Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
reignonyourparade
Nov 15, 2012

BalloonFish posted:

My understanding of Brazilian history may be a bit off, but wasn't the Brazilian Empire created at the stroke of a pen in the 1820s simply because a bunch of royals got kicked out of Portugal and felt they had to have somewhere to rule, so turned Brazil into an independent monarchy?

I can kinda grasp why you'd be all-in with the Divine Right of Kings if you were a) an idiot and b) from somewhere like Britain, where the royal lineage recedes into history for thousands of years. It does give it a stupid sort of legitimacy on its own terms - there has been a monarchy in-situ for 1000 years or more, which to all intents and purposes in the present means it has always existed.

But Brazil's monarchy came and went within a lifespan. If that doesn't make it obvious how non-existant the intrinsic rights of monarchy, or the natural bond between monarch and nation, are, then I don't know what does.

IIRC the brazilian empire was actually created when royals mostly went BACK to portugal. Brazil started chafing under no longer having home rule, so the crown prince who had been left behind declared it independent as an empire.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

reignonyourparade
Nov 15, 2012

JustJeff88 posted:

While I obviously agree with you, I hope that you are not automatically lumping selfish people in with racists etc. I'm not going to argue for a moment that selfish, extremely conservative people are frequently racist in both overt and unspoken ways, but I get very tired of how so many "leftists" (again, I don't like the terminology) automatically assume that anyone they don't like is racist, sexist etc.

People I don't like are probably racist for the same reason people I do like are probably racist: basically everyone is varying degrees of racist.

reignonyourparade
Nov 15, 2012
Funny enough, one of the other reasons why we know how much hygiene Vikings did is because of a Muslim scholar talking about how gross they are. They would wash their faces daily as well, but shared the same water which violates islam's prescriptions on what makes water count as clean.

reignonyourparade
Nov 15, 2012
It's true, our police that do the exact same things secret police do are not actually secret.

reignonyourparade
Nov 15, 2012
A shitload of anarchists just reinvent the state but it's not a state this time because a state is a tool for one class to dominate another and we don't have classes.

reignonyourparade
Nov 15, 2012

Goon Danton posted:

I love the Tragedy of the Commons because the actual historical Commons never showed the kind of problem it says they would, while post-enclosure farms under capitalism run themselves into the ground constantly.

It's the old "counterpoint: observable reality" but for actual economics that gets taken seriously. Basically just about everything we get taught about medieval life is as fake as the Right of Prima Noctae, with the exception of hygiene (note: exception applies to Christians only).

Even ignoring that, taking tragedy of the commons at full face value, it's explicitly a problem of public lands and private herds... which means it would actually be a tragedy of mixed economies if it was real, with an alternate solution of "okay, hold the herds in common too."

reignonyourparade
Nov 15, 2012

SpaceSDoorGunner posted:

Anything that she got remotely right at least for the sound byte has a worst motivations ever lede. No idea about the Modi stuff either holy gently caress.

See also: "having gay marriage be illegal just because i personally think it's an abomination? what do you think i am, some kind of muslim."

reignonyourparade
Nov 15, 2012

SpaceSDoorGunner posted:

Capitalism at least outside of colonial and slave societies did one good thing really well, it loving demolished most previous social hierarchies and introduced more flexibility and randomness into class structure.

But it also mostly demolished the informal social units humans need to feel valued and not isolated.

It turns out that's actually questionable, the only actual study into this that I at least know of found that england specifically has less class mobility now than it did in the medieval period.

reignonyourparade
Nov 15, 2012
I remember there was some study that discovered some not insignificant segment of "class mobility" consisted of the children of rich people going off to be artists or similar and not technically having much wealth themselves, and then THEIR children, grandchildren of the rich people, going back to the well of being investment bankers or whatnot.

reignonyourparade
Nov 15, 2012

polymathy posted:

Pol Pot's Cambodian Genocide

I'll let these half dozen examples suffice. The commonality among all these atrocities is that they were committed by States. And not [...] Switzerland, [...] New Zealand. They were committed by large, centralized States with fiat money and vast resources at their command.

Motherfucker if Cambodia counts as a large centralized state with fiat money and vast resources at their command, Switzerland does too and New Zealand DEFINITELY loving does too.

reignonyourparade
Nov 15, 2012

Jrod you still haven't explained how Cambodia counts as a large centralized state and New Zealand doesn't.

reignonyourparade
Nov 15, 2012
Jrod you still haven't explained how Cambodia is a larger more centralized state than New Zealand.

reignonyourparade
Nov 15, 2012

Caros posted:

There is is. The single, stupidest thing you have ever said. Not since the days of UAE being among the most free countries have you said something so blatantly brain dead.

No sorry, I still think "cambodia is a more powerful centralized state than new zealand and this is so obvious that i'm just stating this as a matter of course" is stupider.

reignonyourparade
Nov 15, 2012

Professor Shark posted:

Holygamoley is that a super loving dumb take. The people who suffered were the innocent occupants who probably thought that the building was fine. I guess in his world people would perform their due diligence by sap-glove interrogating their landlords? Individually, of course, or else that would count as a group effort.

In this case at least a portion of the people who suffered were people who had kept voting not do anything about the issues that had been brought up to the point that like 5 out of 7 condo board members had resigned over not being able to get people to support paying for maintenance, which is not to say that they deserved anything that happens for that, but even if you thought they did deserve it, really sticking to that take is saying that anyone who did vote for maintenance would deserve to die for the crime of being outvoted.

reignonyourparade
Nov 15, 2012

JustJeff88 posted:

I actually don't argue with that. Norway etc are still very much running on the machinery of capitalism, it's just redistributive and regulated. In my opinion, they are capitalist enough that the anti-Bolshevik patrol, spearheaded by the US, aren't going to try to destabilise them. Also, in the case of Norway, they have oil and the US will do anything for more oil. If this thread and the leftist thread have taught me anything, it's that the capitalist west has been doing everything to gently caress any new economic system since 1917.

I would argue it's not about being capitalist enough, norway is genuinely more redistributive than countries that the USA has overthrown for being too pink, Norway is rather sufficient capitalist when combined with sufficient support for US hegemony.

reignonyourparade
Nov 15, 2012
I mean with your average libertarian they'd probably think that was a great idea

reignonyourparade
Nov 15, 2012
Ultimately a million dollars just does not mean what it meant when the cultural image of a millionaire was solidified.

reignonyourparade
Nov 15, 2012
Libertarians were always pretty full of poo poo but ALSO there's been an organized takeover of the libertarian party by the actively fascist subset of libertarianism

EDIT: Captain_Maclaine hadn't edited his version of this in when i posted it :v:

reignonyourparade
Nov 15, 2012
I'm pretty sure half as many fires doesn't mean you need half as many firefighters, it means you need The Same Amount Of Firefighters, Half As Often, so that's literally the sort of situation where makework to make sure you have the emergency responders around when the emergency DOES happen is the right thing.

reignonyourparade
Nov 15, 2012

Jesus III posted:

I'm happy you gave me a real response. The stfu was rude and unnecessary

How was it poorly sourced? You back this statement with nothing. In fact you back your whole statement with no sources. Your reply is poorly sourced

Again, why on earth do you think "fewer fires" would mean "we need fewer firemen" rather than "we need the exact same amount of firemen, less often"?

reignonyourparade
Nov 15, 2012

Jesus III posted:

Being ready for what? We are fighting less fires with more fire fighters. Cut it down to 6.1 fires per fireman per year from 3.1. 0ne fire every other month instead of every 4..

I'm not saying get rid of all firemen, just half. If you lose your job, you've got lots of safety training. Tons of companies will hire you. Maybe not 50 grand to sit around being "ready". Might have to do more than stand next to a truck.

Alright now a fire happens and you have half as many firemen as you need, When A Fire Happens. Mission accomplished.

reignonyourparade
Nov 15, 2012
Libertarianism is "government isn't allowed to inconvenience me personally in literally any way."

reignonyourparade
Nov 15, 2012

Jesus III posted:

It will never happen. Suburban Republicans wouldn't like not being able to ski in Colorado.

It won't happen, but from what we saw with brexit, that alone won't stop anything, because if it actually remotely became possible they would just convince each other "yeah you'll still be able to ski in colorado just fine"

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

reignonyourparade
Nov 15, 2012

Because he's antivax

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply