Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 335

There is a bit of magic and a bit of ritual to a homecooked meal that I hope does not disappear in our society. If people help mom with cooking and those who don't help with cooking help with cleaning it's a pretty fair deal. If the kids are too young to cook or clean they are not too young to learn etiquette and gratitude. Grandma has the best recipes. Going to some grey cafeteria to eat cheap gruel seems sacrilegious.

At Food Not Bombs we would feed probably 50-100 people with good food not gruel. We had a chef that donated a lot of time and effort to achieve this but Food Not Bombs was entirely donation.

I don't really have any idea how to achieve this food utopia these people are talking about. Going out for food is pretty close to trying to make it oneself considering time, energy, money. Sometimes it's nice going out to dinner too of course. I mean if someone is making lasagna at a co-op housing situation for 10 people it's going to be hard to beat that going out. In that situation maybe they only have to prepare food 3 days a month or 5 days a month instead of 5-7 days a week. I can go to the local Indian curry place for a chick pea curry that beats trying to make it myself any day of the week.

10ppl lasagna? stop that burgeois nonsense, 10,000 ppl lasagna, get in line, if you have 3 stamps in your overtime card you can get a side of Brocoli, enjoy comrade.

https://nypost.com/2022/08/17/minneap...fend-plan-to-ax-white-teachers-first/

New teachers union contract in Minneapolis has language to layoff white teachers first in the event of redundancies.

The people tasked with educating the children are okay with having language that terminates people based on skin color in their contract. Yikes

I'm guessing if layoffs happen we're going to find that a lot of those supposedly white teachers are actually Native American as evidenced by their high cheek bones, ala Elizabeth Warren

does your prime minister like to paartyyy?

On August 15 2022 20:32 blackjacki2 wrote: Show nested quote + On August 15 2022 11:31 Stroggoz wrote:   On August 14 2022 08:45 blackjacki2 wrote:   On August 14 2022 01:08 Stroggoz wrote: If we examine that tweet seriously...I think the only one that can be interpreted sensibly is (2), profit is theft. If we accept living in a 0 profit world, then there has to be rent, and there has to be interest. Otherwise, people who take loans out and renting at 0 cost are profiting immensely, and we get a contradiction. The low/no profit model is consistent with free marketeers and commies alike however. Overall these slogans are stupid, and the one Proudhon made was stupid as well. It was just a slogan, not a serious proposal. Slogans are stupid by definition. A lot of property in the world is in fact obtained by theft and trickery, but you go explain those case by case instead of using slogans. I don't get what people have against libertarian communism, it combines the best of both worlds. Capitalism is a moronic and barbaric system, just because it's not democratic. What does that mean no profit? I know what those words mean but how exactly does it apply in your view? A carpenter that builds a table doesn’t sell it for the cost of the materials. He sells it for a profit and then uses the profit to buy food and whatever else he wants. Let’s say he’s the best carpenter and people would be willing to pay $1 million for his table. So he profits approximately $1 million. So what’s the idea? That he shouldn’t be allowed to sell it for that much? Or it’s unethical to sell it for that much? The profit comes after the salary. Businesses see wages as part of the costs of doing business. So the carpenter can make no profit and still buy food, and whatever else u can get off a wage. I can't answer this hypothetical, so i'll just answer by saying that yes it is immoral since the carpenter is obviously some sort of money launderer for a crime syndacite. So the carpenter just pays himself a wage of $1 million and problem solved. Now it’s no longer profit but his wage. See how this shit instantly falls apart anytime you put a second’s thought into it

It depends on what kind of society you live in. If you lived in some sort of free market society, with no third-world countries, then probably carpenters would never be able to earn $1million annually. So it's open to interpretation. What makes this tweet stupid is that he does not provide the billions of pages worth of details that explain how society works in the context of no profit. This is why there's no point in having slogans and idealized utopian political principles. In fact, no one should really have political principles at all. The difference between the law and political philosophy is that the law is something that is real, and so is far more carefully thought out. That's why the law has millions of pages of details explaining exactly what is and isn't a crime under certain contexts.

Loco, now that you are full of testosterone, how do you view open or polyamorous relationships that seem to be popular within the leftist community?

poly/open > incel

To each his own, but to me it's a negative side effect of consumer capitalist culture. People are encouraged to think about satisfying their desires in as many ways as possible (and create new ones) instead of focusing on limiting their desires and focusing on the other person. They start treating human beings as instruments to their desires and as interchangeable to one another. Also, people being very busy nowadays with multiple jobs/side hustles/education/hobbies means they have little free time, so splitting what little free time they have between multiple lovers is a recipe for disaster. You don't feel loved when you don't get a lot of someone's time. I've broken up with girls because of their interest in it. I think you must be very good at cleaning your room in order to make that work because it's more chaotic and I'll probably never have an interest in it.

On August 19 2022 19:29 Loco wrote: To each his own, but to me it's a negative side effect of consumer capitalist culture. People are encouraged to think about satisfying their desires in as many ways as possible (and create new ones) instead of focusing on limiting their desires and focusing on the other person. They start treating human beings as instruments to their desires and as interchangeable to one another. Also, people being very busy nowadays with multiple jobs/side hustles/education/hobbies means they have little free time, so splitting what little free time they have between multiple lovers is a recipe for disaster. You don't feel loved when you don't get a lot of someone's time. I've broken up with girls because of their interest in it. I think you must be very good at cleaning your room in order to make that work because it's more chaotic and I'll probably never have an interest in it.

everything is capitalism's fault lol. even if right wingers push hard for monogamy and lefties are going for "polyamory".


anyway disgarding the clown comment, I remember that I thought polygamy made more natural sense given how primates behave however even most ancient socities tended to be monogamous I suppose it creates a more stable social structure and at certain point in societal development that increases the odds of survival over pure alpha gene spread through polygamy.

I didn't say it's caused by capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system and it has existed for centuries - it had different effects at different times. Culture has changed significantly with the adoption of each new significant technology from the beginning of the industrial revolution to today. I said consumer capitalist culture, which restricts the timeframe by just the few last decades of capitalism and its influence on contemporary culture is what is responsible for that level of interest in polygamy and its negative effects in my view.

In a completely different context where consumerism didn't drive human existence, either because it didn't exist yet or because it was opposed, for instance the counter cultural hippie movement of the 60s, 'free love' might have been the only thing that made sense to practice at the time. If I lived in a hippie commune with girls who resemble each other both physically and personality-wise I'd be happy to be poly, especially with a lot of time on my hands, but that's not today's environment.

Also in a highly technological society the most "alpha" person is the scrawny weirdo sperm donor who has 40+ kids.

On August 23 2022 04:33 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On August 19 2022 19:29 Loco wrote: To each his own, but to me it's a negative side effect of consumer capitalist culture. People are encouraged to think about satisfying their desires in as many ways as possible (and create new ones) instead of focusing on limiting their desires and focusing on the other person. They start treating human beings as instruments to their desires and as interchangeable to one another. Also, people being very busy nowadays with multiple jobs/side hustles/education/hobbies means they have little free time, so splitting what little free time they have between multiple lovers is a recipe for disaster. You don't feel loved when you don't get a lot of someone's time. I've broken up with girls because of their interest in it. I think you must be very good at cleaning your room in order to make that work because it's more chaotic and I'll probably never have an interest in it. everything is capitalism's fault lol. even if right wingers push hard for monogamy and lefties are going for "polyamory". anyway disgarding the clown comment, I remember that I thought polygamy made more natural sense given how primates behave however even most ancient socities tended to be monogamous I suppose it creates a more stable social structure and at certain point in societal development that increases the odds of survival over pure alpha gene spread through polygamy.

The people who justify polygamy based off nature arguments also need to take up homosexuality, since that's also something that ancestors did, and was probably more common. Let's be real, Plato justified polygamy because he wanted tons of bitches, not because of the supposed benefits of eugenics. It was just rationalization.

Polygamy is used as a tool to achieve political stability among Bonobo's, but it works there because almost everyone participates in it. It isn't just a bunch of alpha's hording all the supply. So I guess it depends on the way polygamy is implemented. On the flip side I've heard that Tinder is leading to a greater inequality between partner count, as well as relationships being built off extremely superficial reasons.

On August 23 2022 04:54 Loco wrote: I didn't say it's caused by capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system and it has existed for centuries - it had different effects at different times. Culture has changed significantly with the adoption of each new significant technology from the beginning of the industrial revolution to today. I said consumer capitalist culture, which restricts the timeframe by just the few last decades of capitalism and its influence on contemporary culture is what is responsible for that level of interest in polygamy and its negative effects in my view. In a completely different context where consumerism didn't drive human existence, either because it didn't exist yet or because it was opposed, for instance the counter cultural hippie movement of the 60s, 'free love' might have been the only thing that made sense to practice at the time. If I lived in a hippie commune with girls who resemble each other both physically and personality-wise I'd be happy to be poly, especially with a lot of time on my hands, but that's not today's environment. Also in a highly technological society the most "alpha" person is the scrawny weirdo sperm donor who has 40+ kids.

Strange that you restrict consumer capitalism to the last few decades. Consumerism has been critiqued for 150+ years now. Thorstein Veblen coined the term "conspicuous consumption" in 1899 and wrote a whole book critiquing status anxiety and consumer capitalism. What's the connection between consumerism and polygamy/polyarmory?

On August 23 2022 04:54 Loco wrote: I didn't say it's caused by capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system and it has existed for centuries - it had different effects at different times. Culture has changed significantly with the adoption of each new significant technology from the beginning of the industrial revolution to today. I said consumer capitalist culture, which restricts the timeframe by just the few last decades of capitalism and its influence on contemporary culture is what is responsible for that level of interest in polygamy and its negative effects in my view. In a completely different context where consumerism didn't drive human existence, either because it didn't exist yet or because it was opposed, for instance the counter cultural hippie movement of the 60s, 'free love' might have been the only thing that made sense to practice at the time. If I lived in a hippie commune with girls who resemble each other both physically and personality-wise I'd be happy to be poly, especially with a lot of time on my hands, but that's not today's environment. Also in a highly technological society the most "alpha" person is the scrawny weirdo sperm donor who has 40+ kids.

but it doesnt make sense unless you think leftist are the ones more indocrinated by consumerism.

On August 23 2022 17:49 Stroggoz wrote: The people who justify polygamy based off nature arguments also need to take up homosexuality, since that's also something that ancestors did, and was probably more common. Let's be real, Plato justified polygamy because he wanted tons of bitches, not because of the supposed benefits of eugenics. It was just rationalization. Polygamy is used as a tool to achieve political stability among Bonobo's, but it works there because almost everyone participates in it. It isn't just a bunch of alpha's hording all the supply. So I guess it depends on the way polygamy is implemented. On the flip side I've heard that Tinder is leading to a greater inequality between partner count, as well as relationships being built off extremely superficial reasons.

The nature arguments are more biologically based than on culture, the evolutionary pathway of polygamy is very clear whlie homosexuality is to certain degree not well understood from the evolutionary perspective.

On August 23 2022 18:15 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On August 23 2022 04:54 Loco wrote: I didn't say it's caused by capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system and it has existed for centuries - it had different effects at different times. Culture has changed significantly with the adoption of each new significant technology from the beginning of the industrial revolution to today. I said consumer capitalist culture, which restricts the timeframe by just the few last decades of capitalism and its influence on contemporary culture is what is responsible for that level of interest in polygamy and its negative effects in my view. In a completely different context where consumerism didn't drive human existence, either because it didn't exist yet or because it was opposed, for instance the counter cultural hippie movement of the 60s, 'free love' might have been the only thing that made sense to practice at the time. If I lived in a hippie commune with girls who resemble each other both physically and personality-wise I'd be happy to be poly, especially with a lot of time on my hands, but that's not today's environment. Also in a highly technological society the most "alpha" person is the scrawny weirdo sperm donor who has 40+ kids. Strange that you restrict consumer capitalism to the last few decades. Consumerism has been critiqued for 150+ years now. Thorstein Veblen coined the term "conspicuous consumption" in 1899 and wrote a whole book critiquing status anxiety and consumer capitalism. What's the connection between consumerism and polygamy/polyarmory?

I restrict what I'd call "consumer capitalist culture" to the era of the television (1950s) and onward where mass-marketing techniques were able to widely influence people's psychology. The television is basically a medium of mass hypnosis; previous marketing techniques were not nearly as potent during the era of the printed press.

I'm not going to go into a deeper explanation of why I believe there is a link because it's too Frankfurt-school-y and I don't want to make you angry now that I know how these thinkers upset you. But the connection is quite obvious in terms of the broadening of people's desires/dissatisfactions, the focus on the self that came to be at the center of life with neoliberalism, and the seemingly unlimited choice in things (and people) to consume available at one's fingertips 24/7 with modern computer/networking technology.

On August 23 2022 23:29 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On August 23 2022 04:54 Loco wrote: I didn't say it's caused by capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system and it has existed for centuries - it had different effects at different times. Culture has changed significantly with the adoption of each new significant technology from the beginning of the industrial revolution to today. I said consumer capitalist culture, which restricts the timeframe by just the few last decades of capitalism and its influence on contemporary culture is what is responsible for that level of interest in polygamy and its negative effects in my view. In a completely different context where consumerism didn't drive human existence, either because it didn't exist yet or because it was opposed, for instance the counter cultural hippie movement of the 60s, 'free love' might have been the only thing that made sense to practice at the time. If I lived in a hippie commune with girls who resemble each other both physically and personality-wise I'd be happy to be poly, especially with a lot of time on my hands, but that's not today's environment. Also in a highly technological society the most "alpha" person is the scrawny weirdo sperm donor who has 40+ kids. but it doesnt make sense unless you think leftist are the ones more indocrinated by consumerism.

Broadly speaking, it's an issue centered around the objectification of others. When you objectify someone, you consume them, you don't experience them as beings separate from your desires to obtain something from them. A system that is built to maximize financial transactions between people as much as possible will create more objectification. This affects people everywhere on the political spectrum when they live in that context. The people who are least affected are the truly marginal types who often live in some pocket on the margin of society. The squatting anarchists are less likely to be this way because they have relationships centered on brotherhood/freeganism etc and they're broke so they've experienced more than money-based transactional relationships. There are some "return to nature" right-winger types who focus on self-reliance and who also don't center their lives around money and consumption. They usually live on a farm and grow their own food and despise modern capitalism. Even Nazis like Heidegger are a good example; there is an anti-tech/anti-consumerism right-wing.

I don't care to create a useless comparison between who is more indoctrinated by consumerist ideology based on political affiliation. The way that objectification takes place can be the traditional macho way or it can be through poly based relationships where it's all about the self: increasing the pleasure and experiences of the self through varied experiences. This is also why the hippie movement failed at being the revolutionary thing it wanted to be. Consumer capitalism feeds on variety and the constant desire for novelty. It always reifies symbols of resistance to the dominant ideology and feeds it back to people as entertainment.

On August 23 2022 23:44 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On August 23 2022 17:49 Stroggoz wrote: The people who justify polygamy based off nature arguments also need to take up homosexuality, since that's also something that ancestors did, and was probably more common. Let's be real, Plato justified polygamy because he wanted tons of bitches, not because of the supposed benefits of eugenics. It was just rationalization. Polygamy is used as a tool to achieve political stability among Bonobo's, but it works there because almost everyone participates in it. It isn't just a bunch of alpha's hording all the supply. So I guess it depends on the way polygamy is implemented. On the flip side I've heard that Tinder is leading to a greater inequality between partner count, as well as relationships being built off extremely superficial reasons. The nature arguments are more biologically based than on culture, the evolutionary pathway of polygamy is very clear whlie homosexuality is to certain degree not well understood from the evolutionary perspective.

Yes, biology is what I was talking about. Homosexuality is deeply rooted in our biology, (many animals engage in it, including our predecessors). Same with many other sexualities. I don't really think either of these sexualities are that well understood. Most species that are polygamous also have very different body sizes between male and female, so that's a factor to consider as well.

In general "it's human nature" arguments are highly selective, because one can say that pretty much anything human beings can and have done is caused partly by our nature.

On August 24 2022 01:29 Stroggoz wrote: Yes, biology is what I was talking about. Homosexuality is deeply rooted in our biology, (many animals engage in it, including our predecessors). Same with many other sexualities. I don't really think either of these sexualities are that well understood. Most species that are polygamous also have very different body sizes between male and female, so that's a factor to consider as well. In general "it's human nature" arguments are highly selective, because one can say that pretty much anything human beings can and have done is caused partly by our nature.

polygamy is prevalescent in most primates, but agreed the "its human nature" is often a shitty justification rather than a good point, and as I said, now its clear to me that while I support anybody's right to do whatever the fuck they want, mongamy seem to work better for how we arrange our socities, icels are a good example of how we as species don't cope well with being deprived of sex, companionship etc.

So ppl, what are your thoughts on student debt forgiveness?

I don't think it surprises anyone that I'm strongly against it for these reasons:

- It's an horrible "moral hazard", it incentivizes more borrowing which will cause tuition price to rise, it derisks predatory lending and unis can continue churning useless degrees, this will make things much worse, soon debts will be bigger than ever and this cycle will repeat itself transfering money from taxpayers to bankers and college admins.

- It's a regressive tax, printing devluating the dollar to pay the debt means taking money from working ppl and putting it into the hands of college atendees.

- Pinting even more dollars at the height of record inflation in the middle of a recession is awful economic policy and economic suicide.



What would be a better solution?

- Remove the special lender protections to disincentivize predatory lending

- Debureaucratize education institutions to lower tuitions, the vast majorioty of education institutions budget goes direclty into administrators rather than teacher/students.

---------------------------------

This is once again another fuck up like the american health care system, instead of going free market, or the worse option, state-run, they go for the even worst one, state-corp inbred corrupt money funnel and then ppl wonder why insulin is $20x the market price and tuition is like $200k