Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 197

I see thanks for the info. Our government hasn't been printing money, is just the country became a lot less stable so anyone with savings is moving capital outwards and foreign investment is plumetting.

Between USD getting stronger and SP500 skyrocketing I've made some decent cash though.

On January 17 2020 18:23 GoTuNk wrote: I see thanks for the info. Our government hasn't been printing money, is just the country became a lot less stable so anyone with savings is moving capital outwards and foreign investment is plumetting. Between USD getting stronger and SP500 skyrocketing I've made some decent cash though.

If its only the civil unrest that caused this then your currency should bounce back up quickly after the leftits leave the streets.

On January 18 2020 02:19 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On January 17 2020 18:23 GoTuNk wrote: I see thanks for the info. Our government hasn't been printing money, is just the country became a lot less stable so anyone with savings is moving capital outwards and foreign investment is plumetting. Between USD getting stronger and SP500 skyrocketing I've made some decent cash though. If its only the civil unrest that caused this then your currency should bounce back up quickly after the leftits leave the streets.

Hasn't happened for 3 months. We are having a referendum to wipe clean our constitution and form a "constituent assembly" to write a new one, because our center right politicians are cowards and idiots; that's causing more uncertaintity than thugs on the streets, whose damage, albeit big, is limited to certain areas.

Our central bank works as an independent institution; leftist main fantasize is to remove that constrain so that they can print money. Their other big fantasy is to expropiate workers retirement funds and finish turning us into Argentina.

Yeah those are the useful idiots and the leftist media propaganda. the ones who are losing the most from the economy crashing. Most of them don't protest anymore. This are the protests now:

Protestors atack police car stuck on traffic
https://youtu.be/w44M693sPO0

Protestors atack another police car. Police can't use weapons in self defense.
https://youtu.be/yMoSYrMdOoM

General overview of lootings and fires
https://youtu.be/YmjSNBDek44

Protestors take over a bus and use it to loot a department store.
https://youtu.be/x3PmUK1EUk4

Car used to break in into store.
https://youtu.be/IXmcRmppuyY

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” - Thomas Jefferson.

Y is loco a dumb fuck?

-me

On January 18 2020 23:40 Loco wrote: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” - Thomas Jefferson.

Is Jefferson really your go to figure when deciding what's right?

What? Literally every thinker I admire in the past had their share of morally despicable views, just because someone quotes them doesn't mean they agree with them on everything.

Loco bravely coming out in support of the protests in Virginia

On January 19 2020 14:03 LemOn[5thF] wrote: Show nested quote + On January 18 2020 23:40 Loco wrote: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” - Thomas Jefferson. Is Jefferson really your go to figure when deciding what's right?

GoTuNk has consistently shown that he puts only the most minimal amount of mental effort in these exchanges. If I am to comment, or quote someone he doesn't know to refute his "tyrants should only be opposed non-violently" nonsense, he's going to take the quickest mental shortcut and put me or those I quote in the category of his choice, such as "thug" or "useful idiot" or "manipulated by leftist propaganda" and entirely dismiss it. If I quote someone like Jefferson instead, I prevent him from falling into that habit, and instead I show how ahistorical right-wing libertarians are when those who were foundational to their socio-economic views--indeed often worshiped by them--understood what they today deliberately wish to ignore.

You're really bad at convincing people of stuff Loco lol
You know how you actually do it (And gain max wider perspective in the process for yourself)?
You ask them pretty much only questions, use empathy and then try to introduce them to your point of view slowly from their standpoint that you now fully understand why they have theirs.

I mean I get it, I am also a lazy cunt and come here to argue because you know, human needs. I mean look at how beautifully hypocritical my first paragraph is :D

but cmon man you can't dump a single quote from a guy in different environment out of context without adding anything - isn't just letting go and not replying altogether better

Not trying to convince him or anyone else of any specific thing. Like I said, the purpose of choosing Jefferson was only to prevent him from using his go-to mental shortcut of dismissing points based on perceived or actual political orientation.

My posts are ends in themselves; I enjoy writing and thinking. There is no end goal. It's called being ludic. Socratic questioning only works in specific situations. In general it requires that a person gives you the benefit of the doubt or is at least neutral and curious enough to engage you, which isn't the case here; no one is neutral towards me, and I am pretty much the most hated person on here by right-wingers. There is no reset button, so you are just incredibly naive if you think it's an option. It requires good faith and also ideally, it requires synchronicity. Socrates was a gadfly in a public place. Waiting for days to receive the answer to one question before you can proceed to another one means that you don't go anywhere so it's not rewarding enough, and that is why you never see it online. When the medium is asynchronous, you necessarily make more assumptions and statements and cram more into every message (including more questions).

Thanks for that article. I really have to get to reading Graeber's stuff.

Yeah, it's a great article, although the conclusion that panpsychism is true doesn't follow. Just like Graeber's point at the end doesn't follow:

"Since if even philosophers are motivated primarily by such pleasures, by the exercise of their highest powers simply for the sake of doing so, then surely this is a principle that exists on every level of nature—which is why I could spontaneously identify it, too, in fish."

He's only mentioning the biological level here by mentioning fish, "not every level of nature". What is true at the biological level isn't possible at lower levels of organization, even though it relies on them. Edgar Morin (or Terrence Deacon's work in the US) is much more convincing. Posted some of Deacon's talks on here before, well worth watching.

Isn't even posting online a waste of time then in the first place?
When you don't try to change anyone's opinion why not just write for yourself
(I've been doing that for some 1.5 years regularly)

Feels like masturbating in front of other people if it's just an end in itself

Why would you want to jerk off infront of Gotunk when you can use him for the real deal - he's right here!
And fuck gotunk's mind, fuck him good, geet interconnected by asking questions, understanding his perspective without judgement. Imagine all those beautiful juices of mutual understanding spraying all over the messy process of interconnecting varied perspectives

Until you're both exhausted and a just like mixing DNA creates a stronger offspring, the passionate embrace of your two minds creates a lovechild of wisdom made of mutual enhanced perspectives !

You get better feedback if you write for an audience.. Why does it fully have to be an either or? It can be like 'I enjoy writing stuff and discussing political issues. The main audience of this forum doesn't really read what I write, but there are still some that do and give me reasonably coherent feedback to it, so I might as well share my thoughts with them, see if they have some contribution that might slightly enhance my argument', or whatever.

Lemon,

Read the article linked. It's play. It's fun. It is an end in itself.

I don't see why Loco cannot choose to engage people however he wants. You really think GoTunk is going to engage Loco in a worthwhile Socratic discussion?

Loco actually answered your questions already quite well 3 posts above yours. Nothing really needs to be added to that so I will end this post.

On January 19 2020 22:20 Loco wrote: Yeah, it's a great article, although the conclusion that panpsychism is true doesn't follow. Just like Graeber's point at the end doesn't follow: "Since if even philosophers are motivated primarily by such pleasures, by the exercise of their highest powers simply for the sake of doing so, then surely this is a principle that exists on every level of nature—which is why I could spontaneously identify it, too, in fish." He's only mentioning the biological level here by mentioning fish, "not every level of nature". What is true at the biological level isn't possible at lower levels of organization, even though it relies on them. Edgar Morin (or Terrence Deacon's work in the US) is much more convincing. Posted some of Deacon's talks on here before, well worth watching.

So, basically electrons are not "dancing" but even lobsters do play? I would like to have some coffee with Dennet, Deacon, and Morin to sort that all out among other things. Complicated stuff. We don't really know how electrons act or why and we don't really know how the brain acts or why or how consciousness works and why. It's all fascinating stuff.

Lemon is apparently such a naive centrist that he thinks one who opposes fascism and a fascist sympathizer can come to a mutual understanding and "enhance each other's perspectives." Also Lemon:







The whole point of fascism is that it isn't rational, Lemon. It doesn't give a shit that you question it, and it doesn't compromise. It is rooted in a fear and a disgust of the 'other'. For GoTunK, those others are those whom he deems "thugs", "criminals" or "vagrants". They are the people who don't have capital, and those who are the most oppressed. They are the weak and he is the strong, and the weak only ever envy and want to take from the strong. He's not interested in understanding them. He just wants them to quietly submit.

He has no interest in reality, no interest in how "the strong" came to be strong. He supported America's involvement in the brutal military coup that ended democracy in his country in 1973. Now he supports a Pinochet-lite figure leading his country: a billionaire scumbag who has appointees with ties to Pinochet and who is widely unpopular (polls posted previously).

Gotunk's authoritarianism and "blue lives matter" outlook is an inseparable part of the neoliberal free market economic theories that reshaped his country and that still dominate the world today due to the US' enforcement of those theories nearly everywhere. Their theories are of course complete bunk and have only created huge amounts of suffering resulting in the current ongoing uprisings. But there are some people who make a lot of money and have a lot of interest in further influencing Latin Americans to hold these ridiculous beliefs. A lot of money has been pumped into think tanks there that successfully influence public opinion:

"The story of the Atlas Network and its profound impact on ideology and political power has never been fully told. But business filings and records from three continents, along with interviews with libertarian leaders across the hemisphere, reveal the scope of its influential history. The libertarian network, which has reshaped political power in country after country, has also operated as a quiet extension of U.S. foreign policy, with Atlas-associated think tanks receiving quiet funding from the State Department and the National Endowment for Democracy, a critical arm of American soft power.
Though recent investigations have shed light on the role of powerful conservative billionaires, such as the Koch brothers, in developing a business-friendly version of libertarian thought, the Atlas Network, which receives funding from Koch foundations, has recreated methods honed in the Western world for developing countries.

The network is expansive, currently boasting loose partnerships with 450 think tanks around the world. Atlas says it dispensed over $5 million to its partners in 2016 alone.

Over the years, Atlas and its affiliated charitable foundations have provided hundreds of grants to conservative and free-market think tanks in Latin America [...]"