[X] My Assistant

hmm I just read an interesting theory which appears to have a valid effect.

The idea is that its much easier for people to see when people are too far to the right wing of the political spectrum than the far left. This is due to the difference between the tyranny of order, which could be represented by ideas of racial supremacy or purity vs the destabilisation caused by the radical far left through the rejection of categories and meaning, for example represented by radical postmodern theories or politically maybe arguments like equality of outcome. The problem that destablisation is more complex so its harder to pin down an exact point the left wing goes too far. This is also why societies when the go to far left can just keep going till it gets ridiculously disastrous.

In the modern context people the effect actually is benefiting moderate right wing politics online as the more insane right wingers are properly shunned and rejected by the right. This leaves the far more sane right wingers as the majority.

On the left side you can go really really far before people start pulling you up, as a result to majority the left can look pretty batshit insane and its hard to delineate where the sane people start and can't just say that the ultra radical views are on the margin.

So we get surprise wild card victories of people like Trump and moderate right wing political groups winning by surprise almost.

As there is no way to fence off where the bad left ideas start, it just keeps going left till things start collapsing or things have super imploded in every case of communism.

If the crazy left ideas could be fenced off then the left could become super productive rather than always managing to go slightly too far and having unexpected negative outcomes.

On the left side you can go really really far before people start pulling you up

That's a funny thing to say on the 30 year mark of tiananmen square.

Jokes (?) aside I blame the homogenic density of the left versus the polarized density of the right on age. Age does either: control or exacerbate a Dunning-Kruger effect (aka. "mount stupid") and the population as a whole has a tendency of leaning to the left in their 20-30s and to the right in their 40-50s.

On the left you have a full spectrum of people: entering their mount stupid, at the summit of their mount stupid or already past it.

On the right you have either the people who went past mount stupid long ago, or people who are still climbing their endless mount stupid.

It's not about left or right, it's about stupid people vs pseudo-smart people vs smart people.


The stupid people can't write correctly or do basic math in their heads and do not know how to think critically.

The pseudo ones that think they are smart while in fact they are still too stupid to realize they're only slightly smarter then the stupid ones.

The smart ones are apathetic or extremist, because either they are profiting from the discord or they simply react to the clown world that is forming around them with derision and disgust.



The real question is what do you do when an entire half of the political spectrum is hijacked by saboteurs and stupid sheep like democracy has become, abolish democracy? have a civil war? start executing the subverters? abolish politics and use computer logic?
Do you really think politics are necessary to live, or the press?

start executing the subverters?

I'm at this point to be honest.

Attempting to parse the blatant stupidity I encounter from social justice warriors on a regular basis has left me with an overwhelming sense of apathy.

Quite frankly I really wouldn't care if I saw them all being lined up against a wall.

We need to start culling the pseudo intellectuals as they are completely useless.

At least stupid people can serve a purpose.

I might add that I think the majority of right wingers hate the alt right.

More than left ever will.

As someone mentioned Subversion, I think the KGB's effort subverting American/ Western morals and values is coming to effect. Surprise me that it just took one or two generations to rock the foundation of the morals/ principles/ honor codes the West build for centuries.

it just took one or two generations to rock the foundation of the morals

Remember the hippie movement of the 60's?

These things tend to swing and then swing back.

Remember the hippie movement of the 60's?

These things tend to swing and then swing back.

Oh ya, the hippies.
I think at least they know they are just a sub-culture. They know they are different and they don't bother to blend in.
Now the left wants to be the mainstream. As a united front, they don't mind pretending to be like others, use them, and discard them.
This is what I meant to say they lack morals. They don't love nor they don't hate standards and morals. It is nothing to them. They care about power, to have power over others. Once they have power they can dictate what is moral.


Speaking of which, I would rather trade with a hippie for LSD than a drug store for legalized weed. Making "recreational" drugs legal just kills the recreational part of it.

Important note: Contrary to FSZ this subforum is moderated. Keep focus.

hmmm the problem with the sanctuary cities is that their facilities are already full and they no longer can support their own policy.

It seems like they are trying to game the next election but it is causing major problems for the US. Its also the same racism that every other country is terrible so that their only choice is to go to the US or <Insert western country>.

It was the same problem in Australia, when the left started virtue signalling that they would accept all immigrants, house them and give them welfare support (which works for 50 to 100 people), then they got an influx of thousands and thousands of people and people starting dying at sea.

As a left-leaning centrist, I find it laughable that the far left as of late tries to instill such hypocritical values onto the mainstream and are shocked when it fails, hence, the victories of Trump and other populist factions around the world. A part of the problem is the censorship of social media culling the extremist far right but letting the left leaning crazies be. In effect, the insanity of the left gets the spotlight and the right being reduced to nothing but moderates makes people assume that the SJW's antifa and all the extremists that are free to roam about and proselytize their ideology are an accurate representation. The latest [www.pewrsr.ch] studies done by Pew Research shows how most of the liberal left actually wants to be more moderate and the conservative right wing faction is viewed less favorably and are being censored everywhere. The left is becoming fractured in becoming more extremist in their rhetoric which puts all previously moderate voices closer to the right as illustrated by [wentworthreport.com] this chart by professor Adam Bonica of Stanford. In the US, if the democrats will possibly never win again unless they support more moderate voices like Tulsi Gabbard or Andrew Yang and avoid all the extreme views i.e. Marxism. As of now, they have AOC, which her own district hates and a weak attempt to impeach a sitting president for obstruction of justice for a crime he did not commit which ironically, Hillary Clinton got away with doing much more than that. She, somehow by the twisted logic of political tribalism, gets a pass thus highlighting a glaring, blatant hypocrisy. The pendulum will swing back to the right eventually because not everyone subscribes to the insanity and it's evident in the collapse of the activist leftist media such as Gawker and Vice.

This post has been edited by gamagaeru: Jun 21 2019, 18:24

AOC: Interment camps created under Obama are actually concentration camps under Trump.

I hate Trump, but if there is that level of hypocrisy I'd be more likely to vote Republican.

Then you have the hypocrisy of the Young Turks whose pro-genocide positions were rejected by Republicans but its fine for Democrats to accept them because they are anti-Republican now.

The American left needs to decide on a clear boundary where the insanity starts rather than putting the mad people to the forefront. Usually done as a smoke screen to hide the influence of corporate interests which are just as corrupt as the Republicans.

"The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats.”
- Aldous Huxley

I dislike any side that is hypocritically righteously indignant. I disliked the Christians using indignation and now dislike the radical left.

There seems to always be a group of people that are indignant that flipflop to what ever side of the spectrum that is mainstream and allows them to be hypocritical.

This post has been edited by EsotericSatire: Jun 23 2019, 15:46

Well to say, there's no such a thing as bad ideology.

The only bad thing that exists is bad ideological practice.

Well to say, there's no such a thing as bad ideology.

The only bad thing that exists is bad ideological practice.

Equality of Outcome and Racial Supremacy are pretty bad ideologies. Their foundations as ideologies are flawed as they do not reflect the real world.

Equality of Outcome ignores the way the life has worked for the past billion years and that resources are limited.


Racial Supremacy is also based on fantasy as well.

Speaking of "Equality of Outcome",

Does that mean I can rape everyone because I am legally "equal" to any person that the victims are consent to have sex with?

(And there is no marriage in Marxism. People just go with who they feel like it. )

"crazy left ideas" is subjective.

equality of outcome isn't a "bad theory" because economic stratification is sufficient for sociopolitical stratification. With the formation of economic classes comes an imbalance in political power. The USA for example permits unlimited money donations to political parties under the pretext of "Freedom of Speech" but that has led to an enormous increase in wealth inequality.

Whereas a similar neighbouring country, Canada, limits political donations. Under the Harper administration some years back (almost a decade now I guess?), Harper's PC government raised political donation limits and between that and redrawing of voting districts, the Conservative power has managed to edge in more votes and more influence (leading, in the end, directly to loss of government-funded scientific endeavours, ecological control organizations, an increase in climate change deniers, etc.)

And overall, Canada scores better in virtually all quality of life tests, is more free, and has less economic stratification.

Arguing over whether or not racial superiority isn't even an argument -- it's stupidity and ignorance and worth less than cow dung on top of being repeatedly debunked and demonstrably rooted in capitalists/wealthy elites trying to make other humans look bad to try and justify the exploitation of their labour.

Principally, classic conservatism is based on the idea of preserving the quality of life for future generations to enjoy, providing social stability.

Whereas, principally, the left (including communism, anarchism, and similar sub-models of the left) is based on the idea of providing increased quality of life for EVERYONE, the belief in the essential equality of ALL people, social mobility, democracy, everyone having value, etc. All the good stuff.

Whereas present day surge in right-wing, alt-right, and far right activity is largely grounded in reactionary behaviours rooted in traditionalism, engineered ignorance (see: right parties defunding education, defunding ecological and climate change initiatives), and upholding of existing social hierarchies to the benefit of the established wealthy.

The "problem with the left" doesn't exist insofar as any singular cause. Virtually everyone wants to be fed, sheltered, and have a say in things -- principles that the left strive for and that the classic (and I think noble) right and conservative causes guard and maintain to provide the future generations with those societal improvements the left provide.

---

Ex. a "controversial" talking point the right likes to deride are transgender people. Trans people are the new underdog.

Except that trans people as a whole largely aren't particularly wealthy and are few and far between and are generally not in positions of political or social power. (Note: outliers exist.)

And part of the reason why LGBTQ rights has been making so many strides is because people principally LIKE the idea of being whoever they want to be, of being more than simply the flesh they are born with, and the social caste they are born within, and WANT to be able to love whoever they want to (compare with old fairy tales and medieval stories of old kings refusing to allow their princes, princesses, or whatever to marry whoever they want, like peasants, or people of the same-sex under the pretense that they will not reproduce and provide a suitable heir to help maintain the monarchist, inherited-wealth-and-power social order).

---

So honestly, I have no idea what you mean by "crazy left ideas."

Is universal basic income a "crazy idea?" If so, why then are so many jurisdictions considering it seriously?

Is people feeling like they are not the gender they are born with a "crazy left idea"? If so, why then are so many people sympathetic to the idea of being born into a body/situation that they have no control over?

Is same-sex marriage a "crazy left idea?" (And in some jurisdictions, still is..... unfortunately.) If so, when then are so many people sympathetic to the idea of being able to love and romance with anyone they want (to have the freedom to love whoever they wish without intrusion from others?)

The USA (and to a slightly lesser extent, Canada) has a political system that lends itself to being a two-party hatefuck of control between exceedingly rich people (like owner of Nestle-level) at the expense of literally everyone else, creating the illusion of dichotomy between the left and right in modern politics. FYI, having lots of money (such as a political party with unlimited donations...) permits drastic levels of increase in propaganda and direct success in current Western society.

If there is a particular and specific idea one would like to address and explore, it's best to do that and simply synthesize information on one's own. Personally, I cast a wide brush against the right because of the trend for appealing to reactionaries and bringing ruin, war, economic crisis, and shitty excuses to treat diverse humans in a shitty way, to huge swaths of people.

okay so what else

-COINTELPRO happened and the US government has an explicit interest in controlling its people
-The USA performed unethical medical experiments on black people
-Canada is still struggling with its history of colonialism (to say nothing of how things are in the US...)
-The Red Scare was propaganda
-Why does the USA keep destabilizing entire regions, causing mass immigration that working class people have a hard time dealing with because of existing economical conditions inducing artificial scarcity
-capitalism is shit
-eat the rich
-only the wealthy benefit from racism

thanks for coming to my ted talk.

---

EDIT:

Equality of Outcome ignores the way the life has worked for the past billion years and that resources are limited.

no

equality of outcome, or close to it, is the only way to guarantee that no one is forced to go hungry, go without shelter, die from exposure, guarantee decentralization (and abuse) of power, and more.

but people are brainwashed into thinking that going hungry and dying out in the cold when 20% of a city's housing is being played with like toys by speculative investors (again -- very wealthy people who can own lots of land and property) is better than paying a bit more in taxes.

thank god i live in Canada. i love my country's sweet sweet socialized, one-payer healthcare system that guarantees i won't have to live in poverty for the rest of my life if i get the flu and can't show up to work one day, and still lets me afford video games and paid porn

(not saying that Canada is the best -- it's not, and the Canadian Border Service Agency can fuck right off with using private genetics data banks to deport refugees, and there's a huge problem with racism and structural oppression against the First Nations peeps)

oh also weed

and the drug war was a lie rooted in racism and exploitation

This post has been edited by Tripwire__: Jul 9 2019, 22:39

thank god i live in Canada. i love my country's sweet sweet socialized, one-payer healthcare system that guarantees i won't have to live in poverty for the rest of my life if i get the flu and can't show up to work one day, and still lets me afford video games and paid porn

oh also weed

and the drug war was a lie rooted in racism and exploitation

Lol at invalidating your entire essay by finishing with how much of a manchild you are.

equality of outcome, or close to it, is the only way to guarantee that no one is forced to go hungry, go without shelter, die from exposure, guarantee decentralization (and abuse) of power, and more.

You have skipped over the point which was about the problem, which was at which point going further left and left do the ideas start becoming a problem. There are so many cases of countries becoming fixated on equality of outcome as the highest value that ends up with millions dying and millions suffering.

The discussion is about how to set the crazy point.

If a racial supremacist walks up to you, it takes about 10 seconds to determine their broken world view.

Where it has been attempted to get as close as possible to equality of outcome in every case so far has been guaranteed to lead to people going hungry and abuse of power.




Canada's commitments and history are primarily to equality of opportunity. Trudeu is pretty obviously pretending to be woke to hide his corporate conflict of interests. It was obvious to most people to begin with. He is like a version of Trump that uses nice speak rather than douche speak to cover up his interests. People like them will say whatever they need to.

Lol at invalidating your entire essay by finishing with how much of a manchild you are.

Just trying to inject a humorous jab into what is otherwise a fairly morbid subject. It isn't at all relevant to the rest of my post. If you want to interpret it that way, be my guest. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You have skipped over the point which was about the problem, which was at which point going further left and left do the ideas start becoming a problem. There are so many cases of countries becoming fixated on equality of outcome as the highest value that ends up with millions dying and millions suffering.

The discussion is about how to set the "crazy point".

My point in saying all that is that each individual idea, regardless of assignation of approximate location on any political model, must be scrutinized based on its own merit.

Ergo, there is no such thing as a "crazy point" because it's relative.

Modern capitalism is killing millions right now, whether through colonialism, pandering to climate change deniers and the biggest carbon emitters (industries), exorbitant and exploitative medicine prices, inducing a culture of alienation that has lead to increases in mental health issues and suicide, starvation, or homelessness (in spite of usable surpluses in labour, food, and shelters in capitalist countries). Are any of these crazy ideas? Which ones?

My point is that setting a "crazy point" is meaningless and nonconstructive because it's entirely subjective based on each person's individual values.

Personally, my crazy point is killing the proletariat and most petite bourgeoisie en masse because they are largely the least responsible in generating capitalist and reactionary propaganda and mismanaging the means of production. I strongly prefer peaceful reform but I think that given the current economic, social, and environmental crises, I would shed no tears if there were to be a violent and surgically precise revolution to take out the bourgeoisie (i.e. top 1% of earners).

I would be completely open to communism and/or anarchism and/or socialism in some way, shape, or form, so long as my jurisdiction had the means to implement it sustainably, improve the floor of my region's quality of life, and generally with minimal or no violence.

And I have no problem with any of these social economic political systems typically labelled as "extremist" because they are irrelevant. What I care about is sustainability; minimal economic, social, and political stratification (because this is more sustainable and fair and adheres to my ideas regarding equality); and positive peace (as opposed what Martin Luther King Jr. describes as "negative peace" -- the absence of justice).

So what's your crazy point?

Anyway, I have my two posts now. Hopefully I get Recruit soon so I can edit my profile info and then never post again.

This post has been edited by Tripwire__: Jul 12 2019, 18:44