Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
I'll be honest; I never let this go, but at the time I was feeling like I was starting to go a bit crazy from the constant arguing.
EDIT: Which is probably why I shouldn't resurrect this argument!
Hey guys, I found a post dated to 2013 from some blogger who has what seems to be an interesting definitions of political left and right.
I think there might be some grains of truth in this interpretation, but I think he oversells it, and does some cherry-picking to support it. Like the first commenter suggests, this blogger is forcing the modern left/right interpretation onto a variety of historical settings that don't necessarily conform to it, and also neglecting conflicts/dichotomies that don't fit this mold.
This is not to mention how certain ideas have shifted "left" or "right" in ways that don't make sense in his framework.
For example, environmentalism is stereotypically "left", but if you look more closely, it's an older "leftist" idea of environmentalism that this blogger mentions in her/his leftist utopia ("if our lives lack anything it is beauty and connection to nature") -- it's specifically viewing environment as a spiritual/philosophical/lifestyle choice.
It used to be that tree-hugging hippies who sang about the Earth were the extreme ones, while talking policy proposals to help people affected by environmental issues was considered mainstream. It was the famously anti-communist Republican president Richard Nixon who signed various landmark environmental laws. Nowadays, mere mentions of environmental issues such as climate change are often seen as political, even if they're policy-focused rather than aspirational/spiritual; Republicans who involve themselves in addressing climate policy (aside from denying/ragging on it) are praised for their "political courage" to be involved in or address climate policy, because it's so often considered (and in various cases, proven to be) a political liability in their party.
Among liberals/progressives, some do treat the climate issue more aspirationally, but those that treat it as a practical policy issue and prioritize it are almost certainly Democrats these days (including some former Republicans), and they recognize the idea that prioritizing it is increasingly untenable for Republican politicians. Meanwhile, the practical policy issue is itself framed in a way that fits more with the "crisis" scenario that this blogger pins as the scenario that creates conservatives. So here we have a "crisis" type of scenario except it's actually associated with the left, which is contrary to the framework that this blogger lays out.
And unless I'm mistaken, before that, progressives were the ones with visions to transform the environment, while protecting it was more or less the domain of eccentric types like old aristocrats and hopeless anti-modernist romantics.
Ron DeSanctis has the soul of a Republican but the voice of a
Starbucksartisanal coffee place hipster.The instigating event was a non-school affiliated graduation party held off-campus that was discovered via social media that certain students claimed was "whites only".
Nowhere is racial segregation claimed in the evidence presented, but Al Jazeera is all too happy to pretend it was.
The group that organized the party appears to be exclusively Afrikaans speaking and so the whole thing appears to be just that.
With background out of the way, the EFF have apparently decided to just gather 500 person strong marches, attempt to gather outside a school where classes and exams are still in session, attack parents, and just be terrible in general once again for over two weeks now.
What the EFF is doing is not "protest", it is rioting and intimidation centered around an institution primarily attended by children. It is maniacal and yet more evidence of their overt fanaticism.
Nothing will be done about it, and so the world turns.
Since it's of interest to you @lrdgck, I have actually got some developments on the whole "white farmer murders" thing.
In response to the EFF's growing influence, the ANC caved and created a "Land expropriation without compensation" committee.
This committee holds 'community meetings' where EFF members show up and live out their poorly thought out power fantasies about using the government to take over large swathes of property.
These meetings are held either on or near said property, so that isn't scary at all. I mean, if I were to go so far I'd say this is quite close to incitement via providing legitimacy to insanity.
I'm really surprised that this stuff is taking off literally right after the collapse of Zimbabwe's autocracy (which was literally built on this policy) but like who knows what mental pretzels people allow themselves.
Her blog how advertises in large letters that she is a "HUMANIST. FEMINIST. SOCIALIST." and all the rest.
Her latest post from a few days ago is a Christmas present guide for your husband, littered with expensive perfumes, alcohols, photo-prints, watches, and subscription boxes that run $400 a year.
So yeah, socialism.
Judging from the images thread, I wasn't the one with that idea.
Well, generally.
I've been reading a book lately that I think makes a lot of salient points, but veers very closely into the wrong side of the term "Marxism", and it draws lines that are way too clean in terms of McCarthyism and Soviet practices.
Though I'm giving it a wide berth, it doesn't feel like it properly understands the motives of those who it is criticizing and therefore probably encourages thinking of them as Bad, Purposefully Harmful, and possibly Evil.
In addition, it's hard to properly judge a book (or my own common sense in continuing reading it) when it jumps right into mentioning the Bavarian Illuminati.
But that bit did explain a bit of mania that happened around here around 2010 involving Beyonce and her stage-persona Sasha Fierce (ie the promotional tool used to literally sell an album called I Am Sasha Fierce).
For some reason, though I haven't listened to her in ages and certainly won't start now with her Neo-Wakanda BLM album/movie antics, it seems I mention Beyonce a lot when cultural things come up in this thread. So I'll tell a fun story I heard in pop circles re:I Am Sasha Fierce.
It turns out Beyonce is really good at music yet not exactly a maverick when it comes to discourse (even by celebrity standards), so rumor is for her to continue to be regarded as a recluse musician with brilliant political leanings (like wearing pantsless Black Panther* outfits) her team limits her interviews and opinions as much as possible. I don't know if it's true or not, but either way she's pretty much just a musician and certainly not evil.
How this relates to Sasha Fierce is that the whole PR gimmick was dumb as heck and magically she never mentioned it again after the album broke records and gained certifications, something I thought was dishonest even when I was a super-cool teen who rocked to Beyonce.
*The real political terrorist ones, not the made-up Marvel ones.
^ talking about Black Panthers, it's quite ironic the US righties were so shocked at them showing up in various places while carrying firearms. You know, nowadays they're the ones who do the same.
Wouldn't it be more useful against libertarians (or to what extent they exist outside of Portland, anarchists)? I mean, right wing is "small government"/"rule by regulation" rather than "no government"/"rule by no limits".
Though I guess it's fair game if somebody by their own fault conflates socialism or communism with any state provided services. It's not right, but Art of War and all that jazz.
Vaguely related; there's a libertarian guy I follow, sort of prominent in the political sphere, who is kind of always on the back foot of everything. I think his existence is a boon to the world because he's quite innocent about the whole thing rather than those war paint rah rah fight the power types. Like, he believes rather than insists (I'd say the guy whose book I'm talking about is the latter but a conservative).
Iunno, I think you have to believe in something, even in a romanticized way, based in reality (even if you are deeply religious, or maybe especially then?) or you just go off the rails.
(I'm assuming the libertarian in question doesn't think it's morally wrong for citizens to use public services as oposed to being morally wrong for the government to use public money to provide them, which come to think of it I don't actually know if this is what they commonly think.)
That part was meant in a less serious "arguing with people on the internet" way, to be clear. That's why I mentioned the Art of War, ie doing everything to win an argument just cause you like the feeling.
It's actually strange to see how the limits around this can be shifted about. I don't know any countries with wholly private owned parts of the electric grid, but countries where electric power companies exist seem to be better off than where the state is the sole provider of electricity or interferes significantly in how it's run.
Similarly, British hospital dramas make a lot of well, drama about which patient gets precedence or a patient coming in only to be told their quote-unquote "elective surgery" (a term that appears to have been stretched to 'any surgery that if not immediately performed will result in death in a few minutes/hours') or "scan" has been cancelled. An additional layer of drama being something like "cancelled yet again".
That isn't to say government hospitals don't have their place, but I don't think I'd be happy with a country where government ran my health (or healthcare insurance) for me if I can help it.
Most of all, one of the things you learn really early in finance school is that government debt (ie healthcare bills) is the best and most risk-free because it is obliged to pay off somehow* and this is what I see every time I see a happy business guy in a suit promoting government paying them for things.
*ie no risk of default, especially with poor countries or others hounded by NGOs because someone up the food chain will certainly pay for it.
Teen Vogue actually ran an article about how people who argued socialists shouldn't use iPhones or social media were doing it in "bad faith", a term that has truly been stretched to it's limit by people who don't want to deal with their mental pretzels.
Then again, I guess if you're reading a Multinational Conde Nast magazine that is 50% ads for unaffordable clothing for your socialism fix then that's what you'd expect.
Libertarians are painfully confusing, but the main libertarian magazine I can think of (Reason) seems vaguely reasonable but extremely anti-police(in a normal pre-2020 way)/regulation.
EDIT: Actually I cannot believe that there is now a "normal pre-2020 way" to be anti-police, because it really isn't normal (or good) at all. It's good to have a healthy skepticism of any organization's work in law enforcement but being ridiculously obsessed with qualified immunity and the necessary excesses that don't rise to brutality isn't a great way to think.
So uh yeah Reason remains vaguely reasonable.
There was also the thing where installing communal system of governments worldwide is easier than you and a dozen other peeps going to live in a commune. (Well, maybe that's not what they had in mind, but it's hard not to make the connection between the two ideas.)
I don't think it's hypocritical for socialists to use social media, though, there aren't many ways to communicate that don't involve paying some non-cooperative company in most places.
The final thing is due on the 4th though.
After which I am so pigging out. I have a giant backlog of videogames to play.
I should say I had a draft post in this thread from Nov. 2nd that I've been holding on to and I finally lost it (drafts are deleted in each thread as soon as you post and I forgot) so that's great!
I'd just start on their part and pass it off uh oh that sounds unfortunate hopefully they get back to you in the next literally three days.
This is a good point. I think I'll ruminate on it for a bit.
oh darn I actually had a reason for coming in here
It's the start of UN Women's apparently annual "16 Days of Activism", to "raise awareness" about domestic violence. I genuinely wonder how much more awareness can be raised whilst not outright naming and addressing the root causes of these things, but eh. Just keep saying generic "cultural practices" so you don't make anybody mad (or I guess seem like a racist?).
This led groups like Amnesty International Ireland to highlight violence against 'womxn' (the people who have been murdered in South Africa so far whose cases are high-profile were all women).
Here's the government website (keep in mind the ANC is the current ruling party).
On the first day of 16, the ANC immediately reinstated a Mpumalanga MEC who has been accused of sexually assaulting his two daughters (both minors) literally the day he made bail (his reinstatement has since been revoked).
I could post more stuff but I'd probably just end up in an argument if I did.
Though I guess I'll just leave this here and see what happens: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/26/opinion/pope-francis-covid.html
Simply put;
4 Days Ago;
I already explained how his "Earth is Gaia" nonsense being contrary to the religion he preaches but this new book-pushing shtick where he tramples on his followers being completely banned from Church possibly worldwide (ie they can't receive communion or perform confession) whilst celebrities have the VMAs or AMAs or whatever it was last weekend makes him no better than "Sasha Fierce" era Beyonce.
The most that you have is arguing that NBA players were hypocritical. Which is basically one of the weakest political arguments. (I mean, didn't you just have a discussion about internet socialists being silly.)
Incidentally, I checked out that article and happened on this line:
So he's the one being consistent on this.
Hoo boy.