|
ah yes, a story that very definitely happened
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 22:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 08:16 |
|
|
I love it when I go to the ballot box early and they give me extra votes as a result, just like this very accurate demonstration of how democracy works in this idiots class.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 22:11
|
|
|
If the teacher agreed to do whatever they wanted why did they need a supreme leader. Why wouldn't they just say "all in favor of divvying up the tickets equally raise their hands". Also why was the result any worse than the teacher's method since he just gave more tickets to whoever had the shortest walk from their previous class. My guesses in order of most to least likely 1. Fake 2. Real, but the only kids who gave a poo poo about extra credit tickets were a couple of Ravenclaw twerps 3. Real, and the tickets were good enough for everyone to care, but the teacher put in more dumb rules that he left out of the story 4. Real, perfectly accurate, kids were just dumb I guess? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Nov 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 22:12
|
|
|
He tagged someone who says that that's her and she gave permission, as this was years ago. It's still meaningless. Also his bio says: quote:Public School CRT Whistleblower (now formerly employed)  Guavanaut posted:Sounds like the unequal distribution was the original problem. Yeah, this is like when conservatives discovered the Reign of Terror a few years ago and started using that to justify their opposition to the French Revolution. Y'know, because things were so good under a literal king and absolute monarch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 22:20
|
|
|
Were the students allowed to fire her or did the teacher change his mind about enforcing "whatever they wanted to do"
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 22:20
|
|
|
Comments section is full of petty and democratically elected tyrants bragging about pulling a similar gimmick. "Heheh in college we did a similar exercise and I convinced my dumb liberal classmates to give me all their Protection badges in exchange for a promise to protect them all myself and this is how I convinced the class that gun control is evil!" Also funny to note the teacher reassured the readers that"Don't worry that girl grew up to be a happily married small business owner" lol as opposed to what, exactly? Like how different would the tone have been to this story if the girl was a blood red communist with an active polycule?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 22:42
|
|
|
That girl grew up to be Albert Einstein
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 23:51
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:So a Libertarian teacher (note the Gadsten Flag on the wall) does this social experiment to prove some kind of point about how I guess Democracy is bad? clickhole remains winner
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 00:07
|
|
as to the point of this.
|
Are teachers allowed to post pictures of their students that they’ve taken in class?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 00:35
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:Are teachers allowed to post pictures of their students that they’ve taken in class? Who are you to take away the pictures of children a man has created by the sweat of his brow, statist
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 01:26
|
|
|
It's plenty believable, although presumably the teacher would leave out any story of classes that didn't conform to his expectations. A lot of teachers like playing with these sorts of experiments, it sometimes can be easy to manipulate, and sometimes it plays on basic psychology. I remember teachers trying to demonstrate the prisoner's dilemma (which also notably doesn't work if the students can communicate and coordinate). Once and a while they end up going horribly awry and ending up on the news, I think the most famous one was the Third Wave Experiment, where a teacher was trying to demonstrate how fascist movements happen, and ended up being much more successful over the course of a week than he ever expected. Panfilo posted:I don't get how exactly she made the students with more coupons hand them over? There was no mention of persuasion or coercion in that end of this fairy tale so I'm kind of The teacher said he would act as enforcer of whatever the kids decided, although I guess he elected to allow the student to go back on her word.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 04:00
|
|
|
Even if that bull-poo poo story happened as described, which I doubt, it could have been a teachable moment about demagoguery, the need for checks and balances in governance, and the value of equality. "Little girl gets herself elected Hitler" doesn't seem very inspirational to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 04:01
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:Even if that bull-poo poo story happened as described, which I doubt, it could have been a teachable moment about demagoguery, the need for checks and balances in governance, and the value of equality. "Little girl gets herself elected Hitler" doesn't seem very inspirational to me. It's meant to disparage the concept of a direct democracy because the untermensch will just Mob Rule themselves into following whatever despot jangles their keys and this is why it is bad to give everyone a direct and equal part of the process. Instead, we should be ruled under the benevolent governance of a Republic, with representatives appointed by our Top Men.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 04:08
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:Yeah, this is like when conservatives discovered the Reign of Terror a few years ago and started using that to justify their opposition to the French Revolution. Y'know, because things were so good under a literal king and absolute monarch. Conservatism overall is a direct reaction to the French revoloution in general, 'how do we keep aristocricy around without being able to just say "My dad was X, im the new X"' Washing the political power through the ascendant economic power. The thing being conserved is always and forever aristocracy. "
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 12:13
|
|
|
Barrel Cactaur posted:Conservatism overall is a direct reaction to the French revoloution in general, 'how do we keep aristocricy around without being able to just say "My dad was X, im the new X"' Washing the political power through the ascendant economic power. The thing being conserved is always and forever aristocracy. This is a novel thought, or at least a novel way of stating it. Anyone you recommend to expand on it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 17:24
|
|
|
Pendevil posted:This is a novel thought, or at least a novel way of stating it. Anyone you recommend to expand on it? Edmund Burke
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 17:28
|
|
|
Pendevil posted:This is a novel thought, or at least a novel way of stating it. Anyone you recommend to expand on it? Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France is the place to start, if you don't mind going back to the original material. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Nov 2, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 17:31
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Burke'd Reflections on the Revolution in France is the place to start, if you don't mind going back to the original material. get Burke'd
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 17:34
|
|
|
theshim posted:I know it's silly to point out typos but I can't help but read this one as similar to Punk'd Lol and now I'm imagining him wearing a fake mustache and trying to pull one over on Thomas Paine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 17:53
|
|
|
It's not my original idea no. My introduction to this was innuendo studios videos on understanding right Wing ideologies. Endnote 3: The Origins of Conservatism - YouTube And yes the people who invented conservativism were pretty explicit what it was about, preservation of the hierarchical society structure through alterations to its alleged justification. Conservativism is basically just a post hoc justification for saying nothing should change about society, any justification given is drawn from the pre existing conclusion. It's very important to understand this because it helps you understand proving a conservative talking point wrong can't affect the underlying beliefs, because it reversed the causation involved. Talking points are just spam hypotheticals, loosely held and easily replaced with newly generated ideas. Barrel Cactaur fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Nov 2, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 17:57
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Lol and now I'm imagining him wearing a fake mustache and trying to pull one over on Thomas Paine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 18:02
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:You common sense lovers just got Burke'd! *gets hit in the face by a pie thrown by Mary Wollstonecraft*
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 18:04
|
|
|
Caros posted:Reminder that if you out 10 libertarians in a room and ask about policy you will get at minimum 52 answers. I always forever want to remember this story, the "What Happened To Libertarianism" postscript think about it: in the end, because of the critical flaws of libertarianism and its inability to ultimately deal with autocratic collapse of the ideal, the party was conquered by the group that had an intent to hierarchically dominate, who then immediately cranked the authoritarian platform purge lever as hard as their skinny little arms could and locked down on who gets to define or direct libertarianism as an organization, in the process guaranteeing a total purge of any ideology or institutional competence which isn't "simping for idiot billionaires" or "acting as a thin cover for tradwest groups that insist they aren't white ethnonationalists" 100% absolute perfect closing chapter in a documentary on american libertarian politics because it was a perfect capsule episode about "and there's why you can't have libertarianism" and sure that's funny, but i agree with the weird crossover similarities that were less funny, where the ultimate end of a lot of leftist orgs (or their ability to accomplish poo poo whatsoever) was intentional takeover that swiftly destroyed them by purging basically any ideology or structural competence that wasn't about "simping for dictatorships" or "using their facebook group page for posting laser eyes stalin memes" poo poo which probably actually destroyed over a hundred leftist orgs actually for real but here's where it gets funny again: the leftist org demolition has to happen a hundred times and there's still leftist orgs, because the leftist orgs are naturally diffuse and syncretic. libertarianism is unavoidably monolithic and heirarchical to begin with pre-takeover no matter how hard it denies it so it only has to die once a political generation to get downgraded to a joke ideology, and in our generation that was the LP crushing their own dream of any kind of mainstream political viability in America Pantaloon Pontiff posted:One of the problems with discussing libertarianism is that there isn't any central philosophy but a lot of its adherents speak as though there is. When I used to argue online more, one of the most frustrating things about arguing with libertarians is that you could make no assumptions that they followed any particular belief set whatsoever In the turbulent birth of Internet Libertarianism, where grandpa's BBS's and Usenets and oldschool forums were getting choked by obsessives who would Never Shut Up About Libertarianism, this was a huge deal Even as a very small minority, libertarians were vastly overrepresented in the early techbugs that got in on online communities. because of their early stranglehold on early online political spheres, this immediately became an issue: all libertarianism is a concrete principle you are never allowed to define, so they will claim to have a coherent ideology with set principles, but those set principles don't apply or act representative of libertarianism whenever whoever you are arguing with feels like not having to stand up to principles that don't really stand up to any kind of rigorous review so all you were left to argue with is what the principles, party, and ideology turned out to be in practice, which is the exact thing libertarians and libertarianism actually hate more than anything in the loving world more than taxes or not being allowed to own enough guns to get crushed to death under
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 19:18
|
|
|
Google Jeb Bush posted:yeah, libertarians are famously able to reach a consensus on "should we feed bears on our backyard porch, y/n" You get more coherency if you frame the question as "should your neighbor", because of course every libertarian believes they themselves are allowed to do whatever they wish as it couldn't possibly have ill effects, it's when your neighbor decides to host a very loud party at 2 AM or fire guns on their property, or make meth that they suddenly rediscover the social contract. At which point it's easy enough to get them to.. hahaha, just kidding.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 21:38
|
|
|
Staluigi posted:
It's more basic than that though. Libertarian philosophy detests communal action. They don't believe that they should organize, they believe so superior the individual that inevitably they can't do the basic things to be a political power.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 21:51
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:It's more basic than that though. Libertarian philosophy detests communal action. They don't believe that they should organize, they believe so superior the individual that inevitably they can't do the basic things to be a political power. They're fine with it in theory, they call it voluntaryism. They just don't want to be "forced" into it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 22:52
|
|
|
Barrel Cactaur posted:Conservatism overall is a direct reaction to the French revoloution in general, 'how do we keep aristocricy around without being able to just say "My dad was X, im the new X"' Washing the political power through the ascendant economic power. The thing being conserved is always and forever aristocracy. yep. last year I was confused as to why the working class in Victorian Britain supported Gladstone in spite of him being a horrendous capitalist against Disraeli's 'one nation' Conservatives, because even though Marx called Disraeli's Young England movement a form of 'feudal socialism', surely feudal socialism would be better than ruthless laissez-faire industrial capitalism, right? turns out I was a loving idiot. They were both loving awful. Yes, the Liberals (and the Whigs before them) were bourgeois industrial capitalists who hated the working class, but the Tories were aristocratic agrarian rentier capitalists who hated the working class. They had different notions regarding how to manage the state and their relationship to the monarchy and all that, but economically speaking, their main ideological difference was how they exploited the working classes and who profited from workers' labour. Disraeli wasn't much different in that regard, being anti-socialist, anti-egalitarian, in favour of traditional mercantilist capitalism, that sort of thing, but his main objection to liberalism was that it weakened the power of the aristocracy, and therefore the monarchy by extension. This is why he fought hard against the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846, because repealing the tariffs around imported grain would empower industrialists and commercial capitalists over the traditional rentier aristocrats. Never mind that the repeal went on to greatly benefit the working classes, it threatened to destroy Britain's traditional agricultural fiefdoms! And that's broadly what Disraeli and conservatives like him wanted: class as not just an economic indicator, but a caste system, where the natural order of things is mass inequality and enlightened despotism. Upward social mobility outside of the aristocracy, represented by the new bourgeoisie, was a threat to their ideal society, where the arms of the monarchy keep the proletariat in their place while satisfying them with bread and circuses. This didn't last, of course, as when the Marquess of Salisbury came into power, the Tories embraced liberal economics to the point that the proletariat below looked from aristocrat to bourgeois, and from bourgeois to aristocrat, and from aristocrat to bourgeois again; but already it was impossible to say which was which. This is the kind of thing that happened in the US as well. The Jeffersonian Republicans were republicans, sure, but they were focused on conserving the southern agrarian aristocracy and its white supremacist slaver society, which the bourgeois Federalists deeply opposed. Granted, the Federalists were themselves deeply racist, and apart from Adams they all owned slaves as well, but they still wanted the gradual abolition of slavery as a means of subordinating the proletariat as a whole to the bourgeoisie. This, of course, didn't end up happening, and it eventually lead to a whole thing in the early 1860s, but regardless, the Jeffersonians and later the Democrats were interested above all in conserving and perpetuating the aristocracy while keeping down the bourgeoisie. (Tbh they should be regarded as the conservative party and the Federalists et al as liberals, as they would in most European countries, but that's beside the point.) I'll admit this is a massive oversimplification, but just so this post isn't completely off topic, I'll say that conservatism is somewhat opposed to libertarianism in that there isn't much of an American aristocracy to conserve nowadays, mainly because it has been totally subsumed by the bourgeoisie. This is, of course, entirely because Nixon brought the Dixiecrats into the Republican fold in 1968, but that doesn't stop ancaps from bigging up the Confederacy and its southern aristocratic society, and something something contradictions inherent in fascism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 23:35
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SallyMayweather/status/1720059305037009211?t=oo4H_m06xSH2B2yaB0KH9w&s=19
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 01:03
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:https://twitter.com/SallyMayweather/status/1720059305037009211?t=oo4H_m06xSH2B2yaB0KH9w&s=19 The part where you destroy the commons
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 01:51
|
|
|
Staluigi posted:so all you were left to argue with is what the principles, party, and ideology turned out to be in practice, which is the exact thing libertarians and libertarianism actually hate more than anything in the loving world more than taxes or not being allowed to own enough guns to get crushed to death under To highlight the variety of belief sets under the 'libertarian' umbrella (especially in the old days), I remember arguing on an old forum with a guy who had libertarian in his name who got offended when I talked about a guy in his hypothetical Glorious Libertarian Community owning a machine gun. He responded as though I was just randomly flaming him for insinuating that he'd be OK with something as nuts as a private individual owning a fully automatic weapon. So while 'hate taxes' is a sure bet, you couldn't even count on 'gun nut' back then. Though I'm pretty sure the field has narrowed significantly now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 04:44
|
|
|
Venomous posted:This is the kind of thing that happened in the US as well. The Jeffersonian Republicans were republicans, sure, but they were focused on conserving the southern agrarian aristocracy and its white supremacist slaver society, which the bourgeois Federalists deeply opposed. Granted, the Federalists were themselves deeply racist, and apart from Adams they all owned slaves as well, but they still wanted the gradual abolition of slavery as a means of subordinating the proletariat as a whole to the bourgeoisie. This, of course, didn't end up happening, and it eventually lead to a whole thing in the early 1860s, but regardless, the Jeffersonians and later the Democrats were interested above all in conserving and perpetuating the aristocracy while keeping down the bourgeoisie. (Tbh they should be regarded as the conservative party and the Federalists et al as liberals, as they would in most European countries, but that's beside the point.) One of the funnier things about the campaigning for the 1800 presidential election was how Adams, who actually had worked a day in his life, got portrayed as a haughty Hamiltonian* quasi-monarchist, while literal slave-lord and indolent spendthrift Thomas Jefferson was cast as champion of common America. *particularly given how Hamilton himself went out of his way to ratfuck Adams during the campaign. Yes I've been rereading McCullough why do you ask.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 18:39
|
|
|
Clarste posted:I feel like, just the existence of advertising as a concept already disproves the magic of capitalist efficiency, since it makes it obvious that the quality of a product or service is not the only thing driving demand. If they can get you to buy a lower quality product for more money, what's stopping them doing anything else with that power? They don't really see this as a problem, and 'the quality of a product or service is the only thing driving demand' isn't usually part of their belief set. Plus advertising is just bringing things to the purchaser's attention and it's the job of the consumer to educate themselves, if you fall for advertising that just shows that you're dumb and not doing your due diligence. (How you're supposed to hold down a full time job and do 'due diligence' on every product you might use is not really clear). If you want to dispel the magic of capitalist efficiency, I'd point to things like google search and phone calls on the practical side. Google search was absolutely amazing at finding information for while, but it's been getting harder and harder to find real information among the sponsored ads and AI-generated, SEO-optimized nonsense that it returns. Phone calls used to be a major form of casual communication, and you'd answer every call that came in if you were home. Now there's just so many spam calls that the idea of answering 'unknown number' is the punchline of a joke, and if you're expecting a call back from somewhere you have to force yourself to listen to robocalls so you don't miss the one real call. You can also point to specific more niche industries (like movies or games) where capitalistic drives leads to much worse products. Free markets do an amazing job at some things, but unrestrained capitalism actually makes products worse over time, and is something I hadn't really had experience with back in the 90s but pretty much everyone has seen first hand today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 16:26
|
|
|
What happened to the “I Walked on the Sidewalk” guy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 01:27
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:https://twitter.com/SallyMayweather/status/1720059305037009211?t=oo4H_m06xSH2B2yaB0KH9w&s=19 I'd love to see whose really behind that age old libertarian account. Any ideas?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2023 18:20
|
|
|
Everybody loves freedom until their meth head, gun loving neighbor decides to do motorcycle repair at 230 am. Then they get to see how easily libertarianism turns into anarchy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2023 18:33
|
|
|
Venomous posted:This is the kind of thing that happened in the US as well. The Jeffersonian Republicans were republicans, sure, but they were focused on conserving the southern agrarian aristocracy and its white supremacist slaver society, which the bourgeois Federalists deeply opposed. Granted, the Federalists were themselves deeply racist, and apart from Adams they all owned slaves as well, but they still wanted the gradual abolition of slavery as a means of subordinating the proletariat as a whole to the bourgeoisie. This, of course, didn't end up happening, and it eventually lead to a whole thing in the early 1860s, but regardless, the Jeffersonians and later the Democrats were interested above all in conserving and perpetuating the aristocracy while keeping down the bourgeoisie. (Tbh they should be regarded as the conservative party and the Federalists et al as liberals, as they would in most European countries, but that's beside the point.) When Federalist pastors and politicians were denouncing Jefferson as a crypto-atheist whose attitude to religion ("it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg") would lead to people murdering and thieving en masse in the absence of divine punishment, I wouldn't say these were expressing liberal views. When Jefferson suggested that constitutions are only really valid for about a generation before having to be replaced, and that a little rebellion by citizens now and then is good for the body politic, these were quite far from the Federalists' "law and order" approach. "Liberal" and "conservative" can be rather difficult to apply to early American politics, but contemporary European visitors (Tocqueville, Thomas Hamilton's Men and Manners in America, etc.) did seem to regard the Federalists as having a notably stronger "argh the common people are a danger" sentiment and thus more congenial to European notions of conservatism which feared that universal suffrage would lead to the abolition of private property. Enver Zogha fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Nov 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2023 19:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/RichardHanania/status/1721191213381066880
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2023 19:34
|
|
|
Enver Zogha posted:To be fair, historian Clement Eaton (in his The Freedom-of-Thought Struggle in the Old South) made the point that many Southern slaveowners in the late 18th and early 19th centuries held liberal views (including the gradual ending of slavery), most obviously Jefferson himself who at the time defended the Jacobin use of terror It is important to note that this approval for revolutionary violence disappeared instantly when that revolutionary violence was embraced by the slaves in Saint-Domingue, and Jefferson himself (as well as Madison, for that matter) suddenly got a whole lot more sympathetic to fleeing aristocrats. The liberality of the eighteen century planter class was always, always racially limited and defined, for all their Enlightenment claims about universal rights. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Nov 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2023 19:40
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:It is important to note that this approval for revolutionary violence disappeared instantly when revolutionary violence was embraced by the slaves in Saint-Domingue, and Jefferson himself (as well as Madison, for that matter) suddenly got a whole lot more sympathetic to fleeing aristocrats. The liberality of the eighteen century planter class was always, always racially limited and defined, for all their Enlightenment claims about universal rights. Jefferson was the ultimate libertarian in a way. He said the world would be better off if slavery were abolished, but since it is legal it would be crazy to deprive myself of so much free labor and undermine his plantation's ability to compete in the market!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2023 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 08:16 |
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Jefferson was the ultimate libertarian in a way. Well that, and he was a spendthrift who was utterly poo poo about budgeting his tastes to his income. Actually putting his money where his mouth was regarding emancipation meant he might not be able to afford the finest French fashion or wine and *gasp* have to work for a living like some kind of yankee. Edit: You know what, I'm going to continue this thought a bit so it's not just me sneering at Jefferson. To expand, his personal philosophy was, boiled down, that work was something best left to other people (ie slaves) so that properly refined individuals like himself would have time and leisure to think and philosophize and invent, etc. From this we can see how, likely unintentionally, he helped to encourage within the planter aristocracy the already-present idea that work itself was inherently racial; ie, that manual work of any kind was should, in ideal circumstances, be performed by black slaves. This helps to feed into the concept that would mature by the time we're the antebellum nineteenth century that the ideal society was one where every white man was a slave owner, and if you had to work at all in your youth it should be only to accumulate enough money to buy slaves to then carry on your work for you, which dovetailed with the transformation of attitudes toward slaver from being a "necessarily evil" (which was Jefferson's stated belief) toward it being a "benevolent good," the much more common belief of the secessionist fire eaters and similar scum. So, to wit, Jefferson's own moral failings when it came to slavery would help over the decades to destroy his starting position on slavery itself and normalize it further into the peculiar institution it became. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Nov 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2023 19:49
|
|