Wank Dad 2: Electric Wankaloo

[Kara]

This was a border skirmish in a larger fight but as I was someone who linked Pinker itt: claiming he's on the left after his recent debate with Jason Hickel stretches credulity, and not just because he opened his rebuttal with, "Not sure why I should be the one to defend the consensus on global economic development against a Marxist ideologue enabled by the Guardian," (powerful commitment to free speech vibes from that dependent clause) but because even using a left / right spectrum wherein left terminates after historical liberalism, Hickel's ultimate position is fundamentally liberal: the economic periphery and semi-periphery aren't allowed to have self-determination, historically via colonial dispossession, and presently through being unable to tax the multinationals that operate within their borders with an equitable application of law.

[Mandark]

gotta say, bristling at people labelling ben shapiro as far right and calling sam harris left-wing makes for some pretty interesting political cartography

[Leadbelly]

I think the term 'spectrum' is a good word for this. I mentioned Glenn Greenwald in a previous post. Go on RE and you will find to some on there Greenwald doesn't pass the purity test. People will play the same game of suspicion. I think the problem is people want to own these terms and make them fit solidly with their own worldviews. This person can't be left because he doesn't agree with x,y,z.

To be honest, I'm not really sure I care. As I said before, the terms have become meaningless to me, and this example kind of proves why.

[Leadbelly]

gotta say, bristling at people labelling ben shapiro as far right and calling sam harris left-wing makes for some pretty interesting political cartography

Was it ben shapiro? It's funny, you say I make bad arguments, but I thought my reasoning was totally sound on that term. As I said, the term far-right is associated with white supremacy. In most people's minds when they hear far-right they pretty much hear Nazi. And there is a good reason for this. It is because historically that was what the term suggested.

I also recall someone arguing that it doesn't mean that. Well, it seems like it doesn't mean that now, it has been broadened along with other terms. It comes across as a political tool to silence people you disagree with.

I posted this video to prove it is not just in my head:


And now I am thinking, maybe it is a European thing? I don't know.

[Mandark]

I think the term 'spectrum' is a good word for this. I mentioned Glenn Greenwald in a previous post. Go on RE and you will find to some on there Greenwald doesn't pass the purity test. People will play the same game of suspicion. I think the problem is people want to own these terms and make them fit solidly with their own worldviews. This person can't be left because he doesn't agree with x,y,z.

To be honest, I'm not really sure I care. As I said before, the terms have become meaningless to me, and this example kind of proves why.

I'm not so sure he even considers himsef a man of the left, considering he's used "leftist" to describe nambla and islamist organizations

[Leadbelly]

I think the term 'spectrum' is a good word for this. I mentioned Glenn Greenwald in a previous post. Go on RE and you will find to some on there Greenwald doesn't pass the purity test. People will play the same game of suspicion. I think the problem is people want to own these terms and make them fit solidly with their own worldviews. This person can't be left because he doesn't agree with x,y,z.

To be honest, I'm not really sure I care. As I said before, the terms have become meaningless to me, and this example kind of proves why.

I'm not so sure he even considers himsef a man of the left, considering he's used "leftist" to describe nambla and islamist organizations

I don't know what you are referring to, so obviously I can't be sure what was meant or what was actually said in context. However, possibly he is distinguishing 'leftists' from 'liberals' which is a semantic trick some people do I notice. Basically means they don't necessarily subscribe to a certain set of beliefs but still idnetify with the left, so they feel they need to distinguish.

I think he describes himself as left of centre. Basically a moderate lefty.

[Mandark]

it wasn't said to distinguish left from liberal, but left from right

[Leadbelly]

it wasn't said to distinguish left from liberal, but left from right

I've just remembered something Pinker said that I thought was absolutely spot on. lol

"The mythical left pole, where all directions are right".

When people hold opinions that are against a particular orthodoxy, they automatically get labelled right-wing. It is just a psychological trick some people play with themselves that allows them to dismiss people.

[Mandark]

When people hold opinions that are against a particular orthodoxy, they automatically get labelled right-wing. It is just a psychological trick some people play with themselves that allows them to dismiss people.

idk sounds like you're the one using a trick to let yourself dismiss people rather than engage with their arguments

[shosta]

If I were to describe mister greenwald's ideology it would be "shosta's dad as a libertarian"

Speaking of him, when the nuclear first use thing came up tonight at the debate, he said aloud "that's dumb, why would they ask this question, who would defend first use", and I tried explaining that Reagan's Star Wars was actually to defend against the RETALIATORY strike after a US first strike and that we never reciprocated Brezhnev's no-first-use pledge... but we are talking about a Navy man here whose youth was spent bracing for impact playing games of chicken with Soviet ships. The USSR was evil, you could not trust them, etc.

[shosta]

However, possibly he is distinguishing 'leftists' from 'liberals' which is a semantic trick some people do I notice.

It is not a semantic trick

[Leadbelly]

When people hold opinions that are against a particular orthodoxy, they automatically get labelled right-wing. It is just a psychological trick some people play with themselves that allows them to dismiss people.

idk sounds like you're the one using a trick to let yourself dismiss people rather than engage with their arguments

Forget what my intentions are. What you should be concerned with is, is there merit to my argument. So that far-right point I made. I said I thought my aversion to that term was based on sound reasoning. It either is or it isn't.

Have you ever seen me dismiss anyone on here, without actually presenting an argument for why? I always give you a reason right, whether you agree or disagree, I will always do that. I don't just say, 'this is bullshit' just because.

[Mandark]

Forget what my intentions are. What you should be concerned with is, is there merit to my argument.

you reiterate this belief a lot but it's wrong and you probably don't even believe it

[Mandark]

also, you just approvingly paraphrased stephen pinker making an argument that works specifically by impugning other people's intentions (they're just using a trick so they can dismiss someone!)

can't just turn around and cry foul when it's applied the other way

be better

[jakefromstatefarm]

he has values consistent with classical liberalism

this statement is next to meaningless

or the Enlightenment

this statement is for sure meaningless. At any rate, you need to substantiate/unpack what you mean by these loaded terms. Who, specifically, and if possible, which texts, do you have in mind here by “classical liberal” or “enlightenment”? Both terms are post hoc (for the most part) classifications for a range of thinkers/writers that were anything but univocal in what they were committed to. Further, they’ve shifted meaning and extension throughout their histories. Mandarks point about Mill having no compunctions about participating in the Raj despite being considered the paradigmatic ‘classical liberal’ is a judicious one, and shows up a complicated dialogue within the liberal tradition about empire and subaltern peoples, among other things.

That said, ultimately it just stems from a basic idea: the freedom of the individual. As obviously 'liber' simply mean 'free'. Free man. That's all it is.

this obscures two points about the development of liberalism:

i) the meaning of ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ are exactly what get contested when people try to push their particular liberalisms. What you probably have in mind is negative liberty but it’s not obvious that this is the only tenable view and the history of liberalism is littered with people with a different conception of ‘liberty’. This sep article is helpful.

ii) The liberal tradition, through to the start of the First World War, isn’t particularly interested in emphasizing the ‘individual’ as the locus of ‘rights’, at least not over against a larger body of people like ‘society’, or whatever. The distinction between ‘individualism’ and ‘collectivism’ is largely a vestige of 20th century liberals rewriting the historiography of ‘liberalism’ to combat not just fascism and soviet communism but also the laissez faire 19th century liberals whose ‘liberalism’ was seen to have failed to prevent the former systems from rising to power.

There are additional points I’d make here, like how liberals like Bentham, the Mills, Dewey are more than sanguine on the states role in moulding a liberal* citizenry through e.g. public education (which id hope would give the lie to liberalism being allergic to state coercion), or how there are structural/kuhnian losses when we try to prioritize certain ‘liberties’ that we view as safeguarding the individual such that we unintentionally/indirectly infringe ‘individual’s liberties’ somewhere else (a diabolically Hegelian point ).

*this use of the term ‘liberal’ is where we still find it resonate with its premodern sense. It’s such an old term that it’s difficult to disentangle without invoking it’s entire history, which is about as old as our recorded political tradition.

[Leadbelly]

Forget what my intentions are. What you should be concerned with is, is there merit to my argument.

you reiterate this belief a lot but it's wrong and you probably don't even believe it

Yeah. I recall going through this with you before. There seems to be a bit of a blind spot there. I find it hard to understand why there is disagreement there.

If a serial killer said the sky is blue, it doesn't mean he must be wrong because he is a serial killer. The sky is blue.

Look it is not up to me whether you agree or disagree, it is up to you. And ultimately you either see logic in an argument or you do not. What you shouldn't be doing however is looking for ways to disagree simply because of a person's political leanings or whatever.

And I genuinely believe it because I realised it is actully beneficial to do this for my own intellectual development. It does me no good in the long run to hold to falsehoods. But it is hard to see that sometimes. And we're all ultimately biased creatures which includes myself. It is hard to get around that. When you listen to someone you fundamentally diagree with it is hard to listen. What you tend to do is find ways to dismiss them. Lets say one thing they say is inaccurate. That's enough for us to dismiss everything they say. Because we don't like what they have to say to begin with.

Again though, it's when you realise it is not actually beneficial to yourself that things seem to click. Not that you will be rid of all bias, but probably more aware of you're own infallibility on that matter.

[Mandark]

I really appreciate jake's posts in these threads, where he manages to explain and contextualize some complicated ideas while managing to keep it clear, concise, and respectful.

Whereas my posts have devolved into the equivalent of an early 00's WWE crowd yelling "WHAT" after every clause in someone else's monologue.

[shosta]

Mandark trolling Leadbelly and him continuing to respond even though I warned him a whole page ago is making me rethink everything I thought I knew about perpetual motion machines

[Mandark]

If a serial killer said the sky is blue, it doesn't mean he must be wrong because he is a serial killer.

if you wanted to know what color the sky was, would you try to find it out by going to a prison and asking a serial killer on some mindhunter shit?

[OnlyRegret]

[Leadbelly]

he has values consistent with classical liberalism

this statement is next to meaningless

or the Enlightenment

this statement is for sure meaningless. At any rate, you need to substantiate/unpack what you mean by these loaded terms. Who, specifically, and if possible, which texts, do you have in mind here by “classical liberal” or “enlightenment”? Both terms are post hoc (for the most part) classifications for a range of thinkers/writers that were anything but univocal in what they were committed to. Further, they’ve shifted meaning and extension throughout their histories. Mandarks point about Mill having no compunctions about participating in the Raj despite being considered the paradigmatic ‘classical liberal’ is a judicious one, and shows up a complicated dialogue within the liberal tradition about empire and subaltern peoples, among other things.

That said, ultimately it just stems from a basic idea: the freedom of the individual. As obviously 'liber' simply mean 'free'. Free man. That's all it is.

this obscures two points about the development of liberalism:

i) the meaning of ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ are exactly what get contested when people try to push their particular liberalisms. What you probably have in mind is negative liberty but it’s not obvious that this is the only tenable view and the history of liberalism is littered with people with a different conception of ‘liberty’. This sep article is helpful.

ii) The liberal tradition, through to the start of the First World War, isn’t particularly interested in emphasizing the ‘individual’ as the locus of ‘rights’, at least not over against a larger body of people like ‘society’, or whatever. The distinction between ‘individualism’ and ‘collectivism’ is largely a vestige of 20th century liberals rewriting the historiography of ‘liberalism’ to combat not just fascism and soviet communism but also the laissez faire 19th century liberals whose ‘liberalism’ was seen to have failed to prevent the former systems from rising to power.

There are additional points I’d make here, like how liberals like Bentham, the Mills, Dewey are more than sanguine on the states role in moulding a liberal* citizenry through e.g. public education (which id hope would give the lie to liberalism being allergic to state coercion), or how there are structural/kuhnian losses when we try to prioritize certain ‘liberties’ that we view as safeguarding the individual such that we unintentionally/indirectly infringe ‘individual’s liberties’ somewhere else (a diabolically Hegelian point ).

*this use of the term ‘liberal’ is where we still find it resonate with its premodern sense. It’s such an old term that it’s difficult to disentangle without invoking it’s entire history, which is about as old as our recorded political tradition.

Obviously historically speaking there were a whole variety of views. In that sense it is far more complex. However, if someone was to talk about Enlightenment 'values' obviously they are talking about a certain set of ideas that came from that period, but not necessarily expressed by every thinker. Something like 'freedom of speech' for instance.

And I summarised liberalism into one sentence, which can't be in some sense anything but crude. However, I am talking about the root of liberalism in essence rather than the fruit of all liberal thought, which is an incredibly big and complex thing.

In fact the very first paragraph of the article you posted states this.

(i) Liberals have typically maintained that humans are naturally in “a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actions…as they think fit…without asking leave, or depending on the Will of any other Man” (Locke, 1960 [1689]: 287). Mill too argued that “the burden of proof is supposed to be with those who are against liberty; who contend for any restriction or prohibition…. The a priori assumption is in favour of freedom…” (1963, vol. 21: 262). Recent liberal thinkers such as as Joel Feinberg (1984: 9), Stanley Benn (1988: 87) and John Rawls (2001: 44, 112) agree. This might be called the Fundamental Liberal Principle (Gaus, 1996: 162–166): freedom is normatively basic, and so the onus of justification is on those who would use coercion to limit freedom. It follows from this that political authority and law must be justified, as they limit the liberty of citizens. Consequently, a central question of liberal political theory is whether political authority can be justified, and if so, how. For this reason, social contract theory, as developed by Thomas Hobbes

The very first paragraph.

I will stress this quote:

This might be called the Fundamental Liberal Principle

It is the root, the fundamental liberal principle. I am not sure exactly why you are contesting it. Yes, liberalism has morphed and changed, and yes liberalism has different schools of thought. However, the very essence of liberalism is the freedom of the individual and everything stems from there.

[team filler]

did mandi ever drop the bombshell post that would annihilate leadbelly for all time?

[Mandark]

for $20 I'll DM it to you

[agrajag]

lol come on Shapiro is absolutely a far right ideologue.  Even that conservative BBC guy called him out on it. The term has broader use than you're pretending it does.

Right-wing populism often involves appeals to the "common man" and opposition to immigration.[16][1] Far-right politics sometimes involves anti-immigration and anti-integration stances towards groups that are deemed inferior and undesirable.[17] Concerning the socio-cultural dimension of nationality, culture and migration, one far-right position is the view that certain ethnic, racial or religious groups should stay separate and it is based on the belief that the interests of one's own group should be prioritised.

[agrajag]

hungrynoob was a Peterson stan before he was radicalized? There is no better example of Wank Dadness being a gateway to Q Anon insanity.

[Leadbelly]

lol come on Shapiro is absolutely a far right ideologue.  Even that conservative BBC guy called him out on it. The term has broader use than you're pretending it does.

Right-wing populism often involves appeals to the "common man" and opposition to immigration.[16][1] Far-right politics sometimes involves anti-immigration and anti-integration stances towards groups that are deemed inferior and undesirable.[17] Concerning the socio-cultural dimension of nationality, culture and migration, one far-right position is the view that certain ethnic, racial or religious groups should stay separate and it is based on the belief that the interests of one's own group should be prioritised.

Well, here's the thing: far-right is term used to describe a Nazi or fascist. I don't believe Ben Shapiro is either of those things. It is term that is often used to smear people. I'm sure there is someone on these forums that understands the term in this way.

The term is often used to describe Nazism,[4] neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, anti-communist, or reactionary views.[5] These can lead to oppression and violence against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group,[6][7] nation, state[8], dominant culture or ultraconservative traditional social institutions.[9]p.

[agrajag]

you just completely ignored my entire post

[Mandark]

If only open neo-Nazis and white supremacists can be called far right, then everyone who doesn't cross that line gets to be labelled as a moderate or mainstream conservative, implying a level of broad acceptance or popularity, regardless of whether that's the case.

So I see how it's advantageous for fringe right-wing outlets (like WorldNetDaily, where Shapiro got his start as a baby polemicist) but not how it's helpful to anyone tryna put together a semi-objective taxonomy of the political scene.

[Leadbelly]

you just completely ignored my entire post

Your post isn't very long. It is just you claiming Ben Shapiro is far-right and a quote. Yet eve your quote suggests the same thing I am suggesting, if you read it closely.

Right-wing populism often involves appeals to the "common man" and opposition to immigration.[16][1] Far-right politics sometimes involves anti-immigration and anti-integration stances towards groups that are deemed inferior and undesirable.[17] Concerning the socio-cultural dimension of nationality, culture and migration, one far-right position is the view that certain ethnic, racial or religious groups should stay separate and it is based on the belief that the interests of one's own group should be prioritised.

1. it speaks of right wing populism which doesn't quite mean the same thing, but can encompass far-right politics. You don't need to be far-right to be a populist, but someone on the far right can be a populist.
2. The part concerning far-right politics actually states it involves a form of supremacism or racism, it just doesn't state definitive labels like Nazi which would obviously encompass those beliefs.

It has nothing to do with Ben Shapiro per se, it is the problem with expanding the definition of far-right -- which seems to be what is happening -- to include more and more viewpoints. Which to my mind is a potentially dangerous thing to do. For a variety of reasons. It is convenient to some for short-term political gain.

[agrajag]

that was from the wiki article on far right, meaning the term is sometimes used to describe right wing populists and reactionaries, which Shapiro most certainly is.

Also, language is fluid. Getting flustered over changing word use is like spitting against the wind.

[Mandark]

"Far right" was used to describe the Tea Party movement and its favored candidates all the time, because it distinguished them from mainstream Republicans (a distinction that those candidates were actively trying to emphasize).

[Leadbelly]

I will just reiterate my original point. There is a connotation with the term because of its association with Nazism and fascism. When people hear the term the image in their mind is of a Nazi. People then use that as way to ignore and simply stop addressing groups. And that ultimately is potentially dangerous because 1. it gives the real far-right cover. They can hide behind groups that perhaps shouldn't really be given the term. 2. it means certain potential issues are never addressed because of it supposed association with the 'far-right'.

I mean how many times do you read, 'that's an alt-right talking point' on RE for instance? Basically what that means is, I am going to dismiss you outright and ignore the point entirely because of its association with the alt-right. It is not useful in the long run.

Another example: one of the reasons the police simply ignored the rape of thousands of girls in the UK by Muslim grooming gangs was because the 'far-right' (genuinely far-right BNP) were using it for political advantage. And they feared giving them ground. Ultimately it is unhelpful to then exapnd the definition to encompass other groups. Or another way of putting it, using a term that they know has a particular connotation to label groups with controversial opinions.

[shosta]

ok leadbelly... I have made a checklist of statements pertaining to issues both modern and historical and I'd like you to list either "agree" or "disagree" next to each one, with an optional ONE sentence of clarification (please use very sparingly). Within each section, I've tried to keep the point of view consistent. Here they are:

[public spending]
- If you earn more, you should pay more in taxes.
- The rich are not taxed highly enough in my country.
- It's shameful that people are allowed to make money simply by virtue of having wealth (stocks, rent, loans).
- Universal healthcare is a good idea.
- We should never privatize education.
- Higher education should be free, just like primary and secondary education are.

[identity issues]
- Racism is alive and well in my country.
- Systemic racism contributes to the continued oppression of racial minorities.
- Undocumented immigrants who have been living in my country should have some kind of legal status.
- Gender is a social construct and people should be free to identify as male or female.
- Human sexual preference is mostly biologically determined.
- Gay marriage should be legal.
- You should not be able to discriminate against someone on the basis of their sexual preference.
- Ditto, but for sexual identity.
- Ditto, but for race or gender.

[women's rights]
- Women have just as much of a right as men to be in the workplace.
- Contraception and abortion procedures should be legal (up to the third trimester).
- Abortion should be legal even in the third trimester.
- The cost of childcare is a major barrier for women to enter the workforce. We need public daycare or daycare vouchers.
- #MeToo is an important cultural movement.

[islam]
- People from majority muslim countries often have certain values which are fundamentally incompatible with western values.
- The refugee crisis in Europe is doing long-term damage to European society.
- Liberals are too quick to stand up for refugees from war-torn countries.
- We do not have a responsibility for fixing these countries or taking their needy.
- Christopher Hitchens was a brilliant debater.

[economy]
- Unions are, for the most part, a good idea.
- Laws that forbid workplaces from forcing employees to join unions are anti-union and should be opposed. [this used to say "Right to Work", which means something different in the UK, sorry]
- The government should provide a federal job guarantee because there is so much unemployment and so much infrastructure and community work that needs to be done.
- BREXIT is not a good idea.
- Free trade is generally good.
- CEOs make way too much money for what they actually do (nothing).

[climate]
- Climate change is real and anthropogenic.
- We should fund green technology.
- We should mobilize the nation to reduce our carbon output by a certain amount by a certain date.
- We should help depopulate Bangladesh into surrounding areas because it's going to be underwater and it's our fault.

[war and peace]
- My country should not sign a no-first-use promise for the use of nuclear weapons (my country should never use nuclear weapons first).
- My country's military protects my freedom.
- Saddam Hussein had to be deposed.
- If my country leaves Afghanistan, the Taliban will come back and my country will be at risk again.
- China is a threat to global peace.
- The US military should stay in South Korea.
- The US should overthrow the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
- My country should maintain its current level of defense spending.

[general liberal issues]
- My country puts far too many people in jail.
- Flagburning is a right.
- The death penalty is wrong and should be abolished.
- Irrespective of Israel's right to defend itself from terrorism, Palestine is illegally occupied.
- The sanctions on Venezuela are needlessly compounding its economic crisis.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[scientific socialism]
- The industrial processes, especially supply chains with numerous levels of intermediate goods, are becoming increasingly more centrally planned by the firm owners, even and especially when these supply chains span multiple continents. This contradiction within the modern free market economy is empirical evidence that central planning by bureaucratic authorities in the age of computation is a perfectly efficient method of allocating resources.

- Work by economists like Hyman Minsky, Thomas Piketty, and Steve Keen, show rigorously that the existence of a privately owned finance sector produces a structurally unstable economy that is bound to produce serious economic crashes and exponentially greater inequality that is fundamentally inconsistent with democratic values. The nation's largest capital reserves must be publicly owned, from now until forever.

- When a large firm takes one component of its supply chain and moves it overseas from a developed nation to an underdeveloped one, with no change in the skillset of its labor or the efficiency of its capital, but the price of the intermediate good is still reduced by an order of magnitude, this is a deliberate act of exploitation which produces superprofits for the firm and/or superprofits for the consumer in the developed nation (and this surplus is then circulated through the rest of the economy, arbitrarily inflating its standard of living). Third world factory workers must unionize and reverse this "free trade" theft of wealth.

- The media is owned by major financial firms and operated by ruling elites and thus will always filter or distort news to serve its own interests. The public and labor must therefore own an alternative media.

- Post-USSR globalism has made income inequality even worse, both between nations, and within each nation.

- These and other contradictions will eventually lead to the end of capitalism itself.

[close]

[Leadbelly]

It too late. Maybe tomorrow.

[shosta]

sure, but pls respond eventually

[Leadbelly]

I will also mention that many of the answers to those questions have caveats to them. I can't simply give an agree or disagree answer. And in a way I kind of find it absurd to do so. lol

[shosta]

can't wait lol

[shosta]

by the way, I did try to make it nation neutral, but there are still some american-centric statements in there. which country are you in again?

[Leadbelly]

UK

[Mandark]

Mandark has been doing this for a full decade that I know of and is still going strong with it. I'm surprised you never get tired mah dude.

More like 15 years at this point, but you can see my posting style decay from Nola-style earnest and detailed careposting to jaded snark. Like watching Louis Wain gradually lose his mind through his cat paintings.

[OnlyRegret]

Isn't it like 7:00 AM there
Did you just stay up all night to talk or shift work?

[shosta]

He must mean Falkland Islands.

[Momo]

I see you guys are trying to make Leadbelly the new enemy

[Momo]

why did only filler like the video i posted of dumb provocateurs getting egged by a hobbit?

[team filler]

I'm the only one that matters, bb

[Momo]

I'm the only one that matters, bb

[Momo]

ok leadbelly... I have made a checklist of statements pertaining to issues both modern and historical and I'd like you to list either "agree" or "disagree" next to each one, with an optional ONE sentence of clarification (please use very sparingly). Within each section, I've tried to keep the point of view consistent. Here they are:

[public spending]
- If you earn more, you should pay more in taxes.
- The rich are not taxed highly enough in my country.
- It's shameful that people are allowed to make money simply by virtue of having wealth (stocks, rent, loans).
- Universal healthcare is a good idea.
- We should never privatize education.
- Higher education should be free, just like primary and secondary education are.

[identity issues]
- Racism is alive and well in my country.
- Systemic racism contributes to the continued oppression of racial minorities.
- Undocumented immigrants who have been living in my country should have some kind of legal status.
- Gender is a social construct and people should be free to identify as male or female.
- Human sexual preference is mostly biologically determined.
- Gay marriage should be legal.
- You should not be able to discriminate against someone on the basis of their sexual preference.
- Ditto, but for sexual identity.
- Ditto, but for race or gender.

[women's rights]
- Women have just as much of a right as men to be in the workplace.
- Contraception and abortion procedures should be legal (up to the third trimester).
- Abortion should be legal even in the third trimester.
- The cost of childcare is a major barrier for women to enter the workforce. We need public daycare or daycare vouchers.
- #MeToo is an important cultural movement.

[islam]
- People from majority muslim countries often have certain values which are fundamentally incompatible with western values.
- The refugee crisis in Europe is doing long-term damage to European society.
- Liberals are too quick to stand up for refugees from war-torn countries.
- We do not have a responsibility for fixing these countries or taking their needy.
- Christopher Hitchens was a brilliant debater.

[economy]
- Unions are, for the most part, a good idea.
- Laws that forbid workplaces from forcing employees to join unions are anti-union and should be opposed. [this used to say "Right to Work", which means something different in the UK, sorry]
- The government should provide a federal job guarantee because there is so much unemployment and so much infrastructure and community work that needs to be done.
- BREXIT is not a good idea.
- Free trade is generally good.
- CEOs make way too much money for what they actually do (nothing).

[climate]
- Climate change is real and anthropogenic.
- We should fund green technology.
- We should mobilize the nation to reduce our carbon output by a certain amount by a certain date.
- We should help depopulate Bangladesh into surrounding areas because it's going to be underwater and it's our fault.

[war and peace]
- My country should not sign a no-first-use promise for the use of nuclear weapons (my country should never use nuclear weapons first).
- My country's military protects my freedom.
- Saddam Hussein had to be deposed.
- If my country leaves Afghanistan, the Taliban will come back and my country will be at risk again.
- China is a threat to global peace.
- The US military should stay in South Korea.
- The US should overthrow the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
- My country should maintain its current level of defense spending.

[general liberal issues]
- My country puts far too many people in jail.
- Flagburning is a right.
- The death penalty is wrong and should be abolished.
- Irrespective of Israel's right to defend itself from terrorism, Palestine is illegally occupied.
- The sanctions on Venezuela are needlessly compounding its economic crisis.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[scientific socialism]
- The industrial processes, especially supply chains with numerous levels of intermediate goods, are becoming increasingly more centrally planned by the firm owners, even and especially when these supply chains span multiple continents. This contradiction within the modern free market economy is empirical evidence that central planning by bureaucratic authorities in the age of computation is a perfectly efficient method of allocating resources.

- Work by economists like Hyman Minsky, Thomas Piketty, and Steve Keen, show rigorously that the existence of a privately owned finance sector produces a structurally unstable economy that is bound to produce serious economic crashes and exponentially greater inequality that is fundamentally inconsistent with democratic values. The nation's largest capital reserves must be publicly owned, from now until forever.

- When a large firm takes one component of its supply chain and moves it overseas from a developed nation to an underdeveloped one, with no change in the skillset of its labor or the efficiency of its capital, but the price of the intermediate good is still reduced by an order of magnitude, this is a deliberate act of exploitation which produces superprofits for the firm and/or superprofits for the consumer in the developed nation (and this surplus is then circulated through the rest of the economy, arbitrarily inflating its standard of living). Third world factory workers must unionize and reverse this "free trade" theft of wealth.

- The media is owned by major financial firms and operated by ruling elites and thus will always filter or distort news to serve its own interests. The public and labor must therefore own an alternative media.

- Post-USSR globalism has made income inequality even worse, both between nations, and within each nation.

- These and other contradictions will eventually lead to the end of capitalism itself.

[close]

I feel like if everyone did this the answers will be 99.9% the same

[Mandark]

momo, remember in the first thread where you'd try to give everyone else guidelines on how they should talk about peterson?

that was very weird

[OnlyRegret]

I feel like if everyone did this the answers will be 99.9% the same

If more than a handful of people did it (outside of the core crew), with the protection of completely anonymity there by completely decoupling their forum image from their answers, I'm not so sure.
There'd probably be some answers of extreme consensus, and some not so.

[Mandark]

the only acceptable answer to shosta's impromptu survey is "lol I'm not reading that"

[OnlyRegret]

the only acceptable answer to shosta's impromptu survey is "lol I'm not reading that"

I was hoping he copied it from elsewhere and didn't actually make it.
Cause otherwise I kind of feel bad, not enough to take it serious though

[Mandark]

jake should have a blog

[Momo]

momo, remember in the first thread where you'd try to give everyone else guidelines on how they should talk about peterson?

that was very weird

kinda like leadbelly, i feel like you guys only engage in mockery when it's better and more useful to just call him on his religious fairy tales, which is why i dont participate in this thread much. I rather read the threads on reddit calling him and others on their bullshit directly.

[shosta]

the only acceptable answer to shosta's impromptu survey is "lol I'm not reading that"

I know Leadbelly will, though. Look, I just need to know if he's actually a neocon and won't tell us.

I was hoping he copied it from elsewhere and didn't actually make it.
Cause otherwise I kind of feel bad, not enough to take it serious though

 

[Momo]

I feel like if everyone did this the answers will be 99.9% the same

If more than a handful of people did it (outside of the core crew), with the protection of completely anonymity there by completely decoupling their forum image from their answers, I'm not so sure.
There'd probably be some answers of extreme consensus, and some not so.

I dont think so, I feel we all generally have the same ideals but always need to find an enemy, however small the disagreement sample is. I'll answer it publicly if it gets a ball rolling to prove it lol

[Mandark]

kinda like leadbelly, i feel like you guys only engage in mockery when it's better and more useful to just call him on his religious fairy tales, which is why i dont participate in this thread much. I rather read the threads on reddit calling him and others on their bullshit directly.

first, this forum doesn't have an audience to be won over, getting some jokes off with the boys is totally acceptable praxis.

second, a lot of what you objected to in that thread was calling him on his bullshit directly, but you weren't comfortable with those aspects being called bullshit, because either you agreed with it, or the conflict lines reminded you too much of left/right politics to which you're averse.

[shosta]

I wrote that for Leadbelly only and do not have the patience to read it multiple times from other people

[Momo]

kinda like leadbelly, i feel like you guys only engage in mockery when it's better and more useful to just call him on his religious fairy tales, which is why i dont participate in this thread much. I rather read the threads on reddit calling him and others on their bullshit directly.

first, this forum doesn't have an audience to be won over, getting some jokes off with the boys is totally acceptable praxis.


second, a lot of what you objected to in that thread was calling him on his bullshit directly, but you weren't comfortable with those aspects being called bullshit, because either you agreed with it, or the conflict lines reminded you too much of left/right politics to which you're averse.

receipts.
EDIT: Actually the last part is probably correct, -'or the conflict lines reminded you too much of left/right politics to which you're averse.'


EDIT2: 'first, this forum doesn't have an audience to be won over' also sorta the issue, we're all a bunch of people with similar ideas, so I dont get why when someone has an abnormal (for the forum norm) take on something why we dont just give them all the slack they need to explain what it is they are on about. Like we know no-one who posts here are distinguished mentally-challenged fellows right? So why treat their ideas as something to be mocked instead of seeing their point of view and either identifying the faulty information/assumptions on their side or potentially re-evaluating assumptions on your own side? No one is trying to red-pill anyone here, but this thread devolves to gotchas the second someone brings up a weird idea. (not talking about the banned people btw, they obviously do not count as coming from a good place)

[Momo]

I wrote that for Leadbelly only and do not have the patience to read it multiple times from other people

but i already ticked one question

[Mandark]

lmao "receipts"

4)I'm going to hope you can take my word I can do the same in reverse here, I don't want to cause I didn't intend on spending time debating this garbage, but if you insist I will (much later, probably in a couple of days lol)

that was in march