Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 89

If you liquidated the assets of all US rich you would get the same result for a while and then people would literally eat their children.

So wait, is that your motivation for this bump post? Because you're worried your government will have your population eat children down the road? You don't think there's a few steps between now and then where people could intervene? lol

People who massively and overtly abuse their power in the information age won't maintain it for very long. Even Peterson, himself an expert in fearmongering, admits that; he would not agree with this fearmongering. He has made this biosocial law of dominance, which definitely exists, a big part of his neoliberal speech, saying that "the big rat needs to let the small rat wins sometimes so that the game can continue". There's no more game to play when people are left to eat their children before starving to death. In any case, capitalism has killed far more people than attempts at communism, but we don't pay attention when we have enough toys to play with.

You've certainly read more books than me, your average achorite priest have read 10 times what you have yet they seem unable to escape their delusions, so do you.

Except I believe in the opposite approach to knowledge than that of the priests, who are specialized in one area of knowledge. My firmest conviction is that we can only be in the dark if we don't have a generalized scientific education. I think the compartmentalization of knowledge is why we have such dysfunctional societies and human relationships. I also believe it's essential to make sure our knowledge-base is up to date with recent discoveries. You're comparing a wide, scientifically literate openness with a closed structure that's stuck in the past.

I know that I have biases and illusions and I guard myself against them to the best of my ability. That means that I try to be agnostic about everything until there is overwhelming evidence to believe in something. You on the other hand don't do that. The foundation of your morality and political philosophy is not grounded in science and it doesn't map onto reality (praxeology anyone?) yet it informs everything you espouse. I can oppose faith-based positions, without committing to one myself in return, and that's what I try to do, because I think it's the careful thing to do.

When I mentioned the dangers of leftist dictators in latin america you go and post as some kind of rebuttal the "good stuff" they do, you cant bitch about being called an apologist when you do that.

You've mentioned the same dangers for years. What you don't do ever is mention the dangers of the existing structures, because you are not a careful thinker, you've been taught to look 1 meter forward and only short-term, because that's what capitalism breeds. There is never a structural analysis behind the things you say, that's the biggest issue. You look at things in isolation, not curious enough to know just how far back the causal chain goes, what the root of those evils you point to really are. In the real world things are not isolated, they are interconnected. Your belief in free markets and consuming ourselves into sustainability is an example of this ignorance. There's about as much logic and evidence behind these beliefs than there is of the girl with supernaturals powers in that other thread you gleefully made fun of. Yet you present it as self-evident, just like a New Ager, because it is comforting. Instead of being agnostic about it like a careful person, you confidently assert that "it will" become sustainable, in fact that we are already on track for that necessary transformation, which is total BS, as the latest IPCC report proves.

As I've said before, Molyneux turned out to be a maniac, indeed I discovered anarcho capitalism through his early videos, then many years later he went full 180 and now supports some ethno-nationalism with a strong leader, obviously I dont agree with that at all, you keep mentioning him over and over, you can stop now.

No, I shouldn't stop mentioning Molyneux, because it's not about trying to make you look foolish for your past association with him that I mention this, it's because he ties into your massive blindspot. You engage in "red scare" rhetoric just like him while ignoring or openly downplaying the rise of the far-right, of which he is a big part of, and which is a bigger threat than tankies. Tell me, you think most of his followers turned on him, or accepted this "transformation" over time? You think most of his loyal followers didn't share the same prejudices? You're so busy bashing leftism you don't pay attention to leftists pointing out the way that right-wing egomaniacs like him indoctrinate people and give them an open door to fascism. I'm glad that you're not a racist warmongerer yourself, but at best you are a useful idiot for people like him, even if you say you disagree with him.

My views on this problem of overpopulation is something I've already went into depth not that long ago here. I don't know if I posted this last time but it's a good overview for those interested.

Something else I just thought about: when someone loses a family member or a friend to a crime or an accident, we don't say that they necessarily are the ones who are in the best position to know what happened and decide what should happen as a consequence. Being too close to a situation is just as bad if not worse as being completely removed from it without information. The more complex a situation is, the more you benefit from having an emotional distance from the situation if your goal is to have an accurate analysis of it (and a measured response to it).

The situation with living or having lived in a dominated country is not dissimilar. What matters is not how close people are to misery, it's how well informed they are. If you're going to bring them up in a discussion-- and I think it can be very valuable to do so-- your goal is to demonstrate how well informed they are. There is no point otherwise, the other person you're engaging can always find other people who believe something else from those countries.

Without historical and geographical context, as well as knowledge from the sciences, people cannot make sense of the structures they exist in, how they have come to exist and their systemic effects. Most of the time people believe what their culture/parents taught them and it's almost impossible to get them to change their beliefs. Only a few people are privileged enough to change and to be able to study it, and when you do study it, you realize that the bulk of the misery that has existed in recent history has existed and is being perpetuated today because those with all the power have shaped people's lives to serve their sole interest: profit. The failed attempts at socialism were the exceptions. But it's all too easy to blame politicians and to fall for simplistic left vs right/divide and conquer narratives as a result of this. It's especially easy when you are addicted to dominating others yourself and you'd be bored as hell if you could no longer do it, even if it's in a petty form like owning the libs online.

Sadly, not enough people get bored of dominating others enough to be able to pay attention to more significant matters, matters of evolution. If they did, they'd soon notice that the failures of socialism, just like the failures of neoliberalism currently, are at root failures of informational deficits. They are determined to fail not because of some biological law, but because they do not allow or encourage generalized information to circulate freely, since it doesn't serve the interests of the bureaucrats and the technocrats who own the power of decision everywhere. In a totalitarian regime generalized information is not accessible, but in a neoliberal system of productivist consumption there is no need for censorship because people have been so dumbed down and pressured by economic necessity for the sake of the system's maintenance that they will never want a general education or be able to get one. The maintenance of closed structures is prioritized over their evolution, and that applies at the level of the individual and that of the society, since they produce each other (the theory of autopoesis applied to sociology).

On December 28 2018 03:33 Loco wrote: So wait, is that your motivation for this bump post? Because you're worried your government will have your population eat children down the road?

The government hasnt liquidating the assets of rich people... so no.

I am concerned of the leftist policies he is trying to implement, if you want to know specifics:

- He is reverting the educational reform, which requires teachers to pass a test to continue or improve in their jobs... the old system which he is reinstalling along with the massively corrupt syndicate gives teaching jobs to "slots" that are inherited or sold, there is no qualifiquation required... if you are a teacher, you can inherit your teaching position to your son or sell/rent that spot to anybody.

- He is going to give cash 3.4 million young adults who dont work or go to school, a program which obviously Mexico cannot afford.

- He is not only assasinating the opposition, but he is also riling up people against the supreme court judges becaue he is aware they are the last bastion against a constitution change that would allow him to get reelected.

I could go on and on, so my concerns arent cannibalism are a very precarious economic future and a possibility of a direct or indirect dictatorship.

Also people who massively abuse their power nowadays, in the information age, cannot maintain it for very long.

The leftist dictatorship in Venezuela has been going on for 18 years and its not going anywhere soon.

You've mentioned the same dangers for years. What you don't do ever is mention the dangers of the existing structures

Except I have mentioned the problems of capitalism more than once.

I've said that the ongoing trend of wealth concentration is concerning, (although overall personal well-being and class mobility being more important), I believe voluntary redistribution would be more effective than by force.

I've also listed many other problems with capitalism so stop saying I haven't.

you confidently assert that "it will" become sustainable, in fact that we are already on track for that necessary transformation, which is total BS, as the latest IPCC report proves.

I think it will be sustainable, certanty of the future is an impossibility not sure how you quantify my certanty but ok... I dont know what IPCC report are you talking about specifically, care to elaborate?

I said the market is trending over sustainability particularly in the first world, the 3rd world is a different story and its a challenge.

No, I shouldn't stop mentioning Molyneux, because it's not about trying to make you look foolish for your past association with him that I mention this, it's because he ties into your massive blindspot. You engage in "red scare" rhetoric just like him while ignoring or openly downplaying the rise of the far-right, of which he is a big part of. Tell me, you think most of his followers turned on him, or accepted this "transformation" over time? You think most of his loyal followers didn't share the same prejudices? You're so busy bashing leftism you don't pay attention to leftists pointing out the way that right-wing egomaniacs like him indoctrinate people and give them an open door to fascism. I'm glad that you're not a racist warmongerer yourself, but at best you are a useful idiot for people like him, even if you say you disagree with him.

Right wing extremist is concerning in the terms that they seem to be more directly violent, mass shooters and stuff like that which is awful but it is not as concerning to me as the political grip the left seem to have.

I've said this before, why do I have to repeat myself?

It's not just about violence, the trends are very clear in terms of the enormous gains that far-right groups have made in Europe and America. It should also be obvious to anyone that it isn't tankies that are dominating social media and influencing the impressionable and alienated youth the most. It's way easier to listen to Stefan Molyneux and Jordan Peterson videos than it is to read Marx, Lenin and Mao, and these people with huge platforms have always been gateways for the most disenfranchised to join nationalist groups. Even in the most tolerant places in the world, the Nordic countries, there's a big insurgency. In Sweden for example, support for fascist ideology has tripled in the last 8 years according to recent polls.

You cannot decouple Venezuela's situation from the draconian US sanctions that were put in place, it is what has the biggest impact on the poorest members in the country, it's not socialist policies in a vacuum. But yes, we've already went all over this and apparently you have not updated your knowledge base so there is no point in going in circles again. When I hear people say that leftists are in control in this world I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone and I lose all motivation to discuss things.

Saying that voluntary redistribution is best amounts to saying that people with enormous power are usually willing to give it up, which is basically never true. It also amounts to saying that we need overlords to take decisions for us. The problem with dictatorships is that they steal your power of decision, and the exact same thing happens with Neoliberalism, you're only given the illusion of choice in meaningless elections where the politicians are bought and the population is massively undereducated.

The IPCC report showed that, far from having made significant positive changes in the last 12 years, we are massively overshooting and we need to reduce our emissions rapidly and drastically so that global warming is limited to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. It says that we need to reach net zero emissions by 2050, and clearly nothing is being done for this to happen currently. It's not enough to buy things that have stamped on a "sustainable" label on the package. Consumer choice has a zero percent chance to change this outcome on its own. It's elitist bullshit considering most people cannot afford to "purchase ethically". That leaves us with the predictable faith in technology to save us, shown in desperate attempts like this one to put giant fans underwater to save reefs...

Report of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights on his mission to the United States of America (direct UN report link)

Cliffs:

44% of adults cannot cover an emergency expense costing $400
40 million live in poverty
18.5 million in extreme poverty
5.3 million in absolute poverty
World highest incarceration rate
World highest level of obesity


Author talks about:

Undermining of democracy by the rich
Shortcomings in basic social protection
Counterproductive drug and environmental policies
Use of fraud as a smokescreen
All of these aggravating and accelerating future social collapses.

On December 28 2018 06:50 Loco wrote: Something else I just thought about: when someone loses a family member or a friend to a crime or an accident, we don't say that they necessarily are the ones who are in the best position to know what happened and decide what should happen as a consequence. Being too close to a situation is just as bad if not worse as being completely removed from it without information. .

lol stop, you are embarassing yourself.

You remind me that time I told a story where me and some friends many years ago were in a car with a wasted driver, a passed out guy in the back in the seat and the police stopped us and we didn't have any cash, so we gave them 2 burned CDs (yes that many years ago lol) and they let us go, more than 1 called bullshit on this... simply because as americans or europeans this sounds simply unvelibable, its simply difficult to have a full picture of a different culture.

Just as fun fact... the leftist candidate who lost the election and is obviously the biggest beneficiary of the helicopter crash just fucked up in an interview and said "its not like magnicides are uncommon in méxico... accidents, I mean accidents" This is where you tell me that is proof of nothing and the rest of the 3rd world laugh at your naive ass.

On December 30 2018 00:41 Loco wrote: Report of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights on his mission to the United States of America (direct UN report link) Cliffs: 44% of adults cannot cover an emergency expense costing $400 40 million live in poverty 18.5 million in extreme poverty 5.3 million in absolute poverty World highest incarceration rate World highest level of obesity Author talks about: Undermining of democracy by the rich Shortcomings in basic social protection Counterproductive drug and environmental policies Use of fraud as a smokescreen All of these aggravating and accelerating future social collapses.

The american definition of poverty is retarded, I've been thinking about this discussion and I've come to realize a few things.

My sister who lives in the US came to visit and she was telling us a few things about americans that are shocking to us Mexicans, like the fact that many of the people she knew ate daily on disposable dishes, that maids who charge 100+ an hour do light cleaning with disposable wipes and 1 use mops, people recieving multiple amazon boxes every single day and many other examples of the crazy wasteful consumerism that is unfathomable for us.

So I've been calling you "out of touch" when you say shit about the helicopter being an accident and the misery of the left, but I realize I'm also out of touch with the evils of insane capitalism consumerism you probably witness everyday, so I guess I dont blame you for fearing that eart-scorching mindless consumption and perhaps we donot want things as different as we might think.

The free market I envision isn't a monetarist FED-driven overconsumption-crazy that is the US, while I admire the working complexity that Milton Friedman created in the US that for sure is insane, the free market I envision is on a deflationary currency, where things are bough when needed, old things repaired and in general a stable economy of savings not spending.

I know that is a weird concept to you but in Mexico people dont give up used stuff for free like in the US where people just dump their furniture on the street, there are no massive sales to clear out stock... since stock will sell slowly and taking a discount loss is horrible in that economy etc, so that economy isn't as far as you might think.


And going back into the US definition of poverty, my sister lives in Californian suburbs with a daughter and her husband (who is branching his public transport logistic bussiness to the US), she travels overseas 2 or 3 times a year, she is economically fine yet she qualifies for government aid she laughes her ass off about how crazy american consumerism has made them believe that they need absurd amounts of income to sustain themselves, and dont think we come from some humble background at all, quite the opposite.


How come everytime we start to argue I see a sea apart our views and the more I think about it I think we would agree in most things.

On December 28 2018 21:39 Loco wrote: It's not just about violence, the trends are very clear in terms of the enormous gains that far-right groups have made in Europe and America. It should also be obvious to anyone that it isn't tankies that are dominating social media and influencing the impressionable and alienated youth the most. It's way easier to listen to Stefan Molyneux and Jordan Peterson videos than it is to read Marx, Lenin and Mao, and these people with huge platforms have always been gateways for the most disenfranchised to join nationalist groups. Even in the most tolerant places in the world, the Nordic countries, there's a big insurgency. In Sweden for example, support for fascist ideology has tripled in the last 8 years according to recent polls.

Yes they have grown, but not because the right is winning but because the world is polarizing politically

Also yes there are more JBPs than Zizeks however the vast majority of college students lean left

You cannot decouple Venezuela's situation from the draconian US sanctions that were put in place, it is what has the biggest impact on the poorest members in the country, it's not socialist policies in a vacuum. But yes, we've already went all over this and apparently you have not updated your knowledge base so there is no point in going in circles again. When I hear people say that leftists are in control in this world I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone and I lose all motivation to discuss things.

Well I guess it all comes from what you call a leftist, many would call Merkel a leftist and many wouldn't

Saying that voluntary redistribution is best amounts to saying that people with enormous power are usually willing to give it up,

Rarely people do (rich or poor equally), but not to sound like JBP but its based on competence, therefore empires fall all the time, the only empire that isn't based on competence and keeps other empires intact is the state (but you are also against it so I suppose I'm preaching to the choir)

Also VERY important is that I think socially we should encourage as strongly as possible the value of giving wealth back, we are not used to it since we live in a society where the state is supposed to kind of do that, but doesn't.

Neoliberalism, you're only given the illusion of choice in meaningless elections where the politicians are bought and the population is massively undereducated.

Now YOU are praching to the choir... I agree 100% that elections are meaningless, our true power is consumer choice.

The IPCC report showed that, far from having made significant positive changes in the last 12 years, we are massively overshooting and we need to reduce our emissions rapidly and drastically so that global warming is limited to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. It says that we need to reach net zero emissions by 2050, and clearly nothing is being done for this to happen currently. It's not enough to buy things that have stamped on a "sustainable" label on the package. Consumer choice has a zero percent chance to change this outcome on its own. It's elitist bullshit considering most people cannot afford to "purchase ethically". That leaves us with the predictable faith in technology to save us, shown in desperate attempts like this one to put giant fans underwater to save reefs...

Oh I have no idea if the free market would be fast changing enough to solve climate change mainly because all the information regarding it is so mixed , politically charged so it would require an enormous amount of effort to make personal predictions and not take somebody elses claim as truth, and its a futile excersize since neither of our concepts of short-term ideal society is coming to fruition anytime soon, so whatever climate change brings strap on my boy, its coming.

who calls Merkel a leftist? That's just stupid

On December 30 2018 11:26 lebowski wrote: who calls Merkel a leftist? That's just stupid

Pretty much every conservative does because she is quite pro migration and also favors many social programs.

People will always have different perceptions of what consistutes right and left, hard socialist don't consider Merkel a leftists and ethnonationalists dont consider Trump right wing, that will often happen when we deal with subjective labels

I don't think anyone that has any clue of politics would call Merkel leftist, she basically doesn't change a thing unless it really needs to be done. Her decisions are mostly based on populist polls with one of the most emblematic one being the coal industry. She is always talking about hurr durr lets be environmentally friendly and then runs a poll, finds out people actually prefer to use coal, and continues using it setting some retarded goals of cutting the plants in half in 10-15 years and stopping completely in like 20-25. Thats almost as dumb as cities claiming they will not allow diesel cars to be used in them by 2040. Sure thing buddies, its not like you're just delaying the political responsibility of the current issue and handing it to someone else in the future.


The immigration "crisis" was just retarded on so many levels. First of all refugees were always welcome in the EU, if they followed the specific channels. Second, she took the blame just because the social tension in European countries was already on the rise. Shit like that cannot happen in a single year just because of a single statement of a politician, regardless if that is the most powerful politician in Europe. The countries from the rear of Germany already had the burden of immigrants. Greece were struggling hard. Sweden already had ghettos filled with Africans and Arabs. France has had those for decades but that's due to colonization I guess.

You have to understand that this is a natural development due to the things that are happening in Africa and the Middle East. It's why the USA has become what it is because of immigration due to wars in Europe. People are fleeing from one place to another to search for safety.

Anyway Merkel just did the smart thing, which I'd say was pretty centrist measure and just took in some immigrants from countries around Germany to help the EU.

On December 30 2018 23:08 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On December 30 2018 11:26 lebowski wrote: who calls Merkel a leftist? That's just stupid Pretty much every conservative does because she is quite pro migration and also favors many social programs. People will always have different perceptions of what consistutes right and left, hard socialist don't consider Merkel a leftists and ethnonationalists dont consider Trump right wing, that will often happen when we deal with subjective labels

What kind of argument is that? Some people also think Beethoven was a terrible musician and Lil Peep is better. Some people also think homeopathy is scientific.

We know that people are confused or they manipulate the spectrum to try to convert people to their cause largely due to the Overton window; that doesn't mean that there isn't a well-established one that's intersubjectively agreed upon by experts because it's historically informed.

When Lindsay Shepherd calls herself a leftist because she uses a bike and public transportation instead of a car, or Dave Rubin did essentially the same thing, you have to shake your head, not say "it's just a matter of perspective".

Rarely people do (rich or poor equally), but not to sound like JBP but its based on competence

First point, no they don't.

Competence is a part of it but hierarchies are certainly not competence-based. Even someone of your political inclinations has to take into account "lookism" (employing people based on their looks), nepotism and cronyism. It's also a huge issue for me because competence in a neoliberal society is always going to be narrow and prevents people from living a full life. It keeps them ignorant of everything that they don't specialize in; it creates dumb citizens.

she qualifies for government aid

What programs and how much? I highly doubt that this would be the case in most states.

I agree 100% that elections are meaningless, our true power is consumer choice.

But you also think like me that people are ruled by unconscious drives, meaning they are easily hijacked and conditioned to do things against their best interests. But you favor an economy where the raison d'être of corporations is to capitalize on this and exploit them to the best of their ability.

Veganism has been one of the best example for me of this illusion of the power of consumer choices. Multinational corporations have bought most companies that offered vegan products, so that now when vegans think they are making sustainable choices that oppose the system in place, they are in fact feeding those practices too. The result is that animal exploitation is not plateauing or decreasing, even though the number of vegans has increased dramatically. More waste and consumption while giving people a good conscience is the result. Without political power and personal empowerment through knowledge, the notion of choice and consumer responsibility is a hollow one. 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions are made by 100 companies, and their domination assures that your purchasing dollar will find its way to them more often than not.

So I've been calling you "out of touch" when you say shit about the helicopter being an accident and the misery of the left, but I realize I'm also out of touch with the evils of insane capitalism consumerism you probably witness everyday, so I guess I dont blame you for fearing that eart-scorching mindless consumption and perhaps we donot want things as different as we might think.

I never said it was an accident. I was just saying we don't know for a fact based on the information that is available (that I could find). But it seems to me that you have double standards too, I don't see you complaining about the assassination attempts when they come from the right-wing.

I've said before that I realized our biggest difference was our ecological perspective. The thing is that this ties into geographical bias when you are not seeing things through a structuralist perspective. Your environment and temperament has given you the impression that people can easily live like this, they can be remodeled through principles, that your environment could be replicated in communities everywhere, but I think the different economies in different geographical locations have deterministic structural rules and essentially they can only behave in the way that they currently are. Good intentions aren't enough to modify them.

While I think people have a relative freedom within capitalism that they can use to change their behavior and for instance become less wasteful, the odds are massively stacked against them as it is very demanding to go against the stream, especially when our lives are ruled by economic pressures and there is no financial incentive for it (quite the opposite, Amazon being a perfect example of it). A friend of mine thinks a possible solution would be having a sort of sign in public of the waste one produces, like a badge of shame, that would act as a deterrent, lol.

On December 31 2018 01:00 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On December 30 2018 23:08 Baalim wrote:   On December 30 2018 11:26 lebowski wrote: who calls Merkel a leftist? That's just stupid Pretty much every conservative does because she is quite pro migration and also favors many social programs. People will always have different perceptions of what consistutes right and left, hard socialist don't consider Merkel a leftists and ethnonationalists dont consider Trump right wing, that will often happen when we deal with subjective labels What kind of argument is that? Some people also think Beethoven was a terrible musician and Lil Peep is better. Some people also think homeopathy is scientific. We know that people are confused or they manipulate the spectrum to try to convert people to their cause largely due to the Overton window; that doesn't mean that there isn't a well-established one that's intersubjectively agreed upon by experts because it's historically informed. When Lindsay Shepherd calls herself a leftist because she uses a bike and public transportation instead of a car, or Dave Rubin did essentially the same thing, you have to shake your head, not say "it's just a matter of perspective".

It isn't an argument.

You stated that it frustrated it to the point of not wanting to continue discussing, I was just pointing out why that happens so often, its silly to me to cling so much to trivial labeling misunderstandings but I guess it has always been a constant with you, the importance of subjective labels.

On December 31 2018 01:34 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On December 31 2018 01:00 Loco wrote:   On December 30 2018 23:08 Baalim wrote:   On December 30 2018 11:26 lebowski wrote: who calls Merkel a leftist? That's just stupid Pretty much every conservative does because she is quite pro migration and also favors many social programs. People will always have different perceptions of what consistutes right and left, hard socialist don't consider Merkel a leftists and ethnonationalists dont consider Trump right wing, that will often happen when we deal with subjective labels What kind of argument is that? Some people also think Beethoven was a terrible musician and Lil Peep is better. Some people also think homeopathy is scientific. We know that people are confused or they manipulate the spectrum to try to convert people to their cause largely due to the Overton window; that doesn't mean that there isn't a well-established one that's intersubjectively agreed upon by experts because it's historically informed. When Lindsay Shepherd calls herself a leftist because she uses a bike and public transportation instead of a car, or Dave Rubin did essentially the same thing, you have to shake your head, not say "it's just a matter of perspective". It isn't an argument. You stated that it frustrated it to the point of not wanting to continue discussing, I was just pointing out why that happens so often, its silly to me to cling so much to trivial labeling misunderstandings but I guess it has always been a constant with you, the importance of subjective labels.

It happens if you give credence to people who don't deserve it over those who do. We all have to accept common terminology to work in any field of knowledge and to have productive discussions. The most productive ones are going to be historically grounded. The least productive ones are going to be the ones that are grounded in the current culture war where these labels are just used as part of a game.

Loco video:

in that video she says you must grow population to sustain capitalism, what about growing by using robots? AI is improving by leaps and bounds, and I think capitalism can be sustained by growth of robots who can produce at a growing rate. This will eliminate requirement that she sets out - therefore she is not thinking outside the box.

Also Loco can you share a video that would explain why being a vegetarian, vegan is a good idea for someone who does not really agree with it. I mean i love meat and think it gives you needed nutrients for your body and brain to function at a greater level than someone who only eats vegetables. I am actually curios to see if I can learn something that i do not know. Please video not longer than 30 minutes if possible.

On December 31 2018 01:00 Loco wrote: First point, no they don't. Competence is a part of it but hierarchies are certainly not competence-based. Even someone of your political inclinations has to take into account "lookism" (employing people based on their looks), nepotism and cronyism. It's also a huge issue for me because competence in a neoliberal society is always going to be narrow and prevents people from living a full life. It keeps them ignorant of everything that they don't specialize in; it creates dumb citizens.

The studies in the article seem very flawed in proving that point, but lets not get distracted into it when I accept your point.

Absolutely its not a pure meritocracy, things like nepotism and looks are very important (and fuck you for using the word lookism lol), not only that but the biggest factor in this hierarchy that is IQ that is an arbitrary genetic trait just like looks, so the hierarchy is intrinsecally unfair, you always point out to the flaws of capitalism and hierarchical structures but I am aware of them, what I think is despise all these flaws its a far better choice than the alternative you propose.

On the subject of hyper specialization I think a requirement to push through the boundaries of our capabilities as a species, you aren't going to cure cancer or send ships into space unless you are hyper specialized in that area.

What programs and how much? I highly doubt that this would be the case in most states.

I didn't ask, but she didn't apply for it because she doesn't need it.

I feel you are totally ignoring my point here though.

But you also think like me that people are ruled by unconscious drives, meaning they are easily hijacked and conditioned to do things against their best interests. But you favor an economy where the raison d'être of corporations is to capitalize on this and exploit them to the best of their ability. Veganism has been one of the best example for me of this illusion of the power of consumer choices. Multinational corporations have bought most companies that offered vegan products, so that now when vegans think they are making sustainable choices that oppose the system in place, they are in fact feeding those practices too. The result is that animal exploitation is not plateauing or decreasing, even though the number of vegans has increased dramatically. More waste and consumption while giving people a good conscience is the result. Without political power and personal empowerment through knowledge, the notion of choice and consumer responsibility is a hollow one. 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions are made by 100 companies, and their domination assures that your purchasing dollar will find its way to them more often than not.

I'll take your word about what is happening with veganism but just as you mention empowerment through knowledge in consumers is exactly what I'm advocating for.

In our current system with a nanny state "FDA approved", people dont believe their consumer choice has an impact beyond their own person, we should teach the opposite so people are more conscious that its through this power that they change the world.

Of course they can be duped, they will make stupid choices etc, but that unavoidable in any system that isnt some kind of aristocracy run by infallible aliens.

I never said it was an accident. I was just saying we don't know for a fact based on the information that is available (that I could find). But it seems to me that you have double standards too, I don't see you complaining about the assassination attempts when they come from the right-wing.

I'm not sure what assasinations attempts by right wingers you mean, I haven't heard of right wing governments commiting magnicide in this scale against left wing politicians recently, are you talking about Putin? If so I consider him mounstrous and I hope he is removed from power.

I've said before that I realized our biggest difference was our ecological perspective. The thing is that this ties into geographical bias when you are not seeing things through a structuralist perspective. Your environment and temperament has given you the impression that people can easily live like this, they can be remodeled through principles, that your environment could be replicated in communities everywhere, but I think the different economies in different geographical locations have deterministic structural rules and essentially they can only behave in the way that they currently are. Good intentions aren't enough to modify them.

I'm not sure if im following... they can only behave in certain way yet you propose a much more dramatic change in how they behave than I do, this is the first time I've heard a leftist say that a capitalist's good intentions arent enough

While I think people have a relative freedom within capitalism that they can use to change their behavior and for instance become less wasteful, the odds are massively stacked against them as it is very demanding to go against the stream, especially when our lives are ruled by economic pressures and there is no financial incentive for it (quite the opposite, Amazon being a perfect example of it). A friend of mine thinks a possible solution would be having a sort of sign in public of the waste one produces, like a badge of shame, that would act as a deterrent, lol.

Most societies are taught that their responsability in regards of a better future is mainly voting and not breaking the law, I think that its vital to shift that perception, there are poor communities that have banned plastic in their towns because they are simply more conscious about it than an avg american, I'm surprised you have so little faith that people can change in that regard.

On December 31 2018 03:48 spets1 wrote: Loco video: in that video she says you must grow population to sustain capitalism, .

Capitalism does not require population growth, not even robots that such a moronic thing to say

On December 31 2018 03:48 spets1 wrote: Loco video: in that video she says you must grow population to sustain capitalism, what about growing by using robots? AI is improving by leaps and bounds, and I think capitalism can be sustained by growth of robots who can produce at a growing rate. This will eliminate requirement that she sets out - therefore she is not thinking outside the box. Also Loco can you share a video that would explain why being a vegetarian, vegan is a good idea for someone who does not really agree with it. I mean i love meat and think it gives you needed nutrients for your body and brain to function at a greater level than someone who only eats vegetables. I am actually curios to see if I can learn something that i do not know. Please video not longer than 30 minutes if possible.

We could already be replacing most jobs with robots, the reason we don't is because hiring people is cheaper. Also this has to be delayed as much as possible because of the crisis it will create without a universal basic income in place. That's why we have the "bullshit jobs" phenomenon currently, to give the illusion that the economy is doing well, a lot of people do pointless work. Robots are not going to help an economy grow, they take money outside of the economy. Think about it, how could it grow when robots don't buy stuff? The money that a wage slave earns goes back into the economy, they constantly have to purchase things just to survive; the money that a robot saves the company goes into the capitalist/bureaucrats pockets who doesn't need to buy shit, it goes offshore somewhere most likely, and we are told that it will "trickle back down". We know that's bullshit. Like, just take the recovery from the crash of 2008, 90%+ of that money went back into the pockets of the richest 5% of Americans.

You don't need a video that counters those beliefs, they are unfounded beliefs that you probably heard on the Joe Rogan podcast, and Joe is notoriously stupid when it comes to nutrition. Here's a list of reputable non-vegan organizations comprised of nutrition experts that say that vegan/vegetarian diets are good/safe: https://steemit.com/vegan/@goose/orga...diet-is-healthy-at-all-stages-of-life

If you think you need meat to perform optimally in sports, that's pretty easy to debunk. Just have a quick google search for vegan athletes, there's a lot of them at the top in most disciplines. Patrick Baboumian holds five Strongman world records currently, just to name one. My favorite vegan athlete is this dude though:

On December 31 2018 03:48 Baalim wrote: I'm not sure what assasinations attempts by right wingers you mean, I haven't heard of right wing governments commiting magnicide in this scale against left wing politicians recently, are you talking about Putin? If so I consider him mounstrous and I hope he is removed from power.

I mean you're always bringing up Venezuela... this is recent stuff.



The CIA made over 600 attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro during his time as the President of Cuba. Chavez was assassinated. Allende would have been assassinated if he didn't kill himself during the US-backed coup. We can always justify who is worthy of being assassinated based on our political beliefs, that was my point. A quick search tells me 5 leftist politicians were killed earlier this year in Mexico.

I'm not sure if im following... they can only behave in certain way yet you propose a much more dramatic change in how they behave than I do, this is the first time I've heard a leftist say that a capitalist's good intentions arent enough

You say this as if I am advocating a revolution to overthrow capitalism. I am not. The revolution I believe in has to begin within, with understanding ourselves neurologically and our interdependence with our environment. Self-organization has to organically follow, not be imposed. In the mean time, whatever policies benefit the most marginalized in society and environmental sustainability are those that I support.

I'm not saying it's the capitalist's good intentions that aren't good enough, it's everyone's as they exist under a neoliberal system where businesses are basically unaccountable for the damage they cause through negative externalities. The damage happens too quickly and largely under the radar so people can't notice it before a big panel of scientists releases a report to let them know. A consumer doesn't know all of the business practices that his money funds, he is divorced from that by design. If he's very inquisitive he might know some things, but his knowledge is always limited because of the complexities involved.

T. Hatthaway says, "shopping at Whole Foods could be construed as support for higher welfare meat and organic agricultural methods, but it will equally support union busting, low wages for workers and right-wing libertarian politics. In short, the personal significance consumers attach to purchasing certain products can translate as a “vote” for a whole host of values they dislike but of which they remain ignorant."

But the most important part is that even when we know and we are committed to the most ethical choices, individual consumer consumption only accounts for 25% at best. The rest is done by agrobusiness, corporations, industries, government and the military. And if your dollar is the only extent of your vote, that means that the only thing you can contribute to the world is to be less damaging. But the things you actually need to survive like clean water, air, an intact ozone layer, low sea levels etc cannot be purchased.

Most societies are taught that their responsability in regards of a better future is mainly voting and not breaking the law, I think that its vital to shift that perception, there are poor communities that have banned plastic in their towns because they are simply more conscious about it than an avg american, I'm surprised you have so little faith that people can change in that regard.

But those are government regulations which you are against, no? It's not that I have no faith in people making better choices, like I said it's the logic of the market that defines those choices as it strips us of true decision power at the political level where we could have a say in how most of the consumption is done.

So, Bolsonaro took office today in Brasil. Not a dictator (i.e. not someone who challenges imperialism/ultraliberal capitalist hegemony). Just another racist right-wing leader who is against atheism, abortion, drug liberalization, etc. Someone who compares homosexuality to pedophilia and further encourages violence in a country where one person is killed every day for not being a Good Christian, like this councilwoman who was shot to death for saying that it's okay to be other than heterosexual and denouncing police brutality. It's also apparently a good practice to "beat children straight" according to the new President. There's been a 30% increase in LGBT deaths from 2016 to 2017 in Brasil and the numbers are under-reported since the government doesn't care to gather hate crime statistics.

"Bolsonaro has spent his entire political career advocating violence against his political opponents and people he deems unworthy of the country he claims to love. In 1999, he said that the dictatorship “should have shot some 30,000 corrupt people, starting with President Fernando Henrique Cardoso.” He has repeatedly suggested that former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, whose regime was accused of murdering 3,000 people and torturing 40,000 others, should have killed even more. He has denied that Brazil’s dictatorship tortured people. " (Source.)