|
TomViolence posted:Legit. Just look at the democrats (who were never left wing to begin with and basically just took to wearing their skin) or any european labour party (who might have been centre-left once but embraced neoliberalim and underwent a slow rot). It depends on what you define as "leftist" Neoliberalism is not inherently right-wing nor is globalism.
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 04:24 |
|
|
Liberalism is pretty right wing. It essentially advocates for handing power to Capital out of an ideological belief that it will make things better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Belief is meaningless. So what you're saying is... 'What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.'
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:1. Yeah you're putting words into the responders mouths there. "God will always reward true faith with material blessings." was the question. Don't try to obfuscate the data because it's an unpleasant fact. No, I said religious coverage and religious experts should be limited to religion. Running articles on how faith can erase hatred between political religious groups is giving credence to religion that is undeserving. Want to do an article about Monks or whatever? Run it in the same way as a cultural piece about Trekkies or nature enthusiasts, not as a social or political authority. I'm not yelling at the NYT, I'm saying this bias exists and curtailing it will ultimately help progressive causes. Considering that Turkey ranks at 82% importance of religion and Syria at 89%, I fail to see how these are indicative at all of secular nations. Religion is a cause of conservatism because it is inherently reactionary, tradition bound, and authoritarian. It is also a large influence in people's behaviors and worldview. Given the evidence, religion ultimately enables conservatism and acts as a roadblock for equality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:
I'm almost tempted to empty quote because of how self-evidently stupid and wrong this is but yeah, this is your brain on american politics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:"God will always reward true faith with material blessings." was the question. Don't try to obfuscate the data because it's an unpleasant fact. Ohlol, so when it actually does do something good, you say it should be ignored. Also you do know that Iraq, Syria and Turkey spent at least 50 years run by regimes that preached a message against religion influencing their states? Didn't work out to well as it turns out. In many ways it reinforced religion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:
Syria and Turkey are 'Secular' more in comparison to surrounding countries than in any sense that would be considered secular in the west. In Syria it was mostly preoccupied with attempting to stem the flow of radical Saudi influenced ideologies (which failed obviously) and in any event there's been a complete failure to prevent particular religious groups, particularly the Alawites, from establishing a dominate, sectarian political position in the country. Additionally the government has received massive assistance from Iran and Hezbollah while seemingly the most tolerable faction in the whole war, the SDF, are probably the most genuinely Secular. I don't even know what lessons we're meant to draw about Secularism in this context. In any event the more avowedly non-secular nations nearby are loving Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan and other such places. And Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf nations show the limits of tying poverty to religiosity so strongly, since they manage to be fabulously wealthy, extremely religious and highly oppressive all at the same time!
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:I'm almost tempted to empty quote because of how self-evidently stupid and wrong this is but yeah, this is your brain on american politics. I've actually lived all over the world. My first introduction to neoliberalism were there policies of renown Colombian neofascist Alvaro Uribe. Who sold off massive amounts of the states properties to fund a infrastructure modernization program. He also copied Lula da Silvas program 'Bolsa Familia' which essentially gives low income families direct cash infusions and created ' familia's en accion' which he consolidated as a political tool to ensure the furtherance of his new party. To define whether or not neoliberalism is compatible with leftism, you have to define what leftism is. Is it socialism? Full communism? Social democracy? Secularism! Is there such a thing as a leftist theocracy? UAE gives it's citizens $30,000 every year from it's oil income. Is that socialism?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:So what you're saying is... Quoting scripture at someone who doesn't give a gently caress about scripture doesn't make your point, it undermines it. I don't care about the "good Christians" with the "real Bible" who masturbate with sandpaper. I get that all 13 of y'all are such key voters that no one can dare offend you. Good on you. Unless you are Brother Bill, get the gently caress out of my face and get to where it counts. Edit: Seriously, what you wrote is so audaciously clueless I don't even know how to respond. Have you been paying attention? Seriously, gently caress you and gently caress everything you stand for. Shbobdb fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Syria and Turkey are 'Secular' more in comparison to surrounding countries than in any sense that would be considered secular in the west. In Syria it was mostly preoccupied with attempting to stem the flow of radical Saudi influenced ideologies (which failed obviously) and in any event there's been a complete failure to prevent particular religious groups, particularly the Alawites, from establishing a dominate, sectarian political position in the country. Additionally the government has received massive assistance from Iran and Hezbollah while seemingly the most tolerable faction in the whole war, the SDF, are probably the most genuinely Secular. I don't even know what lessons we're meant to draw about Secularism in this context. I notice hiw you avoided how turkey attempted to completley remove religion from it in a way advocated by raspar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I notice hiw you avoided how turkey attempted to completley remove religion from it in a way advocated by raspar. Erdogan is trying to roll back secularization. Are you saying the problem with secular society is that sometimes it fails to remain secular?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I notice hiw you avoided how turkey attempted to completley remove religion from it in a way advocated by raspar. Ridiculous, secularism in Turkey never approached anything close to the level you saw in Europe. It was secular in comparison to nearby countries like I said but there was never really any clearly enunciated separation between church and state (quite the opposite actually, the state is heavily involved in religious matters, look at the responsibilities of the Diyanet) and clearly it isn't deep rooted enough to stop someone like Erdogan coming along and turning over almost everything. After all he was still technically working within the bounds of the supposedly secular constitution and framework of the state.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
Kemalism is secularist as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Quoting scripture at someone who doesn't give a gently caress about scripture doesn't make your point, it undermines it. Simmer down; I wasn't making a point, I was just having some fun with you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:Simmer down; I wasn't making a point, I was just having some fun with you. As long as we agree that scripture is fundamentally empty and that the best education a church can provide is a burning church.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Ohlol, so when it actually does do something good, you say it should be ignored. Also you do know that Iraq, Syria and Turkey spent at least 50 years run by regimes that preached a message against religion influencing their states? Didn't work out to well as it turns out. In many ways it reinforced religion. I never denied that good things come out of religion, the point I keep having to make is there are significantly more bad outcomes than good ones. Syria and Turkey running authoritarian regimes trying to suppress religious opposition is not a reflection of progressive politics, nor were there methods anything like what I have advocated. You don't get rid of religion by trying to strangle it, you do it by increasing the education and opportunities of a population while limiting religion's influence in public policy and education. Your points are aggressively disingenuous. You keep demanding evidence and explanations despite being given an ample amount of both. You've offered absolutely no evidence to prove that religiosity helps progressivism on any large scale, nor any evidence that religion doesn't foster conservatism. You've offered no counter arguments on key points of religion being reactionary, authoritarian, and tradition bound, nor an explanation as to why countries with extremely high religiosity are oppressively conservative without correlation to economic prosperity. Do you have any actual evidence for your positions? Or are you just pointing fingers at outliers while being shown strong groupings?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 05:50
|
|
|
hey whats up with suadi arabia, who and why IS the "Saud family"? Why did Iran start acting religious for some reason during the 20th century? Where did this weird anti-western anger come from? ??? edit: i think the left has a conflict where we must logically destroy the insane goals of religion, but we also must destroy the warmongering right wing who wants to kill foreigners who have an even more weird religion. this right wing hates the foreign religion, and we left wing must calm them down and roll our eyes and sigh Cool Bear fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Secularism in Turkey never approached anything close to the level you saw in Europe Kemal banned fezes and veils ffs. He had outwards religious symbolism suppressed. His constitution for the republic of Turkey was basically the french constitution with the 1908 secular laws carved into it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 06:39
|
|
|
I lov how people are acting like there were never secularization campaigns in the middle east.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 07:48
|
|
|
Cool Bear posted:hey whats up with suadi arabia, who and why IS the "Saud family"? - Wahhabi bandits who were basically handed the keys to Mecca after the fall of the ottoman empire. Also never remotely a secular regime - I'd note that there were also communists involved in the Iranian revolution, who were promptly betrayed by the Iranian religious right - Not secularism if that's what you're wondering, given that the most strongly anti-western governments were, for a while, arab socialists who were either non-aligned or directly in soviet orbit most of the time. Agnosticnixie fucked around with this message at 10:00 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 09:55
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I lov how people are acting like there were never secularization campaigns in the middle east. What about the fact that those secularization campaigns were sabotaged by Western right wing imperialism? Or that the current progressive movements in the Middle East want increased secularization in government?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 11:22
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Kemal banned fezes and veils ffs. He had outwards religious symbolism suppressed. His constitution for the republic of Turkey was basically the french constitution with the 1908 secular laws carved into it. They banned outward signs of religious symbolism, but didn't take major steps to truly secularize most of society in a way you saw in places like France. Turkish secularism is more a veneer than people recognize, the state is heavily involved with religious life in the country and Erdogan has fairly easily worked within the confines of the constitution and state structures to change society dramatically, here is an article that goes into some detail on this: quote:The interesting fact is that the AKP didn’t have to alter the foundations of the state to shape Turkey to its current form. In fact, the AKP has not touched the secular basis of the republic in any way. Instead, it used existing structures to give religion a greater role in society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
Wouldn't qlot of your guys guys fantasy land requure the "defanging " that Attaturk did in Turkey? I mean to weaken the hold sych an "evil" thing has on the poor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:What about the fact that those secularization campaigns were sabotaged by Western right wing imperialism? Or that the current progressive movements in the Middle East want increased secularization in government? quote:Wouldn't qlot of your guys guys fantasy land requure the "defanging " that Attaturk did in Turkey? I mean to weaken the hold sych an "evil" thing has on the poor. It's funny how you stop understanding that cultural forces are a thing the moment it doesn't appeal to your religious sentimentalism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
The left is hostile to appeals to irrationality. Whether you appeal to God or Country, you will be in the wrong. What works and is best for all, what is the benefit of all society, is the driving principle. Not who currently "owns" what and not what "god" said.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:A funny thing is the predecessors of the Muslim brotherhood; imperialist powers had a tendency to see early political islam as a convenient tool to oppose both arab socialists and the then seen as suspiciously socialist jews in the region (a lot of early zionists were former bundists for one, it took until more or less the late 50s for palestinian jews and later Israel to not be seen as a potential soviet fifth column) Hey Raspar's the one demanding media publications not post articles that are semi positive about someones religious experiences. I also like how the reaction to repressive secular regimes was entirely the result of foreign intervention. I mean its not like trying to destroy a peoples way of life can produce a reaction at all. Look I just find it funny how the arch secularists like to pretend that these middle eastern regimes were not very repressive or anything. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
Maybe you should spend less time worrying about the grimy history, and ask yourself. Who do you want to be? What do you want the world to be?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
doverhog posted:The left is hostile to appeals to irrationality. Whether you appeal to God or Country, you will be in the wrong. What works and is best for all, what is the benefit of all society, is the driving principle. Not who currently "owns" what and not what "god" said. You can't build a moral system without an irrational and arbitrary selection of values somewhere at the foundation, and to talk about "what works" and "what benefits all of society" as if it could be determined through pure reason rather than through moral judgment (which is subjective, unless you believe in an objective, external model for morality... which in turn is a hop, skip, and a jump from believing in God) would be either a mistake or an evasion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:You can't build a moral system without an irrational and arbitrary selection of values somewhere at the foundation, and to talk about "what works" and "what benefits all of society" as if it could be determined through pure reason rather than through moral judgment (which is subjective, unless you believe in an objective, external model for morality... which in turn is a hop, skip, and a jump from believing in God) would be either a mistake or an evasion. Which, of course, is why there's a persistent minority of leftists who declare morality a capitalist/bourgeois/liberal notion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Have you ever heard of utilitarianism? Morality can be can quantified as what is best for society. Not in any absolute godlike sense, but as what best works toward certain goals. That is something that can be studied and measured rationally.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Have you ever heard of utilitarianism? Morality can be can quantified as what is best for society. Not in any absolute godlike sense, but as what best works toward certain goals. That is something that can be studied and measured rationally. I wonder what the certain goals might be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Have you ever heard of utilitarianism? Morality can be can quantified as what is best for society. Not in any absolute godlike sense, but as what best works toward certain goals. That is something that can be studied and measured rationally. And how are these goals selected? How is "utility" defined?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Have you ever heard of utilitarianism? Morality can be can quantified as what is best for society. Not in any absolute godlike sense, but as what best works toward certain goals. That is something that can be studied and measured rationally. No, I haven't heard of utilitarianism, it's definitely not the implicit subject of the post you just quoted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Quoted? Tuxedo Catfish posted:No, I haven't heard of utilitarianism, it's definitely not the implicit subject of the post you just quoted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Quoted? I'm not going to stealth edit my post out of horror over the semantic space between "quote" and "respond" either, dude, you don't need to save it for posterity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:You can't build a moral system without an irrational and arbitrary selection of values somewhere at the foundation, and to talk about "what works" and "what benefits all of society" as if it could be determined through pure reason rather than through moral judgment (which is subjective, unless you believe in an objective, external model for morality... which in turn is a hop, skip, and a jump from believing in God) would be either a mistake or an evasion. Brainiac Five posted:And how are these goals selected? How is "utility" defined? Utility is defined by the society in which it will be applied, by a democratic vote, for example.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Utility is defined by the society in which it will be applied, by a democratic vote, for example. And what makes this rational and non-arbitrary?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Utility is defined by the society in which it will be applied, by a democratic vote, for example. Why should it be democratic? You're correct that it probably will be defined that way, if only because large groups of people usually get what they want, but why ought it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:I'm not going to stealth edit my post out of horror over the semantic space between "quote" and "respond" either, dude, you don't need to save it for posterity. Hey man, seems we both post reflexively, don' worry about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 04:24 |
|
|
doverhog posted:Hey man, seems we both post reflexively, don' worry about it. This thread makes bastards of us all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:43
|
|