|
Control Volume posted:http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3512233&pagenumber=1455#post452569872 counterpoint - its smoothrich. he is either extremely mentally ill or a very involved gimmick, though the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:16 |
|
Control Volume posted:More examples: What you might not know about the second post though is that smoothrich is pretty bananas, and while it's not necessarily preferred behaviour if you have a reputation for being loony tunes you might not always get the quality of response that you want. Credibility is an issue in any form of debate.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:Doubling down on being tepid irony doesn't make you cool or clever or a good poster. Dude you're not very nice haha.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:What you might not know about the second post though is that smoothrich is pretty bananas, and while it's not necessarily preferred behaviour if you have a reputation for being loony tunes you might not always get the quality of response that you want. Credibility is an issue in any form of debate. This is just pointing to the genesis of a bad post and using a bad poster as a justification for it. If smoothrich is really that bad, why are they still allowed to post here?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 02:07
|
|
Control Volume posted:Again though, this is just pointing to the genesis of a bad post and using a bad poster as a justification for it. If smoothrich is really that bad, why are they still allowed to post here? Because the threshold for being banned or probated is basically death threats or calling someone a friend of the family or similar most of the time, and if you're not outright obnoxious you can sail under the cover of darkness pretty well no matter how badly you post. The philosophy of this thread is more aligned with the idea that the problem is that d&d is not inclusive of people like smoothrich's opinions, though, rather than the aforementioned problem. In general, though, posting in D&D is about realising you only are going to get the amount of effort back from people that you put in, and that nobody has to like what you have to say, so you best say it well, or, if not well, funnily. To put it another way with regard to credibility: if a collector of Nazi memorabilia suddenly takes a profound interest in the affairs of Jewish people, even if he seems to raise his concerns somewhat politely and coherently one might feel one's time better spent if you told him to go away. But that isn't mod policy, as I said. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Nov 11, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:The philosophy of this thread is more aligned with the idea that the problem is that d&d is not inclusive of people like smoothrich's opinions, though, rather than the aforementioned problem. Well I guess I'm going to have to disagree with the moderation on this one, because the dynamic of dogged posting by people unwilling to do anything but unchangingly recite their views and the reaction of seventeen people calling them shitlords in a one liner is incredibly wearying, and getting more of the former doesn't sound like A Good Idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 02:15
|
|
Control Volume posted:Well I guess I'm going to have to disagree with the moderation on this one, because the dynamic of dogged posting by people unwilling to do anything but unchangingly recite their views and the reaction of seventeen people calling them shitlords in a one liner is incredibly wearying, and getting more of the former doesn't sound like A Good Idea. That isnt smoothrich's gimmick, to be fair, and that isn't a problem held by any one side on the political spectrum either. It's hard to call smoothrich repetitive given I think he just completed the jump from Bernie Sanders to Ben Carson. It's more of a problem with the Israel/Palestine thread where some people just have very set sides and argue very disingenuously with eachother. Then again, you also need to understand that that thread is like a honeypot that keeps the bees away from the (better) middle eastern thread. I think the most salient point is just that if you pick good threads to post in with good regulars, and post well, and are willing to ignore some people, you can always find a good place to post and get something going.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:That isnt smoothrich's gimmick, to be fair, and that isn't a problem held by any one side on the political spectrum either. It's hard to call smoothrich repetitive given I think he just completed the jump from Bernie Sanders to Ben Carson. I guess the analogy I'm coming up with here is that reading this forum is like strolling through really cool and intricate gardens except you have to dodge dog poo poo on the path all the time and I guess my tolerance for dog poo poo isn't very high.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 02:25
|
|
Control Volume posted:I guess the analogy I'm coming up with here is that reading this forum is like strolling through really cool and intricate gardens except you have to dodge dog poo poo on the path all the time and I guess my tolerance for dog poo poo isn't very high. I dunno dodging and deploying some of your own can get fun.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:More examples: smoothrich deserves literally nothing but lovely snipes
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Verge posted:Because freedom, in my opinion, begets happiness for a large number of people in and of itself. How does it do this? Actually, hold that thought, I'll get back to this in a minute. quote:First off, I really appreciate the edit. Not gonna lie, this has been somewhat frustrating at times. Not anyone's fault but my own for being on an unpopular side and choosing to enter a debate thread with that stance, totally worth it as this is a great way to re-evaluate my libertarian ideals, as I initially said I need to do. Onto your arguments, though. No problem. I meant what I said too, you're doing really well. quote:If I'm in a motorcycle accident in my hypothetical libertarian nation, I will not be prepared (and will not prepare myself, should it [libertarian nation] become a reality) for a serious injury such as broken legs. I would die on the street unless assisted by a third party w/ a kind and pitying heart, which is more than I could ask for. This is gonna sound bad, and it's not aimed at you personally but rather at the world you've constructed, but holy poo poo dude, that sounds monstrously horrific! I am honest to god glad we do, and hopefully will never, live in Libertarian Nation. A world where people should just expect to bleed out and die because of an accident, or because they developed cancer, or any other one of a million reasons that are completely beyond their control but is within society's ability to prevent. I do not want you to die because you do not have the cash on hand for an ambulance ride to the nearest cash-up-front hospital, because I fundamentally believe that you, as a human being and more importantly a person, deserve and have a right to life-saving care without needing to prove you are "important". I do not fundamentally agree with your view of people being defined by what they owe or are owed. People are more than a collection of their possessions, their savings, and their checkings. So let me spin this another way. You said that you believe freedom begets happiness to a large number of people. I'll ask again, how does it do this, especially in the scenarios we just discussed? Who is made happier? Obviously not you, you're going to die. Not your significant other, for the same reason. I'm not happy because, again, you're going to die for a preventable reason. In this world of yours, every single person who gets into a major accident or develops a major disease or condition is doomed to bleed out or waste away in the gutter. How are they better off? And even before such a thing even happens, that looming specter is going to hover over each and every person who isn't a multi-millionaire. As you've described it basically nobody has any sense of stability in their lives. How could they? When they could lose absolutely everything they own, even their very lives, at any moment how can they feel secure enough to thrive? True, I could die here and now, but you've admitted that it's far more likely to happen in Libertarian Nation than in this world. So maybe I'm focusing too much on doom and gloom and painting too bleak of a picture (although thus far you've basically agreed to all my assessments), take this opportunity to outline how life would be measurably better. We've gone over how it's worse, and if you believe I've been unfair explain how so we can come to an agreement and what exactly your Libertarian Nation entails, so let's go over how it'd be better. quote:Also, anti-poor != racist. Though I don't want to call myself or my proposed policies anti-poor because it sounds like I run around kicking the poor or at least want to, I can't stand here and act like libertarian ideals wouldn't seriously hurt the poor. You can't create an environment where you can't be anti-poor without being thought of a racist because that completely negates conversation to a circumstance where the only valid and moral stance is one where socialism rules, it's a rigged game against libertarians, under that mindset. I know no one's actively trying to do that, I know it's not a conspiracy, it's a side effect but I need to point it out. I hope you didn't feel as if I was trying to insinuate you were racist. I wasn't. I was trying to say that by your own admission your views about allowing racism to be expressed unchecked was one borne in ignorance, and (I'm sorry if this sounds insulting) I believe this view that people should be left to die if they can't afford medical care could be borne of the same ignorance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:I guess the analogy I'm coming up with here is that reading this forum is like strolling through really cool and intricate gardens except you have to dodge dog poo poo on the path all the time and I guess my tolerance for dog poo poo isn't very high. Your Undertale dog avatar implies otherwise. Unless you didn't use any dog residue to get dog salad. Then yeah, that's fair.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Your Undertale dog avatar implies otherwise. Unless you didn't use any dog residue to get dog salad. Then yeah, that's fair. I did not and I in fact harbor an intense hatred for the annoying dog. e: Please do not dogpile me, ha ha, for my dissenting opinion on these dog matters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
Uh, for someone who hates this forum you sure do have an extensive knowledge of it and the posts and posters.... Just post, if you contribute something interesting to a discussion you will get effort replies. Yeah you'll get rear end in a top hat replies but compared to like, every other sub forum here, it's not even the close to the worst unless you only post in byob or something. The forum you are making this out to be sounds more like fyad to be honest, or the previous GBS. Don't get me wrong, there can be some pretty vile poo poo, pretty much and pedophiles thread gets invaded by fyad, last one I got accused of supporting violently raping 18 month olds because I suggested treating anyone with those urges may better be served, and society in general, by instead of making into some kind of chuds living under bridges we let them actually see a therapist without fear of getting the cops called on them and having their life destroyed for trying to get help stopping an urge they haven't even acted on. Then after admitting I was molested I got told I was making it up for attention. But since it was just a handful of fyad shitheads I didn't give a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:In case anyone thinks that's a bad photograph, he's actually that colour. He's got a quite impressive case of Argyria. The best one will always be smurf santa
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:Well I guess I'm going to have to disagree with the moderation on this one, because the dynamic of dogged posting by people unwilling to do anything but unchangingly recite their views and the reaction of seventeen people calling them shitlords in a one liner is incredibly wearying, and getting more of the former doesn't sound like A Good Idea. I honestly don't understand why it would be upsetting to you, or if it was why your inclination would be to change it. Wouldn't avoiding it be a better idea? e: I mean, we don't go around trying to change some reddit subforum or hillaryis44.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Verge posted:Because freedom, in my opinion, begets happiness for a large number of people in and of itself. It's also worth noting that 'liberty' and 'freedom' are synonymous but different in meaning. quote:If I'm in a motorcycle accident in my hypothetical libertarian nation, I will not be prepared (and will not prepare myself, should it [libertarian nation] become a reality) for a serious injury such as broken legs. I would die on the street unless assisted by a third party w/ a kind and pitying heart, which is more than I could ask for. My medical bills would not be a wise investment for any loan agency so I probably wouldn't get anything but stabilized and I'd die of gangrene. If it were to BREAK my legs, I'd be a worthwhile loan venture, because you can recover from that, but if they're a total loss? Hell no. Your scenario is pretty realistic, it does happen and one should either plan for it or have habits that prevent it. For example, I wear gear on the motorcycle, I teach myself to have good balance so I'm not likely to fall in non-motorcycle related would-be accidents. I try and prevent that future from happening but you're right, it's still possible and if it were to happen, I'd die from it. I'm ok with that. quote:As far as defining importance, you are as important as much as you're willing to spend or others are willing to spend on you. I'm important enough to own a Harley because I bought a Harley. I worked, I saved and the world OWED me a new motorcycle (or ten thousand McDonald's cheeseburgers or however you spend your money). Now that I have the bike, the debt is paid and no one owes me anything until I accumulate more inverse debt (dollars). Importance is a subjective and unquantifiable concept. You can describe something as "more important" or "less important" to yourself, but there's no standard unit of "importance". And even if there was, money would be an absolutely awful indicator of it. Claiming money as an indicator of importance doesn't make any sense because the prices of goods and services are not indicative of their importance. quote:If you think of money as favors the world owes you and debt as favors you owe the world, you can get a basic idea of how important you are based off your chance for getting something done, which would take either your money, a loan or a combination. NINJNA loans not withstanding. quote:Also, anti-poor != racist. Though I don't want to call myself or my proposed policies anti-poor because it sounds like I run around kicking the poor or at least want to, I can't stand here and act like libertarian ideals wouldn't seriously hurt the poor. quote:You can't create an environment where you can't be anti-poor without being thought of a racist because that completely negates conversation to a circumstance where the only valid and moral stance is one where socialism rules, it's a rigged game against libertarians, under that mindset. I know no one's actively trying to do that, I know it's not a conspiracy, it's a side effect but I need to point it out. *Left-libertarians and leftist-anarchists both exist but they are not meaningful forces in American political discourse, so the use of Libertarian almost always means "anarcho-capitalist". Wales Grey fucked around with this message at 11:48 on Nov 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 11:39
|
|
|
As a rabid Popper fanboy and linguist, I want to 1. Point out unfalsifiability is not an argument against a claim in itself 2. Ask you what you mean by two things being synonymous, but having different meanings (that is, what does meaning mean here?)
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 11:50
|
|
|
quote:I guess I'm having trouble answering the question. I suppose I always assume the answer is obvious, simple and the same as any political system...it seems like it's the best thing for humanity. Freedom is good because freedom gives you not only the opportunity to thrive, but to fail and we will learn from our mistakes and not repeat them, in all likelihood. Freedom, to me, is intrinsically good - it does not need justification or reason, freedom is like deliciousness. If you don't accept that trying to get the most freedom with the least potential for wrongdoing is a naturally good thing, then we are ideologically incompatible. I don't have the intellectual prowess to defend freedom being a good thing any further than that. I just want to get into this, but the main problem here is that a broad definition of freedom would say you're already free. You can do whatever you want, there are just consequences. I mean, some of these things can get you shot, thrown in jail, impoverished, etc. Almost no libertarian would say you should be free from the consquences of your actions, but almost no libertarian would also say you're free if you get arrested for something. The problem here, then, if un-freedom is defined by consequences, there's no such thing as 'freedom' at all, because all actions have some kind of consequence. It doesn't matter if it's circumstances, government, business, nature, or luck, they all impinge on freedom. I mean, I could dig out the things earlier in the statement, but the entire premise of freedom as a defining value is based on bunk.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 12:04
|
|
|
 For real man, if you have something you want to debate or discuss you'll almost always get responded to unless you're a known troll or someone who's points have been refuted multiple times before. The poo poo with Arkane in the climate thread is that he's a consummate poo poo tosser so yeah, people will be openly hostile to him when he appears since people trying to contribute are right to be annoyed by serial thread shitters. Then theirs smoothrich who's a loving moron and not even worth responding to, again a known poster of dumb poo poo ideas. I mean you're going to get some noise no matter where you go on the internet to discuss things (unless you're being racist on stormfront or something), so most people here at least have some fun with it by being assholes to the noise makers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:2. Ask you what you mean by two things being synonymous, but having different meanings (that is, what does meaning mean here?) Was gonna make a snarky post about being pedantic but actually this is worth clarifying 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:As a rabid Popper fanboy and linguist, I want to You're correct, something being unfalsifiable isn't really an argument against it. I only brought it up because "the world owes me a debt for my labor" is an unprovable statement of belief. It may be a convention of our society, but it is by no means a natural or scientific law (unless we really strain and force some convoluted 'work'-based physics joke). When I said they were "different in meaning", "meaning" is the abstract concept being expressed through the words. "Freedom" and "liberty" are words that describe similar concepts and can be used interchangeably in common conversation (which is why they're synonymous), but they indicate different states. "Freedom" is the state of being unrestrained or unbound. "Liberty" is the state of being able or privileged to do something. I was thinking about the phrase "I am not at liberty to say"; clearly the person speaking is free to speak as they will, but circumstances have denied them the liberty to do so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:41
|
|
Wales Grey posted:You're correct, something being unfalsifiable isn't really an argument against it. I only brought it up because "the world owes me a debt for my labor" is an unprovable statement of belief. It may be a convention of our society, but it is by no means a natural or scientific law (unless we really strain and force some convoluted 'work'-based physics joke). That difference is arguably a sophistic distinction much of the time though.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Wales Grey posted:You're correct, something being unfalsifiable isn't really an argument against it. I only brought it up because "the world owes me a debt for my labor" is an unprovable statement of belief. Wales Grey posted:When I said they were "different in meaning", "meaning" is the abstract concept being expressed through the words. "Freedom" and "liberty" are words that describe similar concepts and can be used interchangeably in common conversation (which is why they're synonymous), but they indicate different states. "Freedom" is the state of being unrestrained or unbound. "Liberty" is the state of being able or privileged to do something. I was thinking about the phrase "I am not at liberty to say"; clearly the person speaking is free to speak as they will, but circumstances have denied them the liberty to do so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
I guess this is now the abstract political philosophy thread, so this feels like the best place to post this I saw mentioned in the right wing media thread something about the Missouri protesters wanting to remove busts of Jefferson due to his slaveowning legacy, and it got me thinking about the Democratic Party and its ideological heritage. Would it be accurate to say that the United States prior to the Reagan realignment of the 70s had essentially two separate, parallel liberal political traditions, roughly corresponding to the Jeffersonian-Jacksonian Democratic Party, and the Hamiltonian-Whig Republican Party, and that these two collapsed into one single one embodied in the post-70s Democratic Party? In that case the realignment of the 70s would indeed be the most significant, fundamental political shift in the United States' history
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:20
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I guess this is now the abstract political philosophy thread, so this feels like the best place to post this I think there's probably something in that, with the modifier that there is a lost libertarian strand in those traditions that that became property largely of the far right and then an overriding neo-liberal consensus that sat on it just after, to which you allude. But I'm not best placed to say.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:That difference is arguably a sophistic distinction much of the time though. Cingulate posted:As are, of course, "all human beings have intrinsic worth regardless of what body they were born into" or "suffering is bad". Cingulate posted:I think you're confused here - you're trying to talk about the two having similar extension, but dissimilar intension; but on the other hand, arguably, they're actually closer in intension than extension. I'm not familiar with the formalities of linguistics, so I'm blindly flying into the particulars and specifics here. Would the italicized part of your post be understood as "the words 'freedom' and 'liberty' express similar ideas but they are applied differently from each other"? (Also do you have any recommended reading on linguistics?) Wales Grey fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Nov 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:The philosophy of this thread is more aligned with the idea that the problem is that d&d is not inclusive of people like smoothrich's opinions, though, I don't know who that is, but I just made this thread so that people who haven't posted much in D&D could have a place to post. It's not meant to be "inclusive" of anyone who already posts in D&D a lot, but rather than just keep them out I thought maybe the rules could be structured so that they'd only post in support, if at all, and to be totally honest I would prefer if they just didn't post here at all, but I know that's not likely and maybe a few of them could be helpful. icantfindaname posted:I guess this is now the abstract political philosophy thread, so this feels like the best place to post this No, it isn't that at all. It's not really a place for people like you, who post regularly in D&D. You know how D&D works, so if you want to talk about abstract philosophy and can't find a thread, you can make one just fine. BTW the thing you posted is interesting and may very well be a good thread-starter, so go ahead with that. In other words, both of you guys should probably leave the wading pool if you aren't going to engage with a newbie and just want to talk to each other. dogcrash truther fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Nov 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
dogcrash truther posted:I don't know who that is, but I just made this thread so that people who haven't posted much in D&D could have a place to post. It's not meant to be "inclusive" of anyone who already posts in D&D a lot, but rather than just keep them out I thought maybe the rules could be structured so that they'd only post in support, if at all, and to be totally honest I would prefer if they just didn't post here at all, but I know that's not likely and maybe a few of them could be helpful. DCT, infamous troll.   
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
.
socket fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
Verge posted:I guess I'm having trouble answering the question. I suppose I always assume the answer is obvious, simple and the same as any political system...it seems like it's the best thing for humanity. Freedom is good because freedom gives you not only the opportunity to thrive, but to fail and we will learn from our mistakes and not repeat them, in all likelihood. We've already figured out that segregation is bad, we don't need another generation of suffering and failure to figure that out just so we can end up where we started. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 08:01 on Nov 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 07:58
|
|
|
What i'm getting out of this is that libertarians are just weed-smoking reactionaries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
GlitchThief posted:What i'm getting out of this is that libertarians are just weed-smoking reactionaries. Weed-smoking reactionaries who love an idealized version of contract law with a healthy helping of Social Darwinism, while trying to evade the costs of Social Darwinism by replacing all humans with perfectly rational robots who operate solely in their own rationalized self-interest but still manage to always make decisions that avoid tragedies of the commons, and all disputes will be solved non-violently via arbitration and troubleshooting companies. It's the most "friction-less spheres in a vacuum" political position.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
For new people: some people are either gimmicks or so far bent on a particular ideology that it will not be fun with arguing with them for a while. Most people are at least somewhat reasonable. Expect to get fuckbarreled if you have an opinion that is potentially problematic such as me having lovely opinions in regards to trans people to the past.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
ZenVulgarity posted:For new people: some people are either gimmicks or so far bent on a particular ideology that it will not be fun with arguing with them for a while. Most people are at least somewhat reasonable. Expect to get fuckbarreled if you have an opinion that is potentially problematic such as me having lovely opinions in regards to trans people to the past. . It's not that hard, I joined for a Fire Emblem LP and I didn't have any problems jumping into D&D.Just keep civil and don't be an rear end in a top hat, and you'll fit in just fine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Wales Grey posted:Weed-smoking reactionaries who love an idealized version of contract law with a healthy helping of Social Darwinism, while trying to evade the costs of Social Darwinism by replacing all humans with perfectly rational robots who operate solely in their own rationalized self-interest but still manage to always make decisions that avoid tragedies of the commons, and all disputes will be solved non-violently via arbitration and troubleshooting companies. It's the most "friction-less spheres in a vacuum" political position. Which is where is where a certain kind of critique of Neo-Liberalism/Nostalgic classical liberalism is useful against the libertarians of the weed smoking variety. This type of Libertarian does seem to love a property based, rights centered discourse as a model which explains everything. Any issue can be reduced to either abstracted rationality, rational self interest, or contract and property right. And so how those rights, the property and assets tied into those rights, and the ways these rights and assets become active or actionable in a community/communties is almost never analyzed except in regard to the actual text of the laws or overt provisions said rights provide. The material contingencies at a local level are considered, if not irrelevant, at least of very low level importance. So, I dunno, thats my problem with this strand of Libertarians. For example, after the abolishment of slavery the only reason something like sharecropping and/or Jim Crow did not instantly pop up as a re-appropriated dominanting scheme of newly freed Black American freedmen was the force projection of the union army there to enforce the new ammendment and other rights protections. After the US army forces left the south 1877 there was no one left to protect the organizations which upheld the new rights of freedman. There was no one left to forcefully suppress the Klan. After 1877, look at the all the good such rights and rational discourse did to help the southern black community: these laws got couched in separate, but equal or merit based (thinly veiled discrimination) language so as to no longer operate to protect the very people they were meant to protect and in fact further entrenched dominating effects. It doesn't really matter why certain groups of southerners chose to undermine these protections: economic necessity, intra-poverity competition, racist beliefs, sincerely held beliefs about social class or society, the point is they actively reproduced dominating power effects by re-appropriating rights based discourse. That's my take on this whole thing. I hope I don't come off as an rear end in a top hat about this. I'm just trying to join in, what I feel is, a fascinating discussion. BaurusJA fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Nov 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
Libertarianism requires either a naive or willful ignorance of human nature, history and current events. Sociopathy is a plus because not giving a poo poo about anyone else removes the need to fool yourself into thinking any of its true when you don't care about the well being of other people to begin with. Equating a persons value to the size of their bank account is just... hosed up. -It requires people to be "rational actors" when the whole of history up to this very second easily disproves it. -It expects people to somehow make informed decisions when they are bombarded with disinformation 24/7 right now. -It requires corporations to act looking at the long term and not next quarters profits. "Why would a company knowingly harm their customers?" I dunno, ask 95% of corporations that have ever or are currently in existence. Even regulated they have no problems loving over the environment, their customers or their employees if it means next quarters numbers go up. -By far the most laughable is this delusion that force won't be needed since we'll just have everything settled by private arbitration. People who lose these arbitrations would follow them without the threat of force because reasons. Maybe it's just because most libertarians have been laughed out of serious discussions but now that golds lost half its value in the last decade I no longer hear fiat currency or gold backed money anymore. Once it goes up again I'm sure it will become a thing again. Sorry if it's harsh but none of these things are debatable. People are not nor have ever been rational, discussing a system that requires people to act in a way they have never acted in the entirety of human history is a waste of time. If one of the base requirements of your ideology is wrong, what is there to discuss?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Maybe it's just because most libertarians have been laughed out of serious discussions but now that golds lost half its value in the last decade I no longer hear fiat currency or gold backed money anymore. It seems you haven't been watching the Republican debates, I have some bad news.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Sorry if it's harsh but none of these things are debatable. People are not nor have ever been rational, discussing a system that requires people to act in a way they have never acted in the entirety of human history is a waste of time. If one of the base requirements of your ideology is wrong, what is there to discuss? I would sort of disagree with this part, it is difficult to discuss any social system which proposes to improve people's wellbeing without running up against the problem of human deficiencies. Certainly you should acknowledge the problem presented by the need for better people, but you can perhaps then move on to examining how we might produce better people. It's not an undebatable point, but it is one that libertarianism doesn't seem interested in debating properly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:16 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I would sort of disagree with this part, it is difficult to discuss any social system which proposes to improve people's wellbeing without running up against the problem of human deficiencies. I don't disagree but libertarians start off with people being informed and making rational decisions. They aren't and they don't, hell people geefully will do things against their own self interest or out hatred or stupidity. Libertarian 'society' is pretty much hinged on this not being the case so it can't even get out of the gate. Even libertarians themselves are too deep in the kook aid or too stupid to understand the reason their lives are as good as they are are because of the very policies and laws they want to destroy. There is no discussion to be had. The frictionless sphere Ina vacuum was perfect, it's a mildly interesting thought experiment but refuses to account for the fact that reality is far more complicated and can't be simplified down to private arbitration and contracts. If you refuse to even acknowledge anything that would keep your ideology from functioning we may as well just be talking about how awesome living in Star Trek would be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 02:10
|
|