Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 129

On June 13 2019 02:08 Loco wrote: Interesting, isn't it? I wonder if Hans-Hermann Hoppe posted on this forum if Baal would attack him with the same vehemence that he attacks me with for arguing that fascism can't be tolerated in a libertarian society.

YES I WOULD!

I don't know how many times I have to tell you this, I believe in freedom of speech, I would never support the supression of ideas that I disagree with.

On June 13 2019 04:01 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On June 13 2019 03:39 Loco wrote: It's another wonderful sleight of hand to refer to someone who advocates resisting against genocidal intolerance as being against freedom of speech. It is the equivalent of saying "you are against creative freedom" to someone who wants to prevent people from building a shitty nuclear power plant in their area. Technically of course, it is true, I am against their particular kind of creative freedom, because their creative freedom is going to endanger my life, or the life of people I care about and there's no reason why I should value their creative freedom over my continued existence shielded from their dangerous stupidity. For the 100th time, conservatives think that abortion kills babies so should we also ban that subject from discussion and punch women marching for in favor? Everybody thinks they are saving lives and that they are virtuous, you dumbass, thats the point of freedom of speech.

Pretty terrible analogy. Conservatives don't understand that banning abortion just makes abortions less safe (among other issues). On the other hand, banning poorly built nuclear power plants makes people safer. The same is true of not allowing fascists to organize and grow unchallenged.

On June 13 2019 04:06 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On June 13 2019 02:08 Loco wrote: Interesting, isn't it? I wonder if Hans-Hermann Hoppe posted on this forum if Baal would attack him with the same vehemence that he attacks me with for arguing that fascism can't be tolerated in a libertarian society. YES I WOULD! I don't know how many times I have to tell you this, I believe in freedom of speech, I would never support the supression of ideas that I disagree with.

Maybe if you stopped constantly complaining that the problem is leftists and liberals who oppose free speech, you wouldn't have to keep telling me this, and I wouldn't have to bring balance to this forum as a result of it by showing that these issues of limiting speech are not constrained to one side of the political spectrum.

And no, it's pretty clear that you would not be attacking Hoppe when YouTube is censoring right-wingers but that doesn't stop you from holding me accountable for it when I don't support YouTube and what they do at all. (Even when they in fact are not even censoring them, you hold me accountable for them censoring them!) You literally say that it doesn't matter that I don't support them. It's just blind hatred at this point and some weird guilt by association because of your "broad leftists are the true cancer of society" nonsense.

If it wasn't for leftists you wouldn't have the quality of life that you have today. You constantly bring up this talking point of "everyone thinks they are virtuous" but it's an irrefutable fact that the people who have made society significantly better for most people have not been on your side of the political spectrum. And the people whose talking points you parrot have done absolutely nothing for anyone other than themselves and their little families.

On June 13 2019 04:09 Loco wrote: Pretty terrible analogy. Conservatives don't understand that banning abortion just makes abortions less safe (among other issues). On the other hand, banning poorly built nuclear power plants makes people safer. The same is true of not allowing fascists to organize and grow unchallenged.

for fucks sake its like you dropped 30 IQ point out of the blue, wtf is even going on with this argument.

They are saving babies in their minds, they/we are blind to many things yourself included, again thats the point of freedom of speech.

But perhaps you will get it with this one that I've already said like 5 times already: conservatives believe communism will starve millions, so according to you they are justified to shut them down and use violence if neccesary

On June 13 2019 04:06 Baalim wrote: Maybe if you stopped constantly complaining that the problem is leftists and liberals who oppose free speech, you wouldn't have to keep telling me this, and I wouldn't have to bring balance to this forum as a result of it by showing that these issues of limiting speech are not constrained to one side of the political spectrum.

I havent seen conservatives as a whole trying to shut down the speech of liberals or leftits, but I've witnessed the opposite in universities, social media etc, yourself included.

And no, it's pretty clear that you would not be attacking Hoppe when YouTube is censoring right-wingers but that doesn't stop you from holding me accountable for it when I don't support YouTube and what they do at all. You literally say that it doesn't matter that I don't support them. It's just blind hatred at this point and some weird guilt by association because of your "broad leftists are the true cancer of society" nonsense.

Yes I would defend freedom of speech for the 100x time, in fact I have the power to shut down your speech in this forum but I don't and won't.

You agree with censoring Crowder, you just dont like Google because its a corporation, I'm not saying that you like google, but that you like the censoring of ideas you deem dangerous.

If it wasn't for leftists you wouldn't have the quality of life that you have today. You constantly bring up this talking point of "everyone thinks they are virtuous" but it's an irrefutable fact that the people who have made society significantly better for most people have not been on your side of the political spectrum. And the people whose talking points you parrot have done absolutely nothing for anyone other than themselves and their little families.

Capitalism has done nothing good in the past 100 years

Communism on the other hand has ushered all that is good.

Hahahaha did I cross a mirror and I'm in the Upside Down or something?

On June 13 2019 03:47 Baalim wrote: You love Chomsky except when he slaps your censorious ideology down don't you? why are you so obsessed about the people behind ideas.... "but Plato diddled little boys... so yeah if you like his work you are a pedophile", stop doing that its pathetic.

An equivalent to what you did there would be like if I had made the claim that I believe the universe is deterministic, and instead of addressing the claim in a constructive manner, you had said that determinism is an idea that is pushed only by fanatical idiots, and instead of spending a lot of time defending myself in my follow up response (why should I since that's just an ad hominem?), I had said "oh, so you're smarter than Einstein?" and you got upset and claimed I was obsessed with Einstein. It's so transparently weak.


Associations are not a replacement for an argument, granted, but they are extremely useful, and they are a great time saver when they function as a sniff test. When you know someone is playing at the penny tables, do you trust their poker advice? What about if someone is constantly going broke, do you choose to stake them? Well, you don't know that they aren't just really unlucky, but you rely on the association that playing at penny tables, or constantly going broke, are not good signs. You do this quite automatically. Well, sometimes it's the same thing with philosophy.

If someone claims to be a philosopher, like Molyneux, yet on the first page of his book on logic he makes a very basic error that an undergrad wouldn't make, you simply toss the book away. Same is true if you are reading what is supposed to be a scientific work and the very first citation is a bad/deceptive one. It hasn't passed the sniff test. Being egregiously wrong as a supposed expert, or unempathetic as someone who claims to want to help people, are striking things that are worth paying attention to.

It's not about being "obsessed with people". We all have limited time on this earth, and we have access to an enormous amount of information with the net and what we can pay attention to is always going to be an infinitesimal fraction of it all, so we should have a damn good filter in our minds if we're going to make the best of it.

Ideas in philosophy are part of a long thread of different currents of people who have influenced each other. The ideas in philosophy make sense in the context of their history and the place in which they were had, based on what was known at the time. If someone is pushing discredited ideas today, it's helpful to mention them because it gives us a good idea of what we should expect from them. Their lack of rigour tells us that it's probably not the only thing they are egregiously wrong about. And maybe they don't care to be wrong because there is money involved behind their promotion of those ideas -- another thing worth pointing out.


You've made a living as a poker player and you wouldn't just take any person's ideas about strategy seriously, so why can't you apply that same logic to scholars who have studied their subjects for decades? I'll tell you why: because you're an anti-intellectual. You think you stand on your own, that "you" have "your" ideas. You didn't get your ideas from others, the ideas you care about have no historical and cultural relevance, you have never been deceived -- you are a special someone who "thinks independently" and has no group identity. Molyneux's repackaging of Rothbart has absolutely no hold on you whatsoever, neither do internet echo chambers. You have some kind of mental force field: everything you believe and advocate for has come to you from within a solitary confinement cell. You've taught yourself how to speak and write without any help whatsoever. A true self-made man. Nothing gets in your brain without your free-willed approval, and everything you say comes out of pure objectivity. But I'm the "blank slatist".

On June 13 2019 06:13 Baalim wrote: But perhaps you will get it with this one that I've already said like 5 times already: conservatives believe communism will starve millions, so according to you they are justified to shut them down and use violence if neccesary

It doesn't matter what they believe, it matters what we evaluate the threat to be with regard to the actions they are carrying out, and the gamble we are ready to make. What is flourishing right now in the chaos of late-stage capitalism is not authoritarian communism, it is fascism, hence the growing violent uprising against it. I have told you that if there was a threat -- equal or otherwise -- of authoritarian communism, I would oppose it all the same. It just doesn't matter to you when I say these things, they don't register. Nothing short of "okay, fascists can do whatever they want until they have state control" will do.

On June 13 2019 04:06 Baalim wrote: I havent seen conservatives as a whole trying to shut down the speech of liberals or leftits, but I've witnessed the opposite in universities, social media etc, yourself included.

That's fucking hilarious. I must have said 10 times that I thought that the people who protested against JBP were mistaken. Literally the only people I have supported being deplatformed were open fascists and crypto-fascists. And guess what? Those are the people who openly do not believe in free speech. But you HAVEN'T SEEN IT! No, you've never seen it, it's just so hard to find, it's not like I posted more than once the clip of Richard Spencer openly saying that he is using the free speech card deceptively and that he doesn't believe in free speech at all. Oh but because he's been unsuccessful at accomplishing his goal, it's no longer important that he has that goal. Let's just be results oriented and put our blinders on: ONLY THE LEFT WANTS TO CENSOR PEOPLE!

It's also not like they have a Discord where they engage in mass flagging campaigns on YouTube. It's not like there exists documentaries that go into detail about these things and the violent activities of neo-fascists. It's not like there are fascists regimes in the world right now engaged in acts of tremendous repression that you pay zero attention to.

Yes I would defend freedom of speech for the 100x time, in fact I have the power to shut down your speech in this forum but I don't and won't.

Truly noble of you to not censor someone who is breaking no rules, especially when you know that it would backfire because I can appeal.

You agree with censoring Crowder, you just dont like Google because its a corporation, I'm not saying that you like google, but that you like the censoring of ideas you deem dangerous.

And you can keep lying about me all you want and slandering me, it's not like anyone is going to keep you accountable on here. I'm just not going to engage anymore since you refuse to be corrected. It's just straw man after straw man. My politics are the USSR and I want to silence conservatives, blah blah, ad nauseam. Even when I say that it is obvious that Crowder is gaining more from this than he is losing, you still keep your hand in the sand. The only reason I support suppressing fascism is because it works. It's not because I am attached to the strategy and I personally gain something from it. If the strategies didn't work, I wouldn't support them. Silencing conservatives doesn't work, it gives them exactly what they want. Even when they are getting pushed by super PACs and they have 4 million subscribers and enormous wealth, they are seen as victims.

Capitalism has done nothing good in the past 100 years

Leftists have improved the world in spite of capitalism, not because of it.

"Capitalism is a driver of innovation, the only thing Communism accomplished was starving people!"

*A wild communist appears*

"Accccccccctually.... Russia was industrially 200 years behind the USA merely 40 years before the first Soviet satellite. And yet..."

Well they were always better at mammoth state projects
you know because it's a few party leaders that decided in a backroom without needing that pesky approval from anyone or some boring economic analysis that's for dorks
Heil Stalin!

person in the lead at 50m: john doe
person in the lead at 100m: john doe
person in the lead at 150m: john doe
person in the lead at 200m: john doe
person in the lead at 300m: john doe
person to cross the finish line first: usain bolt

the fuck is this john doe is clearly the winner of this race

who decides what the finish line of the space race is ?
This is the most childish shit ever btw why would anyone care who's best at space programs

On June 13 2019 03:32 Baalim wrote: Ridiculous, you are assuming Molyneux ultimate goal and all around him is optimally designed to hurt whatever minority you think he hates... do you know who else used this argument but for hitler? JBP said that his actions were aimed to create the maximum amount of mayhem possible, which is retarded, so you are not only using this silly argument from your arch-nemesis that fails to even somebody as heinous as Hitler, you are trying to use it against Molyneux lol.

Mayhem and control are two different things. Yes, it's so ridiculous to think that Molyneux, who is only repackaging the racist, misogynist, ableist, eugenics-pushing Rothbart's work might want to oppress people he doesn't like and feels superior to. Sorry but it's a lot more ridiculous to think that he advocates a liberatory ideology for as many people as possible given the facts previously stated.

Stalin was a mass-murderer and he wanted a communist economic system, so obviously his economic system must be optimally designed to kill the most people possible, see how stupid that argument is?[/b]

No, I don't see how stupid it is. Stalin used a political philosophy which he did not believe in/did not act in accordance with. You have to be incredibly ignorant to believe he genuinely wanted a stateless society. He acted in accordance with his own ideology that was designed to give him as much power as possible over others.

I believe in freedom of speech, I would never support the supression of ideas that I disagree with.

This is the last I will say on this subject. I know that you will try to bait me in the future to make yourself feel righteous and to further the narrative that rich conservatives are deeply oppressed, but it's not going to work. I have spent too much time on this garbage and made myself clear enough but it's not going through. I will gain my closure here and now by reiterating what I've previously said from a systems perspective.

A sentient organism has evolved a fine-tuned set of mechanisms for dealing with pathogens that threaten its biological structure. If the response of the immune system is not proportionate to the threat, the organism becomes ill and eventually dies without outside interference. If the response is regularly too strong, the body destroys itself through auto-immunity. The body relies on the intercommunication between various systems for this action to be carried out in a way that is supportive of life (i.e adaptative). It's never just one system that is acting on its own for its own sake only.

When you move up from the biological level of organization to the social level of organization, the same logic applies. The naive pacifist focuses excessively on the danger of auto-immunity to the point where they will let themselves be invaded and destroyed. But the other extreme exists too, where violence does not serve an adaptive function. I support violence where it is adaptive only, just like I support the 'violence' of wiping out good, life-giving bacteria with an antibiotic treatment when the situation is dire enough to necessitate it.

I do not claim to be an authority on what is adaptive and what is not. An isolated individual cannot make good decisions on his own, he has to be involved in a constant dialogue with others to check his own excesses, biases, etc and be informed and regulated. In order to do that, you have to be willing to look at the real world and engage it. You can't just rely on principles that you learned in the past (especially from dubious sources) and never be involved in constructive dialogue with others, self-critique and social action. That's self-serving and inadaptive. These are things that haven't learned to do, a problem that stems first from capitalist alienation but that has many branches. I suspect you have a learning disability and an attention deficit problem as well contributing to the issue.

It's clearly more important to you to present yourself as wise and noble than it is to learn anything from anyone or help anyone. You don't spend time seriously looking at the evolution of ideas and trying to find out where the ideas you believe in have originated from. You don't take advantage of people's hard work to better understand the world around you. Your behaviour is pathological because you weaponize information constantly and seek to cultivate fear in others rather than understanding, and in the face of existential threats you do not respond accordingly. Your focus is scapegoating instead of developing yourself as an informed and engaged citizen. This kind of identitarian closure and parochialism is sadly the norm during periods of regression such as this one and it's only going to get worse before it can get better.

Right now, you are deeply unequipped to behave as a functioning member of a sane society, something that shouldn't surprise anyone who is aware that you've quite happily been a parasitic poker player for over a decade. It takes a certain commitment to inadaptive behaviour in order to be satisfied with doing this for so long.

On June 13 2019 13:07 lebowski wrote: who decides what the finish line of the space race is ? This is the most childish shit ever btw why would anyone care who's best at space programs

Oh come on, don't tell me you've never heard this crap that capitalism is an engine of innovation while socialism is the complete opposite. If it was the complete opposite, then it would uniformly be demonstrated to be so. It only takes one example to prove the formula wrong, but there are certainly others.

A quick wikipedia search would answer that first question: "A period of détente followed with the April 1972 agreement on a co-operative Apollo–Soyuz Test Project, resulting in the July 1975 rendezvous in Earth orbit of a US astronaut crew with a Soviet cosmonaut crew. The end of the Space Race is harder to pinpoint than its beginning, but it was over by the December 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union, after which spaceflight cooperation between the US and Russia flourished." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Race

No one is asking you to care about arguments that you're not involved in.

if you had ever read a book you would know early spaceflight firsts by the USSR didn't come from the engine of socialist innovation they came because the US air force was stuck in WW2 and thought strategic bombers were going to be the key to nuclear war forever, and the three branches of the military had competing rocket programs because they all wanted to be first, while the USSR developed ballistic missile technology because it was a militaristic authoritarian state and the space program was a useful propaganda arm. that's why they will always be remembered as putting the first 80kg ball of beeping bullshit into orbit not because communism is such a humanist ideology that wants to innovate so we can be the best we can be

how are we defending the USSR in current year?

also your list is fake news, first woman in space? that's a distinct technological achievement? first orbiting dog corpse? I'm so impressed

how about yuri gagarin had to fucking jump out with a parachute because vostok couldn't land a human safely so that doesn't count as a true spaceflight

how about first and only people to die in space - soyuz 1. point USSR

how about spaceplanes? point US

how about first rendezvous and docking? point US

first space station? that's a consolation prize the USSR got when they realized they didn't have the budget to keep funding exploding moon rockets

how about split up the moon? first super heavy lift rocket, first people to orbit another world, first people to land on another world, first to walk on another world, first rendezvous and docking in orbit of another world, first deep space EVA, fastest reentry, ding ding ding ding ding

how about the fact that the first country to ever send an artifact into outer space was the third reich. the first rockets to ever reach space. so they really won the space race. I'm sick of hearing this crap that capitalism is an engine of innovation while naziism is the complete opposite. just look at that and the industrialization of germany.

ask anyone alive at the time where they were when Venera 7 landed they'll say what the fuck are you talking about

ask anyone alive at the time where they were when Neil Armstrong walked down the ladder

that's who won the space race

even Loco vortex can't change this

Space race is over?

Yeah the USSR was really great. I especially liked how people were not allowed to have their own opinions, the history books were rewritten, people were literally forced to do specific deeds, nobody but a selected few had the option of choices and if you'd tried to go out you'd get shot. News of failures was hidden e.g. only the army knew about Chernobyl and they were all told not to spread the information or they'd go in jail (my grandpa was in the army during that time) causing millions of people to be exposed to radiation rain.

You should start thinking about moving to North Korea.

Have to be a special kind of fool to give USSR as an example of prosperity, honestly.

The whole point was that it is always assumed that capitalism is this great driver of innovation and then here is this fucked up USSR arguably winning the space race. I hope we can move on but I will say it was interesting to see Santafairy make a passionate post that may actually not be a troll. It's debatable whether or not the Moon landing actually happened which would give the USSR a clean sweep and would be perfectly fitting for the USA's MO.

On June 13 2019 19:28 RiKD wrote: It's debatable whether or not the Moon landing actually happened .

No its not lmao

Also its quite obvious capitalism is light years ahead in terms of innovation compared to what the USSR had to offer. Its just that capitalism simply isnt sustainable and cannot work in the long run. No system whose focus is on worthless pieces of paper can work in the long run.

I could be a romantic and say that the USSR at least didn't demolish the moral values of people and actually had the high gruond on that, but that would be bullshit as well. People were spying on each other and reporting each other for stuff, which the government found uncool resulting in people being sent to Syberia cause they listened to the Beatles for example....

On June 13 2019 18:11 Spitfiree wrote: Yeah the USSR was really great. I especially liked how people were not allowed to have their own opinions, the history books were rewritten, people were literally forced to do specific deeds, nobody but a selected few had the option of choices and if you'd tried to go out you'd get shot. News of failures was hidden e.g. only the army knew about Chernobyl and they were all told not to spread the information or they'd go in jail (my grandpa was in the army during that time) causing millions of people to be exposed to radiation rain. You should start thinking about moving to North Korea. Have to be a special kind of fool to give USSR as an example of prosperity, honestly.

Can you provide a direct quote of mine where I have given the USSR as an example of prosperity? Didn't I give the USSR as an example of authoritarian control as an analogy two days ago?

On June 11 2019 18:00 Loco wrote: I don't advocate for censoring ideas on a "moral basis". You can make a parallel with climate change. If we lived under the USSR and it was impossible to talk about the negative impacts of our government policies on the climate without risking our lives, and I denounced it, I wouldn't be making a moral argument based on my own individual arbitrary moral system. I would be making an argument that we have to oppose this system because it is an existential threat to everyone who cannot shield themselves from its ravaging effects.

Why do you feel the need to teach me about it and slander me like this? Truly bizarre. God, how can it be that difficult to keep track of a simple argument? Was the USSR unable to innovate? Are capitalist countries the only innovators? Simple yes or no question.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised at this response when you've admitted you don't read anything other than fantasy novels and Taleb.

I didn't realize you would be arguing about something so obvious. No shit capitalism isn't the only driving force of innovation. Who the fuck would claim that???

Innovation is driven out of social necessity, not out of a political or economic system. I'm certain even North Koreans innovate in the context of their lives.

Also I never said that you're taking my words out of context to fulfill your petty argument to make up for what you realized is wasted of time in that argument

On June 13 2019 19:28 RiKD wrote: The whole point was that it is always assumed that capitalism is this great driver of innovation and then here is this fucked up USSR arguably winning the space race. I hope we can move on but I will say it was interesting to see Santafairy make a passionate post that may actually not be a troll. It's debatable whether or not the Moon landing actually happened which would give the USSR a clean sweep and would be perfectly fitting for the USA's MO.

Dunno which I find funnier: that you think that Santafairy's outpouring of nationalistic pride was interesting or that you think the Moon landing might be a hoax.

On June 13 2019 21:19 Spitfiree wrote: I didn't realize you would be arguing about something so obvious. No shit capitalism isn't the only driving force of innovation. Who the fuck would claim that??? Innovation is driven out of social necessity, not out of a political or economic system. I'm certain even North Koreans innovate in the context of their lives.

It's one of the most common anti-socialism arguments you hear.... you obviously haven't spent a lot of time around people debating these things. There's plenty of substantive shit to criticize in different forms of socialism, that doesn't mean that all criticism of socialism is equally valid, and that when you don't agree with a criticism you become a USSR apologist. It's such lazy thinking and it makes me want to fuck right off of this forum forever when I see this kind of reactive sheepish behaviour.

Here's a brainwashed free market capitalist who said it in the clearest possible way on our forum earlier this year.

On January 31 2019 22:58 soberstone wrote: Show nested quote + On January 31 2019 19:49 Stroggoz wrote:   On January 31 2019 17:53 blackjacki2 wrote: What's the motive of arguing for some utopian stateless communist society where everyone is willing to share, nobody is greedy, nobody wants to rise to power, etc. when you know full well that such a thing can never exist because humans are humans? I'm fully prepared to agree that your idealistic communist society is the best possible society if you're willing to concede that it's not practical. Many before us said similar things, about women having the vote, slavery, ect. It's just not practical to not have slavery, how will our economy ever succeed? Similarly, if we let women have the vote all hell will break loose. The same with democracy, how can you let 90% of the population vote when they are illiterate. In many ways we have already reached utopia, when u compare the world to what it was 500-1000 years ago. It shouldn't be hard to see that society can go a step further, especially when it's been realized on a large scale before. This is all reliant on human decision making. Indeed 'humans are humans', i think by that comment you seem to think human nature is hardwired to act like capitalists, but i doubt this is the case, at least it isn't proven. Human's can manifest their cultures in a variety of ways, one has been to expand the level of human rights since the enlightenment, so it's not all greed, power, ect. For billionaires a communist society would not be practical to them since the economy isn't designed around making them richer, but for most people it would be practical. All of the societal achievements you list came about as a result of having a free society based on the premise that individuals have rights including that of private property. The entire premise of communism is that the right to private property is non-existent. In order to create the utopia the government forcibly takes from "haves" and re-distributes to the have-nots. This is ofcourse, as history has proven, bound to fail miserably because in such a system there is zero motivation for innovation and creation as any wealth an individual manifests and creates is not theirs to own and do with as they please.

Also I never said that you're taking my words out of context to fulfill your petty argument to make up for what you realized is wasted of time in that argument

What did I take out of context? That you felt the need to go into a diatribe about how the USSR was bad overall and how stupid I was for supposedly implying that I think they had a great society?

In 1917 Russia was still largely a peasant society. By 1953 it was going into space. If that's not impressive to you, I don't think you're thinking clearly. The USSR was so advanced in terms of rocketry that the US is still using old Soviet surplus rocket engines.