|
As human made institutions go, the U.S. has probably been one of the greatest positive forces in world history. For what it's worth.
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 06:58 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wait wait. Disenfranchisement and apartheid don't bother you, but rigged elections is where you say it's not a democracy finally? Humans are violent and brutal. That's not an excuse for the intellectually lazy conclusion that all human institutions are equally bad or overall destructive.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:So basically you're literally saying that sometimes slavery/apartheid are necessary? If not, then what do you think you're accomplishing by defending the countries (like Israel) that do this sort of thing? If you don't grade on a curve everything flunks. It ends up being as intellectually barren as blind support of the stays quo.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I never said all human institutions were equally bad. Intellectually lazy is being unable to handle any criticism of America without jumping to "Oh so you're saying America is just the same as Nazi Germany huh?" So what institutions/nations of similar influence have been positive in your book?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:You do realize that it's entirely possible to believe that there is no such thing as a "good" powerful country, right? What does it accomplish to try and figure out which one is the least bad? This is lazy post modern BS in my opinion considering how many things have gotten significantly better in the last century from civil rights to the middle class. Clearly major institutions have played a role certainly including the leading states. There are also the people that hate America because of their personal favorites list of bad things but love talking about the great aspects of the USSR. That's a total joke. quote:What in the world is accomplished by talking about how much better the US (or any other country for that matter) is than other powerful nations? I can think of countless things that are accomplished by being critical of nation-states, but not a single one that is accomplished by jacking off about how one is "number 1." Only good critism is useful and that requires recognizing good and bad.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:If anything in the last 60 years the working class and unions have been pretty much demolished and the middle class has been shrinking for decades. It is more difficult to crow about a system that starts to retreat on its gains when it doesn't face entrenched competition. They were creatEd in the first place. And first world middle class gains/issues are much less significant than third world gains. Which have been substantial in that time. VitalSigns posted:Empires are bad full-stop. Asking who ran the "least bad" empire is asking who is the least bad murderer. The correct answer to "how do we be the best empire we can be" is "don't be an empire". No they're not. Rome, Alexendander - definitely bad?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes? The Romans were gigantic cocks, what are you talking about. The Romans conquered and pilliaged in an era when that was a season sport. Granted they tried a little harder than was "cool" at the time but they basically played the same game better (as opposed to say ghengis khan who wholesale murdered cities, this wasn't rome's style). Meanwhile barbarian tribes were often knocking on the gates asking in to Rome and when incorporated, roman citizens lived in greater peace and prosperity than their outsider counterparts (for a couple centuries at least). Rome was also a republic for a time. So there's that too. So yeah, this is what I'm calling "lazy postmodern BS".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:As long as one good thing happened in an empire, it was worth it. The USSR did plenty of good things. Why is empire bad again? Leftist revolution for example is active and aggressive state action to reshape society which are essential elements of empire. I think some people hold incompatible ideals of Facebook era individual liberation and collective leftist reform. The ideology that sits most comfortably alongside the anti-imperialist sentiment here is libertarianism.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You want democratic government and social justice, but you don't want to murder the darker races for their land and oil? Does not compute. ILLOGICAL. ILLOGICAL. Exactly because democracy doesn't automatically lead to social justice. Neither does pacifism. What's your opinion if for example a European democracy turns to fascism.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:You probably should specific what is "irrelevant or wrong" then, and as for the world improving, it depends on who you ask. If you ask for someone form most of the former Soviet Union, it has gotten far worse, as from someone in the satellite states, it most likely has gotten better. In China it has gotten better, in much of Africa it doesn't seem to have changed much. Yeah it basically has risen all boats. But let's hear more about how gains for poor people don't really matter and get back to focusing on the first world middle class.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Isn't it rather that almost the opposite is true - that general welfare (albeit not collectivist reform) and individual liberty only come together? I feel my freedom depends heavily on my neighbours' welfare. Collective in a general sense. A healthy society requires enforced self sacrifice for the collective good. It also requires sometimes aggressive defence of ideals. This is true for all functioning societies but certainly still true even if we move further left. The diving line between the realities of achieving this and some of the negative aspects of imperialism is not anywhere near as bright as some people think (consider the south trying to secede to maintain slavey, or federal actions during civil rights) This is incompatible with simplistic notions of individual liberation.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Anti-imperialism and pacificism aren't synonyms. This is lazy even for this thread. Ok so why is Rome so obviously bad if it's not war alone. Also remember: in many cases the conquered ended up better off. Aggressive action wouldn't be out of the question. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The issue is that growth came from the middle class in the first place, the middle class aren't important in a moral sense but an economic one. You need consumer consumption to support manufacturing. This is the brain dead economic crap I argue against constantly in one of the most succinct forms I've seen. First, financial demand doesn't matter in the beg picture. But further, in a context where finances are being diverted from the first world middle class to the worlds poor (who will spend it at an higher rate) consumption isn't even going down. It's going up.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ah yes, the white man's burden to conquer and raise up the benighted savages. Oh you won't mind harvesting rubber under the lash for your short lives, will you, considering how much better off you are now that you're conquered? Some combination of "my morals are better" or "it will make you better off, trust me" are the underlying justifications for say, federal action forcing un-cooperating states to end segregation, or potentially allow gay marriage.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Once again, there is a difference between anti-imperialism and pacificism. We've got a guy in here who can't seem to tell the difference between slavery in the Belgian Congo and the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. You.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
How close are we to the point where the counter culture position is patriotism? Hating America is getting pretty status quo in some circles.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 06:58 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Obviously American health care is expensive because Americans go to the doctor willy-nilly. Preventative care generally doesn't save money.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 06:21
|
|