Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 432: OK, Loomer

(+) Yeah! (+)

Lopen posted...

Not to dredge up yesterday's discussion but I had a lot of work to do and missed this

While I don't necessarily disagree this is "correct" this is a mindset that will do more harm than good and is ultimately what I'm concerned about.

Basically an endless feedback loop where sides delude themselves more and more into thinking people that don't agree with them deserve punishment or whatever. The more people who are more concerned with being morally "right" than trying to put forth an attitude that promotes progress.

You should focus your hate on the people pushing the hate, not the bystanders. I'm not saying to praise the bystanders, but trying to shotgun everyone that doesn't 100% get behind your cause and call them all deplorables is just a way to get people to not listen to you. Which is basically the path modern politics is walking down

You can be sanctimonious or you can get things done. Not both.

I have never advocated hate(not respecting disrespectful people is not the same as hate.) I believe that the vast majority of those "bystanders" and even a lot of the intentionally hateful ones are severely misguided and have been subject to decades of propaganda. That's why I said earlier that as a person they would consider the "default" or "normal" I believe I have a moral and more significant duty to help educate them. I just don't think the PoC, LGBT+, or any other minority that doesn't want to deal with their shit is unjustified in feeling that way.

Like I mean behind closed doors I'll talk all the shit about racists, sexists, bigots, etc. but when face to face dealing with their shit I try and take a more proactive approach and do my best to try and convince them to change by doing my best to help them connect the dots because I believe that when a person comes to a realization themselves it is more powerful.

Now obviously if I see a couple of people legitimately attacking someone physically or verbally I step in because I don't take that shit and I won't allow others to do that if I am in a position to stop it.

MMXcalibur posted...

The fact that the race is still this close when America was presented a respectable choice against all the insane, stupid bullshit coming from Trump leads me to believe we are a very, very stupid country.

"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."

-George Carlin

Morally and practically, voting for someone who's bigoted but anti-war is better than voting for the anti-bigot who's pro-war.

95% of voters will never understand that because they are hyper focused on domestic issues.

Republicans ran on the latter for many decades (until Bush destroyed it) and it was a viable choice that made things less simple. Now we see that the anti-bigots are clearly the anti-war ones too, so it's super simple.

But liberals have been claiming it's a simple moral choice due to domestic social policy for decades. Ignoring that foreign policy is domestic policy, and economic policy is social policy. They're lucky that the choice is easy now, but you can't give them a free pass after Kamala wins.

You know there are more stances than just anti-war and pro-war right

Hot take: it was good for the Allies to fight WWII.

LightningStrikes posted...

You know there are more stances than just anti-war and pro-war right

Not any more important. A sum of several can come close I guess.

foolm0r0n posted...

Not any more important. A sum of several can come close I guess.

Can you define what you consider to be pro or anti war?

I mean, as kev is alluding to, trying to simplify complex stances into a binary pro-war and anti-war is absolutely daft. There have been numerous times throughout human history where military action prevented further conflict and death, and where its lack led to much greater conflict. A great example of the latter is WWII, which earlier intervention by the Allies probably could have prevented. The so-called anti-war stances of Donald Trump are just like that, letting war happen while claiming to be anti-war. He is after all the one who wanted to let Russia do whatever it wants. Not very peaceful!

I don't think foolmo considers Trump anti-war, but I know his base does (somehow), despite openly assassinating Soleimani and risking open war with Iran.

They did do a handful of counterattacks, and it's pure luck we didn't go to open war.

Trump openly saying he wants Israel to turn Palestine to dust to get it over with isn't "anti-war".

Trump wanting to let Russia steamroll Ukraine isn't "anti-war".

Claiming it it is just the stance of someone who wants to stop hearing about it and get it over with.

Trump says let there be peace meaning the end of the war by the baddies murdering the opposition in a total slaughter like a cheesy Saturday morning cartoon villain like come the **** on

It's the little joys.

https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1835102160411148564?t=4tJOnPTQ66MntjraFOcV1Q&s=19

LightningStrikes posted...

There have been numerous times throughout human history where military action prevented further conflict and death

This pretty much. Any policy, which can include military actions, whose goal is to actually reduce war.

LightningStrikes posted...

and where its lack led to much greater conflict

This is a dark gray area though because 100% of aggressive military escalations can be justified in this way. This is a summary of the Bush Doctrine.

The EV of the action should be clearly anti-war, pretty much.

A rule of thumb for the US is never to escalate, because of what I explained before, the economic and political strength we have. Weaker countries do often have to escalate war to fight back an oppressor, so it's really hard to judge them. I'm really only concerned with judging US war policy though, which is pretty easy.

The straw man that fighting Hitler can possibly be considered pro-war is itself clearly pro-war propaganda. Don't fall for obvious warmongering just because it makes you feel good. It's absolutely stupid. Ulti-tier ideas.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

but I know his base does (somehow)

I remember that being the case during his campaign but I'm pretty sure even his base stopped pretending that was the case within like 6 months.

His campaign this year has nothing anti-war in it, especially since he made Afghanistan a big talking point.

foolm0r0n posted...

I remember that being the case during his campaign but I'm pretty sure even his base stopped pretending that was the case within like 6 months.

No, they haven't.

https://twitter.com/BMeiselas/status/1835065876569374758

kevwaffles posted...

https://twitter.com/BMeiselas/status/1835065876569374758

throwing my computer straight out the window and torching my eyes

kevwaffles posted...

https://twitter.com/BMeiselas/status/1835065876569374758

Learning to read was a mistake.

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1834358658270199962?t=iqNg4mN0AmflZNy-pPE6LA&s=19

Xeybozn posted...

Learning to read was a mistake.

Let me make it worse with a reminder:

https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/donald-trump-stormy-daniels-penis-toad-mario-kart.html

She was under the podium the WHOLE TIME

kevwaffles posted...

https://twitter.com/BMeiselas/status/1835065876569374758

https://youtu.be/pzV7xI_I3zg?si=DOcKWqIQBUzUUkYJ

I want to remind people that the quote about the blowjob is obviously made up bullshit lol

Nooo I thought it was the 1 truthful thing Milo has said in his life

You can't trust anything made by Peter Molyneux.

foolm0r0n posted...

The straw man that fighting Hitler can possibly be considered pro-war is itself clearly pro-war propaganda. Don't fall for obvious warmongering just because it makes you feel good. It's absolutely stupid. Ulti-tier ideas.

I'm pretty anti-war in the same sense I think I understand you are, but facisim and genocide are the exceptions I am ok with. I'd rather those things be dealt with as little fighting/death as possible but it's unlikely that the oppressors ever will just stop because they've had enough. I also believe that in our planets current state, countries have the right to defend themselves from invasions.

Like I'm a person that thinks we'd be better off with open borders worldwide because ultimately the idea of countries is pretty weird to me. It's just another level of tribalism that humanity subscribes too. I know a lot of people tie culture/customs to countries but in all honesty those kinds of things are way more regional than they are country wide. Like I mean yea some things ingrain themselves into a countries "identity" but I honestly think that's only because the country exists in the first place. If countries didn't exist those kinds of things would still very much likely take root with the people they resonate with, in whatever regions they happen to start.

IfGodCouldDie posted...

but facisim and genocide are the exceptions I am ok with

Any exception is the inch that become the mile unfortunately. For example right now a ton of Americans are ok with aggressive war to fight for civil rights, which is a very popular excuse for the past few decades of war against Sharia Muslim countries who are anti woman and anti LGBT.

Of course, war has never worked to improve civil rights in other countries (it has regressed some places, like Iran). Economic and cultural exports are the only effective method. So that's what we need to advocate for, no exception.

But yeah it seems like in the ideal you're pretty strongly aligned with classic liberalism aka libertarianism. The exceptions are what truly define our philosophies though.

Ulti tier

At least Ulti can go without contradicting himself in an hour.

Wow even the Libertarians have had enough.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/9/12/2269978/-Pigs-Fly-George-Will-Endorses-Harris

UshiromiyaEva posted...

You can't trust anything made by Peter Molyneux.

Fable turns 20 today!

kevwaffles posted...

https://twitter.com/BMeiselas/status/1835065876569374758

She just wants his diminishing money.

But anyway, eww, no taste whatsoever.

I doubt Trump has diminishing money simply because he has a cult that will donate to him endlessly. Plus billing the secret service at his own properties.

Plus all the foreign entities that will definitely keep propping him up.

Leafeon13N posted...

Plus all the foreign entities that will definitely keep propping him up.

Probably not if he loses again lol.

https://twitter.com/ScooterCasterNY/status/1835114189934768379?t=oXX9qvtN3Z8NnC4l8orUUA&s=19

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Probably not if he loses again lol.

KSA will do it. They're willing to pay millions to have the fucking Undertaker show up to introduce a soccer match. They'll happily accept Trump and fund a kingly lifestyle for him if he runs off there.

Leafeon13N posted...

I doubt Trump has diminishing money simply because he has a cult that will donate to him endlessly. Plus billing the secret service at his own properties.

Plus all the foreign entities that will definitely keep propping him up.

That's basically working for a living, which is worse than death for a billionaire

This is so pathetic

https://twitter.com/KamalaHQ/status/1835102293311504859

foolm0r0n posted...

Any exception is the inch that become the mile unfortunately.

I wholeheartedly disagree, in the same way that I don't consider defending yourself from a real physical threat to be an act of violence.

foolm0r0n posted...

For example right now a ton of Americans are ok with aggressive war to fight for civil rights, which is a very popular excuse for the past few decades of war against Sharia Muslim countries who are anti woman and anti LGBT.

I do agree that fighting another country over their human rights violations is not a good reason to go to war. Cultures and people have to come to the realization themselves. Which is where the cultural and economic exports help, you show people there is a better way and they will fight for it themselves(not necessarily violence).

In that moment I do feel it is ok to help them with whatever they may need(medical aide, supplies, provisions), because at some point their fight is going to end up being a fight against facisim if their government decides to not listen to its people and give them what they desire.

foolm0r0n posted...

But yeah it seems like in the ideal you're pretty strongly aligned with classic liberalism aka libertarianism. The exceptions are what truly define our philosophies though.

For somethings sure, but economically I'm a straight communist and I do believe that the government plays a vital role in society.

Like in all honesty, I think the best possible economic system we could have would be anything to do with natural resources or basic necessities should be government run so that way the people can reap the benefits of their countries resources and be taken care of because their needs are being met.

Basic necessities should be provided for free because any entities that provide them should be government run.

Businesses should be entirely socialized(I'm not really sure what other term to use for this) with one exception.

And by socialized I mean that regardless of who starts a business anytime an employee is hired they are given an equal stake in the company. So if you start a business and you or your family are the only people that work there you and your family can keep 100% of the profit(this is the exception.)

If you have to hire outside help because your business is growing to the point that you need to hire people they deserve a fair share of the profits(like if you have a company that has 100 people each person gets 1% of the profits). At a certain point company decisions become group decisions voted on by the entirety of the employee body in a kind of a mix between a board of directors and a union. It would also cause people to be much more invested in the companies they work for. Obviously if an employee leaves they give up their share of the company and it gets redistributed among everyone else.

Companies would have to pay taxes to make sure that government run entities could provide for the people that work in government run industries.

Then after a companies expenses(materials, equipment, etc.) are paid everything else would be divided among all employees.

People themselves would not be required to pay taxes as it is already deducted due to the company paying it.

Healthcare, schooling, natural resource harvesting/production(lumber, precious metals, oil, etc), utility companies(phones, internet, power, water, etc), basic necessities(grocery stores, I'm sure there are other things I'm not currently coming up with), infrastructure(roads, housing, etc) would all be handled by the government to make sure that everyone is provided for.

The taxes that companies pay would be used to pay the people that work in those specific departments/industries so that way they are also taken care of.

Government positions(workers, politicians, teachers, etc) would be paid a salary based on the median or mean of the rest of the population(I think it would depend on what incomes looked like across the board.) People unable to work due to age, disabilities, injuries, etc. would also be given a similar salary.

If you decided you didn't want to work for any reason, you would be provided with the bare essentials to live a very basic life.

At the age of retirement anything you worked for and earned throughout your life is obviously yours to keep and you are given an income to continue providing yourself with luxuries.

I got so much more to say but realized I've been off and on writing this for quite a while and I'm tired nodding off. I'm more than willing to expand or answer any questions about the system that you or anyone may have. I've legit got it all figured out. The biggest hurdle is convincing the vast majority of people to stand united against the most "powerful" people that are keeping us dived and held down.

The biggest reason I feel this way though is because we as a society need each other and should look out for each other, and typically I think we are pretty decent at doing that on micro levels, we just have to learn to do it on a macro level.

Bash just got Vance to accidentally admit he made up the pet story live on air, and it took him about 10 seconds of total silence to try and figure out how to spin it.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1835309555938480462?t=SNTf_lFYWJ0LkF9f2e7xEw&s=19

IfGodCouldDie posted...

I wholeheartedly disagree, in the same way that I don't consider defending yourself from a real physical threat to be an act of violence.

IfGodCouldDie posted...

I do agree that fighting another country over their human rights violations is not a good reason to go to war

Oh I got these mixed up. I thought you were saying the exception was going to war against a fascist/genocidal country that you're not involved with (i.e. world police Bush Doctrine). Defending yourself against aggression is obviously justified. And like I said, even some amount of escalation can be justified when you're deeply oppressed (which def doesnt apply to the US).

Haven't read the rest of your post but I will.

Trumps whole campaign strategy makes absolutely no sense. Everything he is doing is appealing only to the base, which is what you do when you know you will lose and basically just want to shore up your base so you dont lose too badly, what they call the core vote strategy. An example of this would be the Tories this year in the UK where they knew they were going to get smashed so just promised pensioners ridiculous giveaways on tax and nostalgic policies only boomers support like national service knowing none of it would ever be implemented. In the case of Trump, it would be his fantasy economics, JD Vance as a running mate, and the repeating of absurd conspiracy theories. Yet this isnt an election he knows he will lose (or win easily), all indicators show its a competitive election that will be fought and won in the middle. It is really like he is trying to lose, and therefore even scarier that he might still win.

I found an article stating hes specifically trying to appeal to people who sat out the previous election. Apparently NYT polling still has Trump ahead - thinking maybe those polled there skew older?

At this point just imagine Trump as Dutch from RDR (2 moreso) and everything makes more sense.

kevwaffles posted...

At this point just imagine Trump as Dutch from RDR (2 moreso) and everything makes more sense.

Ya gotta stick to the plan, Arthur!

LightningStrikes posted...

Yet this isnt an election he knows he will lose (or win easily), all indicators show its a competitive election that will be fought and won in the middle.

It might not be. Kamala is pretty much the most center candidate in a very long time. Trump might know that he's lost the battle for the center and undecideds.

So instead he's fighting from the extremes. He'll get every far right, but he's also going for far left, anti-vax, tankie type people. That's why he's working with RFK, and maybe is trying to get with Stein too. Imagine if he could get former Bernie people (disgruntled leftists who want to stick it to the man). He would dominate, even if Kamala gets every center-ish person in the country. (He did actually get a ton of former Bernies in 2016.)

It's not actually working at all if that's what he's going for, but it's at least logical.

foolm0r0n posted...

Republicans ran on the latter for many decades (until Bush destroyed it) and it was a viable choice that made things less simple. Now we see that the anti-bigots are clearly the anti-war ones too, so it's super simple.

Did you mean Nixon?

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/e/ec5ba867.png