Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 248

On July 09 2020 04:02 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On July 08 2020 06:12 Stroggoz wrote: Your blatantly shifting the goalposts from an iphone to goods that are essentially a form of conspicious consumption. But no, if some rich person with a lambo want's to critique capitalism i don't see how it's hypocritical. They have everything to lose from doing it. Imo critiquing a political system that you've benefitted from is one of most admirable things a person can do. I guess I should have been more precise, I dont mean just critique capitalism I meant a socialist, a new iphone is a form of conspicious consumption is an overpriced top of the line phone where there are many more affordabe options with the same capabilities, its just a status symbol, just like a rolex, an ugly pair of Yeezys or something of the sort, buying these things which their objective is to portrai social status would make a socialist an hypocrite. The lambo isn't a great example since only 1 of every 100k can even afford it so.   Ok, your not justifying feudalism but your saying anyone who is part of that system is automatically a hypocrite for critiquing it. There's not much difference to me Nope, Ive never said is that if you buy objects which its purpose is portray social status then you are not just part of the system but you are part of its uglier bits.   You have no credibility when you speak of what leftists want because you always pigeonhole them into one stereotype or another. If we can agree that green new deal advocates are leftists, (almost everyone does), and that neoliberals are not leftists, then most on the left are essentially green new deal advocates, 'social democrats' or the equivilent, with varying opinions on solar. Most are not anti-capitalist. In my view not being anti capitalist (in the long run), is a pretty ideological position because your essentially opposing democracy by having this position, and there arn't any good arguments in favour of capitalism. So most leftists are not reasonable to me because of the right wing ideology that they accept, but that's ok, most people are good people regardless of their political positions. If im talking to Loco and I say leftits I mean leftits like him, not literally every single leftits, this is the same that Drone did and he felt I was refering to him too, its just too tiresome to specify and say "some", "the nazbolsl with eco primitivists tendencies", if I'm not talking to you then I'm probalby not talking about you.

Wait, so am I the nazbol with primitivist tendencies now? I thought you said I was a champgne socialist? Or am I broke and I just can't afford the new top of the line phones any longer? lolol

I mean if you're talking to someone specific shouldn't you address them specifically rather than generalize the entire group 'they are part of' and then think it's weird that other people who identify as part of that group think you addressed them too?

On July 09 2020 11:26 blackjacki2 wrote: Show nested quote + On July 09 2020 00:20 Loco wrote: Right, let's make that distinction, because RiKD has no mental health or addiction issues. Oh wait, he does, and he's been blogging about them for years. So apparently the only distinction left is this fabrication that he's currently unemployed because he "simply did not want to make pizzas anymore." But that has strictly nothing to do with his current situation: he left that pizza job for another job at the time, pre-pandemic. Are you going to morally condemn a person for changing jobs? You've created this completely artificial distinction between the character of some average homeless person and RiKD. If RiKD went to solicit donations he would be humiliating himself and setting himself up for abuse in the same way other homeless people are. He would be there for the same reasons they are: out of desperation. It's an objectively worse way to make money in every possible way than holding down a job. He would start using drugs again in no time, because that's the only way you survive the streets. You just casually told a drug addict who has been successful in avoiding drugs that he should go and put himself in harm's way, in a situation where he would use again, because, what? He posted an article on "simple living" that you didn't like? You're a ridiculous person. I don't know anything about his drug use but according to him living a good life without employment and hierarchy would make you more successful than all of us. Is being a panhandler worse than being a "wage slave" as he often refers to himself when holding down a job? Dunno why it would be humiliating for him since as you said there is nothing morally reprehensible about receiving donations. Also that's not very nice to just casually call him a "drug addict," especially if he is in recovery.

Yes, he is saying that if I was able to live like a Cynic, I would be more content than you, and therefore I would be more successful than you. One of the most discussed anecdotes from philosophical history is an encounter between Alexander the Great and Diogenes, where Alexander says that if he wasn't himself, he would want to be Diogenes. The idea that success ought to be a measure of one's satisfaction in life, and that the greatest satisfaction one can achieve is by renouncing the desire for power and recognition, is not a new one. It's not controversial, and it sure as hell is not a reason to tell a recovered alcoholic to go live on the streets.

If you had to revert to this kind of passive aggressive punching down because someone had a thought you didn't like about an alternative lifestyle and an alternate conception of success, then I'd say you validated his point. I don't think that someone who, deep down, doesn't feel threatened by those ideas would attack the people who entertain them.

On July 09 2020 15:55 Loco wrote: Wait, so am I the nazbol with primitivist tendencies now? I thought you said I was a champgne socialist? Or am I broke and I just can't afford the new top of the line phones any longer? lolol

Sometimes I wonder if you are purposely being obtuse... because if not, god damn you are retarded (and I mean this as a serious diagnosis with real concern, not an ableist slur obviously bro, but you should get that checked out).

I'm making an obvious ridiculous example of why its not practical to refer to every specific group and to point out "but this minority doesn fall in your generalization" isn't a rebuttal of anything since the claim wasn't meant to mean literally everyone in this broad categorization.

You are a champagne socialist when you advocate for socialism in poor developing countries where the avg person doesnt have even 10% of your purchasing power, I have no clue if you can or not afford a new iPhone, what I know is that if you had one you'd be a bigger hypocrite than Rand was.

On July 09 2020 16:00 Liquid`Drone wrote: I mean if you're talking to someone specific shouldn't you address them specifically rather than generalize the entire group 'they are part of' and then think it's weird that other people who identify as part of that group think you addressed them too?

I didn't fell it was confusing, I'll try to speak more clearly in the future.

btw you randomly asked me why I thought you were a leftits and then totally disengaged, whats up with that?

its a good thing i bought my android 2nd hand on trademe, otherwise i'd never be able to live with myself critiquing global capitalism

Did you guys see how the CEO of the Ayn Rand institute explained why its actually moral for them to take the welfare money, what a hilarious guy

On July 09 2020 20:43 Stroggoz wrote: its a good thing i bought my android 2nd hand on trademe, otherwise i'd never be able to live with myself critiquing global capitalism

Don't worry, we have an amazing ability to live neck-deep in hipocricy and not even see it, Castro wore two rolexes and didn't see any problem with it, so you'd probably be ok with an iPhone.

On July 09 2020 21:39 Spitfiree wrote: Did you guys see how the CEO of the Ayn Rand institute explained why its actually moral for them to take the welfare money, what a hilarious guy

Ya i saw it, it's basically one of the harshest forms of political discrimination you can have outside of say torturing and imprisoning people for their political views. His logic is essentially 'homeless people cannot receive government money unless they convert to libertarianism.' Anyone who valued freedom of thought would despise what this guy has to say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_co...p;v=DUAnSjLv3Bc&feature=emb_title

Yeah thats a stupid thing to say, if you willingly participate and support a welfare state it is ok to use its welfare, but he is right that if you don't support it yet your money is taken by force from you then its also ok to take back, but it would be more commendable if they don't.

A bit like the example previously used, its ok for the rich to advocate for more taxes and while not willilngly send extra money to the IRS, but it would be more commendable if they did.

Although he is saying it would be wrong/hypocritical for them (I disagree), he isn't trying to to censor them or anything like that, he doesnt want a welfare state where only libertarians benefit from it, he wants to remove the welfare state, the only people I've seen in this forum to advocate for censorship are the other 2 leftists besides you.

Thanks for letting me know about that white supremacist Twitter account so I can add it to my list of channels to get suspended! Can you give me some more? I'll forward them to my antifa cell CEO

Just FYI he clearly edited the footage to make it look like she has only one talking point. The video cuts off right after she asks if it's ok for her to have a conversation with the cop, and he makes her repeat herself. You can make anyone sound dumb by doing that.

Yeah, she's dumb for talking to cops, but she's also right, it's at minimum a hurtful statement, but more generally it's a hateful one.

I couldn't really find a way to do the Loco text justice so I just left it as "fill in the box" lol. feel free to write one up yourselves.

Its funny cause it makes no sense

Well obv I don't think Baal is some druglord lol.

system working as intended

On July 10 2020 17:58 hiems wrote: Well obv I don't think Baal is some druglord lol.

It would be funny if it had actual quotes from us, who is the asian btw?

I suppose they should have let the mob that broke downt heir fence to also burn their house down, such bigots lol.

they should have just called the reliable, honest, and fair police department to help them

On July 11 2020 05:16 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On July 10 2020 17:58 hiems wrote: Well obv I don't think Baal is some druglord lol. It would be funny if it had actual quotes from us, who is the asian btw?

Former South Korean President Park Chung Hee. Im not an expert on South Korean history but I know the basics and most likely more than most American raised Koreans. He is probably considered the most important figure in the development of South Korea into the economic success story it is today following the end Korean War (when it was among the poorest countries in the world).

He is right wing/authoritarian so it was a good fit for that compass and Ive been planning on using him as some personification of myself in memes lol.

Anyway he led a coup in the 60s and he was in power for a long time until he was assasinated. He was suceeded for a long time by a line of other right wing conservative junta style presidents, mostly from the south east gyeongsang province. His daughter was elected president not too long ago but was impeached on corruption charges and now is sitting in a jail cell lol. Unfortunately these days it seems the libtards have been trying to ruin things in the country tho.

"Park is a controversial figure in modern South Korean political discourse and among the South Korean populace in general for his dictatorship and undemocratic ways. While some credit him for sustaining the Miracle on the Han River, which reshaped and modernized South Korea, others criticize his authoritarian way of ruling the country (especially after 1971) and for prioritizing economic growth and contrived social order at the expense of civil liberties."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Chung-hee

tldr kind of like Korean Pinochet lite.