intervention in the economy (even this isn't always true, see people like Nick Fuentes). My point is that this is not neccesarily true. What economic system (socialism vs. capitalism, keynseanism vs. lazziez-faire capitalism) allows for the most freedom is one of the, if not the, principle economic debates of the past 100 years, and I've given you some arguments from the leftist lane just to substantiate that claim.
You take GWB and apply it to all scenarios. I have no problem with military. We have to defend ourselves from a threat in China, who is rapidly growing is there military and certainly becoming more aggressive in SCS. If they become #1, who knows what will happen
You're missing the point. Conservatives supporting military expansion and international wars are not small government. I don't care if it's justified or not. I'm not arguing over which system is better, I am trying to stamp down a definition for conservatives/the right.
Biden was anti gay marriage when Trump was in support of gay marriage. The Liberals turned the tides and now want to blame Republicans
To use an anecdote to deny the obvious truth that it was progressives that supported gay marriage and conservatives that opposed it is absurd. We can play blind to historical trends all we want and look at the outliers, but come on.
I think abortion shouldn't be publicly founded. It is against my religion to get an abortion, yet our family is paying tax dollars for people to have abortions. That isn't fair. Abortions should be privatized with government regulation.
I don't care about your personal opinions. Conservatives by enlarge want to ban abortion.
I'm assuming Israel vs Palestine. Personally, due to the fact I've wanted to visit Israel to practice my religion, and Palestine want's to push religion away, I support Israel, but not for any other reason
See above. I understand your perspective, but Conservatives are supportive of funding a militaristic and expansionist state. Not small government.
So you don't believe capitalism and democracy isn't a good form of government?
We're not arguing over what is good? I think that immigration restrictions, abortion bans, gay marriage bans, military building etc are not small government. The notion that Republicans are the party of small government isn't true.
The thing is that Liberals want the national government to operate stronger than the state governments. I disagree with this. A state is more equipped to handle to state issues versus the national government. There should be natl restrictions for states, but states need to power some more power than the federal government. Having a more powerful federal government is bad
I guess? But Conservatives support state's rights when it slows progress by liberals. Back when gay marriage was still up in the air, Conservatives tried to federally get rid of it altogether.
I support the death penalty, but on very rare occasions, and it needs to be regulated
Conservatives by enlarge support it. The state killing it's citizens doesn't sound very small government to me.
Created:
-->
@Vader
I forgot to mention that conservatives support things like punitive justice/death penalty
Created:
-->
@Vader
I came here to talk about what conservatism/right-wing politics means. I don't want to talk about the left. Cancel culture is stupid, you're right. It's gone on long before progressives attatched to it (see Anita Sarkeesian) but you're right. I don't know what the relevance of that is.
You seem to have two flaws in your definition of Conservatism.
One is that more government = less freedom - this is false. Say you live in a society where slavery is commonplace. Now the govt. bans it. This society is now more free despite government intervention.
This applies to Socialism as well. Non-tankie socialists will rarely tell you that they're anti-freedom, they just think about freedom in a different way. Socialists don't think about a person being able to start a business where they're a CEO as freedom - when they think about freedom, they think about workers being able to negotiate on equal grounds with people. Socialists will also tell you that if you're living on the street in the rain without any food, you're not free. Socialists will, too, tell you that the state allowing megacorporations to dominate people and prices is not making anyone more free except for the higher-ups in said corporations.
The second mistake you make is the claim that Conservatives allow for less government than Liberals, which is false. Libertarians do, but Conservatives don't. Conservatives are the ones who want to have the state increase it's prescence on our borders. Conservatives want to build up our military and often want to push it into other countries. Conservatives were the ones who didn't want gay people to be allowed to marry until that position became untenable. Conservatives are the ones who want to restrict your access to abortion. Conservatives are the ones who don't want to allow a doctor to assist you in your death when you are so sick that you don't want to live anymore. Conservatives fall all over themselves justifying Israel, a militaristic state that is pushing into the borders of another country. Conservatives don't want smaller government - they just want to push the government somewhere else.
Your "giving stuff to the states = freedom" thing is false. Once again, decentralization just moves power, it doesn't remove it. The people in my country will have more rights if I don't let individual states restrict freedoms, for example.
I'm bothered that a common Conservative response to issues is to complain about the left, which I hope you're not doing here. I can't have a constructive conversation on systemic racism on this site for example without the inevitable righty coming in to tell me about Biden's crime bill or some shit.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Is the preservation of family not a traditional social structure? Is supporting the traditional family over other family models not heirarchical? Is capitalism not a right wing structure?
I wholeheartedly reject the notion that progressive politics end in elitism. It is no coincidence that the further Left you go, the more anti-elitist and egalitarian you become. The opposite is true with the right. Conservatives want to preserve traditions and heirarchies. As you get further right, you begin to want to enforce these traditions and heirarchies until you eventually reach Fascism. Heirarchy is not a universal feature of politics.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Most political ideologies could be described as a maximization of freedom depending on your worldview. Freedom is subjective. What constitutes heirarchy and social structures is far less subjective.
Created:
Or the preservation of traditional social institutions. Argued with ethang5 over this. Really curious how you could define this any differently.
Created:
If you believe it is caused by their biological/racial traits then yes. Otherwise it's just a fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
she wants to lead a global pandemic!
Are you not a Trump supporter
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Rushed to judgement to say... what exactly?
Created:
What was the point of this thread?
Created:
-->
@Vader
Sure, I can try it out
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Was he asked to stop before he was banned?
Created:
Posted in:
Actually, I just got Skyrim on PS4. With the amount of stuff there is to do that'll probably become my most played game.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Yeah. And they're only portraying a fraction of leftists/radlibs. Even if they were tackling real issues here, the satire would still be garbage. Most satire is good because of it's subtlety/cleverness, not because it beats you over the head with it's message until your head is caved in.
Also the K-12 is raising Conservatives, not Liberals. I went to school. I heard what was essentially "Racism ended with MLK" and also never heard anything about the crimes committed by America.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
You don't have to kritik forum posts lol. Kritiking is a debate tactic.
EDIT: Formal debate tactic
Created:
Posted in:
This is terrible satire.
Worse, it's so exaggerated that it fails to address any problems that it perceives to actually exist.
I'm sure that there are some twitter lefties that think like the people described in this video. Anyone who experiences stuff like this on a day-to-day basis is living in a completely different world than me though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I'm viewing it right now. From the comments, I suspect that it's bullshit but I will let u know once I'm finished viewing it.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
@ILikePie5
Am I wrong in saying that the First Amendment regulates govt. actions and nothing else? Genuine question.
Created:
Posted in:
Jan 1st, 2016 - The American wealth gap doubles since 1989, proving that the 1 percent are truly the rightful overlords of our society and poor people are just money-grabbing welfare hogs. If you disagree with this you're a Socialist who is responsible for the death of 100000 trillion billion people and how dare you my grandpa lived in the soviet union and he said it was terrible
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
it wasnt all of her fault but of course screaming at cops and sourounding them put you in a place to be trampled, thats a fact
So we can't stand around cops now? When was she she screaming, she was just holding a sign up?
they put up a cerfew at 8
True, but still - it was senseless, angry violence and a complete lack of self control. If he wanted to arrest him he could've. He just attacked him instead.
they are police! there not there to play nice and ask politely
They literally are.
a young white man at a BLACK LIVES MATTER protest running around in a crowd is trouble
Pretty sure he's running around because he's getting beaten with sticks.
no you didnt see anything, yoiu are just claiming that it was peaceful even though that building is burned down now!
I saw the front of the crowd.
Say I'm by a vase. I'm just chilling there. Then some guy comes in 30 minutes later and sees that the vase is broken. Did I break the vase? Because I was there before the vase was broken? No.
altercations that arent so called "brutality" just altercations in general
Altercations that result in unneccesary brutality are brutality.
i havent seen the context from the second clip
I'm sorry but what you're saying here is literally evil. If you don't know how to kneel on a neck you don't do it - that's why these protests happen in the first place. Clearly he did it wrong because she lost her child. He was also tazing her stomach. She was not resisting. Once again - you need to take a second to look at what you're saying before you say it. I thought pro-life people cared about unborn babies?
unmarked vans isnt a secret police!
Police are throwing people into random vans where you can't see their actions/who's doing what. It's obstructive, pointless, and easily allows police to get away with egregious violence/kidnappings. What else do police need to do for them to be secret police? WE CANT EVEN IDENTIFY WHO EACH INDIVIDUAL IS BECAUSE THEIR CARS ARE UNMARKED.
police are there to use violence if neccessary
Can protestors use violence if neccesary? Can I attack policemen if they do something wrong?
The violence you're seeing from the cops is overboard. The riots are also overboard. You only oppose one.
Created:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@RationalMadman
Yeah, the Debate/Forum one is kind of boring. If DART sees this he should scratch that one IMO.
I never noticed that the font without the picture was in Messages/Notifs/Profile too. Huh.
Created:
It changes back when you click debates/forum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I'd actually say a black and white picture like this is maybe not entirely accurate. Socialist countries sometimes had a lot of success in areas like literacy/healthcare/legal equality, but would often have problems with their human rights records, especially in countries in which respect for human rights did not have a big legal precedent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Generally yes, with some exceptions. Check out Thomas Sankara. Cuba also had mixed success.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
yes he does know but he accidently trampled a lady who sourounded the police and overwhelmed the horse
You have literally no idea whether it was an accident or not. Now you're saying it was the lady's fault for "overwhelming the horse"? Pivot.
Excuse me for thinking that if you're a cop you shouldn't be running over people in the street whether it's an accident or not.
its common knowledge that you can use the road for an organized protest but not a unorgnaized hooligan party at night past the curfew
You don't even know what the curfew was. I know what I saw - if the policeman thought he was breaking the law he could've confronted him, but instead he opened up his door just to hurt him.
they were absolutely tyring the block the police advance
The police were walking into a protest. If someone comes up to you you tell them to move, not push them. That escalates.
he was most likely biased againbst police and he was a holligan creating disruptions
Oh I'm sure.
how do you know the exact time, you coudlbnt see cleary from that angle either
I saw people at the front by the police with signs up just standing there. There was no sounds/any violence whatsoever.
2/8 for supposed police brutality is a pretty bad percentage, and i dont feel like going through the same nonsense on reddit where a confrontation happens and then its "brutality"
2/8 from your perspective. You said 99% of these altercations were not brutality. I proved you wrong.
A confrontation? The second top post of all time is a policeman causing a woman to have a MISCARRIAGE by KNEELING ON HER NECK .
Police have been recorded putting people in unmarked minivans. But of course calling that what it is is "truly disgusting".
You by default assume that protestors are violent but do not default assume that police are violent. What a joke.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why do you think increased govt. funding for schools will be efficient when it's done here but not when it's done now?
Vouchers for private schools is a fine but very small scale solution. Sending a bunch of kids to a public school will overcrowd, create massive transportation problems, and will ruin the local schools. The public schools that the kids will be going to will have to accept them, so "choice" is very subjective.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Once again you’re dodging. Defunding means taking full or partial funds away from police officers. Biden supports this. You’re engaging in semantics. Biden supports partial defunding of police if that makes you feel better.
You said "crime surges without the police". In Joe Biden's america, there would still be police.
You said how would unions get weaker? Well there are multiple provisions that would prevent unions from protecting officers because of the interactions they’d be required to report under law with penalty.
Where is this?
And your whole thing here is predicated on the false and unsupported assumption that Unions are the ONLY problem with police. Police are willing to unjustly protect each other and cross out crimes whether there are unions or not.
They don’t, when they should. Skin cancer activists support every other cancer treatment research. I never said they can’t stand for both things. The problem is they don’t stand for both things—only the one that is politically convenient for them.
Why do you assume they don't care?
There are a plethora of ways school choice can be implemented and it’s not just through vouchers. The key is choice. Poor communities lack the funds to be able to enroll their child in a private school for example. Instead of gathering every child in a broken public school system, it increases efficiency if there are more options available to these parents. Will every child be accepted into a private school? Obviously not. Will public schools still exist? Sure. Will efficiency increase? Definitely because there are more options tailored to the child. I simply don’t see why you want the govt to force people to go to broken public schools that cannot be fixed. Fixing the community involved better education and school choice does that.
I thought you meant "school vouchers" by school choice. I understand now.
How would the plan work? Kids are allowed to go to private schools now. A kid I am a mentor for lives in a very poor neighborhood but goes to a private school regardless. They just don't have the money.
And I disagree with the notion that public schools are un-fixable. If the problem isn't the amount of money given, it's where the money's going.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So just leave neighborhood schools and their teachers to rot away while you strain to keep this now overcrowded school alive? Instead of maybe looking at how funds can be re-allocated?
Do you realize how long the commutes are going to be when parents, who are often working two jobs/single, have to go to the nearest school OUTSIDE of their neighborhood?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Thanks for conceding Biden supports defunding the police. And no. Crime is going to surge without the police. It already is in places like New York.
Biden supporting redirecting funds, not doing away with police altogether.
Shamefully rejected by Senate Democrats.
Not a single mention of the word Union. Pivot. A more hefty Democratic bill is going through the house of reps right now.
Yup keep dodging. I showed you why your analogy was false.
Your initial point was that BLM doesn't care about Black on Black crime. My point was that organizations don't have to stand for one thing if they stand for another thing. You then went on a rant about BLM and the Democrats. How'd you show me my analogy was false?
Yup school choice is important. Glad you agree. Public schools in inner cities are extremely well funded. They still fail. Efficiency is where school choice comes in.
By school choice do you mean improving schools? Or do you mean letting students have school vouchers so they can crowd up some school outside of their neighborhood? School vouchers do nothing to actually improve the communities the affected party lives in. They just send them out.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't oppose trying out financial incentivization of good behavior. It'll have to be a lot of money though as often criminal activity is often the easiest way for people to get financially stable quickly. And ofc it's not a guaranteed fix.
I don't like Democrats and I think they pay lip service to actual issues. Not that Republicans are better.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
When did I talk about a rally?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
That’s a lie. He supports redirecting funds elsewhere. That’s defunding. Guess what? When people are out looting, people with guns will stand and protect their property.
Oh the horror of redirecting funds elsewhere... You realize that you can stop crime in more ways than one, right?
This whole "Police Unions are the only problem" claim is unsubstantiated and you've failed to suggest how Republicans plan to weaken the Police Unions.
What you’re advocating for is the police doing nothing while rocks and chemicals in bottles are thrown at them. What you’re advocating for is letting federal courthouses burn. What you’re advocating for is violence.
[citation needed]
It’s a political organization where all the funds get diverted to Democratic candidates. They don’t give two shits about black people. They want to burn down the system. They want to abolish cops. And guess who would help them do that? Democrats. False equivalency fallacy.
Nice whataboutism.
What’s your solution? Throwing more money at failed public schools in inner cities? Ya keep promoting failure.
Allocating money more efficiently, creating community organizations that lower crime rates, and yes, funding schools. Schools in these communities are still very poor and often do not have the rescources to perform well. So clearly if the money's there the efficiency isn't and if the efficiency is there the money isn't.
1. Graduating from high school.2. Waiting to get married until after 21 and do not have children till after being married.3. Having a full-time job.Following these three rules decreases your chance of landing in poverty drastically.
How to enforce this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I guess it'd be good PR, sure.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
who said he didnt know hw to ride a horse? overeaction
Clearly if he's running people over he doesn't know how to ride a horse.
thet was organized and they werent ANY cars on the road, that road was off limits, theres plently of protests recently that were on roads
Source this claim.
they cant do that if they morons trying to stop them advance
They absolutely can. They weren't even trying to.
if he escalated things, police try and isolate him to arrest him, seems he was running through the crowd creating chaos, but blame the cops on that?
We need context here. The original poster said that the police walked in and started attacking people.
with blanks at his from far away so we dont where it hit people, and yes they WAS RIOTS, maybe that shooting was neccessary?
From the roof, shooting tear gas... Doing nothing but harming people.
Yeah, riots happened LATER. There was no sign of violence from that video. Stop conflating protestors with rioters.
and its a duty of the civilian to not interfere with their ways if not brutality which is 99% of the time
I agree, it's not smart to attack police.
Even you admitted that 2/8 examples "looked pretty bad". And there are hundreds of these. They're kidnapping people.
the enemy is the communist anarchist protestors and mobs, not the police
I will NOT side with the police if they are attacking innocents and practicing indiscriminant violence. If you do, you are an authoritarian by definition.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Joe Biden doesn't support defunding police either, but sure, support the "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" guy.
I understand that police usually don't kill people. Great. What a high standard I hold them to. But during the protests/riots they're turning into a death squad, and yet the police comissioner comes out and cries over them being demonized by the media. All I ask is that police don't attack protestors, and act with some restraint. It's your job for christ sake.
You're right. I guess the National Pancreatic Cancer Foundation should focus on skin cancer too because it's the most common type of cancer. That stupid foundation, always focusing on the smaller problems.
School choice? Like having millions of poor Americans just move out to a different school, abandon the schools in their neighborhood, and fill up schools that are going to take a massive economic blow by sustaining all of these new kids? I doubt that'll do much, if school vouchers is what you're talking about here.
What do you even mean by "embedding family values",
Yeah, I know that increased funding in poor black communities isn't going to fix everything. But there needs to be a proactive effort to improve all aspects of life there, and yes, we need to spend money on it.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Whatever. Police are trained in de-escalation. What you're seeing is brutal violence and unorganized beatings. This is completely undisputable. Police are literally covering their tags so that they can't be identified. They're kidnapping people. Look at the videos I presented. Look at these. This is 1984 shit. I don't have time for authoritarians.
Created: