I don't disagree with you, being able to reach people is important, I'm just saying that it's impossible to compete with someone who is selling something nasty that people are hungry for. Junk food for the mind is popular because that's what our current individualist/consumerist society makes people crave/susceptible to liking. To further the analogy: you can't force feed healthy food to people, even if it's easily accessible, they have to be the ones who come to the realization that they would prefer it and look for it. The solution is not to compromise on the healthfulness of the food so we can compete with the Jordan Petersons of the world. What is needed is to abandon the very idea that everything is ruled by markets and competition and just share with each other without financial motivations. Because we're curious and we want to understand and improve things.
I thought I was pretty clear that it was the capitalists who are doing the exploiting, in any meaningful sense of the word. They are the ones who are in control of the global misinformation channels and also the ones who rise to popularity through opportunism like JBP did. "Gaining an edge" is for capitalists concerned with growth, it's not for people at the bottom who are concerned with survival and basic moral duties, like with your draft example. It comes down to this simple concept that you don't seem to grasp yet: bodily and moral integrity does not need justification, it's a biological imperative that we all share, while being in a position of dominance over others always requires a justification because it's not intrinsically needed for social living and it's not shared.
And of course, I have no doubt that most if not all exploiters think that they are good people, or at least better than average. They do have to sleep at night after all. Their behavior has been normalized by their culture so why wouldn't they? Even the people who are fully conscious that they are spreading misinformation/propaganda almost always do it because they think the means justify the end (and the end is good). I've also made it clear that while you may have the impression that most people are looking to gain advantages over others under all circumstances, it is in fact not the case globally. And where it is the case, it isn't a trait that's fixed about human nature, it's very much the product of this particular environment (and a particular brain, in the case of psychopathy). No one's born a capitalist and plenty of societies existed without them.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Last edit: 24/05/2018 13:46
1
Santafairy Korea (South). May 24 2018 14:29. Posts 2225
On May 24 2018 03:44 Loco wrote:
With that said, there have been multiple instances of him being challenged lately. Not quite at the stage where he faces his real adversaries, but this is still an improvement.
why did the real adversaries not show up to the munk debate? instead he got called old and white by a baptist preacher
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
On May 22 2018 00:40 Baalim wrote:
1 - I said its the best possible system for the flawed people that live in it, not that its the best possible way these people can be.
2 - I said it multiple times, I dont think that beheavior is fixed, stop putting words in my mouth, you are making an habit out of that.
3 - my argument isnt "if you knew better you wouldnt comlain", my argument is if you knew better you wouldnt make cliché marxist arguments like the exploitation comes from top to bottom and you would realize the exploitation comes from bottom up and all sides
please keep telling me about canadian poverty and how bad my tongue-in-cheek hollywood quotes aren't deep
The flawed people are not born flawed -- at least not to the degree that you think they are in order to posit capitalism as the best system. You point to their behavior under capitalism as an indictment of their nature, rather than their nature under capitalism. Under capitalism they are not given the chance to be less flawed since they are deprived of the environment necessary to be able to develop their full humanity. They are born to serve the economic interests of the powerful or starve. That is the extent of our freedom under this system. It's the best system for the few who do not care about others or the future, that's evident to anyone who doesn't have blinders on.
You were quoting me responding to the fixed human nature claim made by Spitfiree. It's not putting words into your mouth to re-introduce the context from my words which you quoted. And even if you don't believe it is fixed you still behave and indirectly argue as if it was, so you paying lip service to it is irrelevant.
The people at the bottom are not responsible for the hierarchy, they aren't voluntarily signing up to be at the bottom, so it makes no sense to call them exploiters whenever they make a self-interested decision, unless you believe they would act the same given that they have their basic needs met, and that the hierarchy is merit based. Your argument boils down to saying that everyone needs to exploit everyone under capitalism, which is a truism, not a refutation of anti-capitalist arguments.
The only tongue-and-cheek part of it is the way you presented the joker, it's not the substance of the quote, which you 100% stand behind and believe to be deep. Except it's once again not an indictment of human beings, but of human beings under neoliberal capitalism. The quote doesn't make a broader claim than that.
Yes we are born flawed it has been a constant in our species and almost all animals since we crawled out of the slime and neoliberal capitalism has nothing to do with it lol, you believe this is a trait developed in the last few decades? lol
They exploit whatever they can from the system, and it has nothing to do with "basic needs met", you idea of the economy is some kind of feudal charicature, at least you can see why Marx would make such a mistake in the way the industrial revolution happened, but for people to still have such a wrong concept is crazy, and I'm not saying everyone needs to exploit everyone in capitalism, I'm saying is a system that works under the assumption that humans seek self-interest.
I do not believe that saying people would eat eachother to be deep, I think its obvious no idea how that isn't for people like you, as I theorized earlier perhaps its your sheltered life and made up problems with your neo-emo circle
Yes, I suppose you would make the same brilliant critique towards Chomsky. He was just a bored emo who had to rebel against something. There are no significant enough problems with capitalism so he just had to go and make up a bunch of them. He never knew what it was like to drink unclean water so who he is to complain about shit anyway? When he marched to protest against the Vietnam War, it was just virtue signaling to get laid, every biologist (ahem, evolutionary psychologist) knows it. Muhammad Ali also opposed the war and refused to go. He was sentenced to 5 years in prison for draft evasion and he was stripped of his title and banned from professional boxing for more than three years. Served him right for being a fucking selfish, unpatriotic exploiter of the system, right?
All anarchists/socialists/communists must be naive and delusional people who have never opened a biology book, we all know about the trait, that trait that makes human beings selfish exploiters no matter whether they are in an environment of scarcity and competition or not. There must be such a trait, I couldn't possibly be ignorant enough to have opposed them for all my life uncritically!
No one has ever denied that humans seek self-interest. As I've repeated multiple times and asked you, the question is to what extent are we self-regarding and how much of that is inborn and to what extent it changes in different environments. I've even provided you with research over a week ago that seeks to answer this question and it's been ignored completely. So we're back to square one: you assert things and I should be taking them on faith, because you are an authority on these matters. You don't need to provide evidence and you are justified in ignoring the evidence I present because it doesn't fit with your neoliberal dogma, which is really just a radical defense of the status quo. Except now it comes with the petty insults added.
Now you think im a dogmatic neoliberal when I'm an anarchocapitalist, your arguments are getting progressivly worse to the point is getting hard to reply to them, and btw the stuff you have shared about the source and malleability of human traits were not ignored, it is you the one who dogmatically dismisses anything that goes against your world view not me, you are projecting your flaws.
I'm curious, I've said many times that it doesnt matter if humans are genetically self centered or not, but you think its fundamental, so if some research found a "selfish gene" (no reference to dawkins lol) that showed a strong natural drive for selfishness kind of like the one we have for sex, would you swap your anarcho communist views to neoliberalism or something?
No one calls themselves a neoliberal. It just denotes a hard belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism. I have no clue why you think calling yourself an anarcho-capitalist adds something meaningful to what is in fact the same Austerian economics. I haven't landed on anarcho-communism as a political ideology, I don't know why you keep labeling me as such. My views are currently aligned with libertarian socialism/anarcho-syndicalism/veganarchism.
You're asking me an hypothetical question which doesn't even make sense to ask when taking into account the evolution of views (and my deep skepticism about everything, which amazingly hasn't led you to call me a postmodernist). It's clear that you don't know me at all. The inverse happened: I believed in a Darwinistic, "selfish gene" model for many years. I abandoned the view because I couldn't find support for it and I found compelling evidence to the contrary. It was reading on the biology first (Margulis, Laborit, Maturana) that opened me up to the possibility and necessity of socialism/anarchism, not the opposite.
My mind has never worked to prove itself things that it wished were true, it has always sought challenges and the destruction of illusions, hence why I have led a life so unlike most people and filled with anxiety, depression and world-weariness. So yes, if I somehow found out that the empirical evidence for my views was somehow wrong, as I have found out multiple times in the past, I would change my mind again.... duh. And yes, it would influence my politics and probably make me apolitical again. "As strong as sex" is a good criterion... if you do find the capitalist gene, be sure to let me know. I don't know how this couldn't be fundamental to you... I wouldn't dare to believe in the possibility of a better world if everyone needed the self-denial and concentration of a Zen master to make it happen.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
So the authoritarian/liberal political axis doesnt count today?
So I'm not an anacho capitalist, I'm a neoliberal and my political views align with Obama, Bush, Clinton et al... thanks for letting me know
So since you lean left then you are an authoritarian communist, you want a strong state that redistributes wealth like Mao Jedong, Lennin, Castro et al.
I belive in a better world, but one that will happen gradually and so slowly that its impercetible to our brief and impatient lives, I foudn this not only to be true but It brought tranquility and peace of mind to my life in a time that thirst for change and to corrects all the wrongs in the world was burning too hot in me as I suppose happens to a lot of young people and as it happens to you.
I don't understand your first question or what it refers to in relationship to what I said. You'll have to elaborate.
I was pointing out that your views are rooted in a neoliberal dogma. I've even specified exactly what I meant by neoliberalism to avoid further confusion: a strong belief in free market economic liberalism. Objectivism and Right-Libertarianism also share this dogma, that doesn't mean that they all collapse into the exact same ideology. They are simply ideologies that have sprung from the same schools of thought in economics in the neoliberal era. I've never implied that your broad political views align with every politician who also embraced neoliberal policies.
I have also often made the claim that secular humanism is rooted in Christian dogma, following the ideas of Cioran and John N. Gray. Does that mean that I would be saying that they are the exact same thing? Is that too nuanced of a discussion to be having here? It shouldn't be. It's not difficult to understand that ideologies don't originate in a vacuum.
Why are you under the impression that I'm not advocating for gradual change? What have I said that revealed juvenile impatience? I've stated that I don't have faith in a communist revolution and that the road towards a better world is to be built with small scale efforts and associations that would thrive and eventually render the current authoritarian system obsolete. Protests are useful insofar as they help people organize, solidarize, build bonds and come across ideas that they didn't know about.
The problem is, it's easy to see we don't have that much time once we take to heart the warnings of nuclear scientists and climate scientists. There is also the threat of Superintelligence which is why we have Elon Musk trying to colonize Mars as soon as possible. We are en route towards global catastrophe and it's not slowing down, it's only speeding up. The world is run by right-wingers who are science deniers but you think the biggest threats are campus activists and feminists. Peace of mind is a luxury that is not afforded to most people under the current socio-economic circumstances.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On May 25 2018 06:46 Loco wrote:
I don't understand your first question or what it refers to in relationship to what I said. You'll have to elaborate.
I was pointing out that your views are rooted in a neoliberal dogma. I've even specified exactly what I meant by neoliberalism to avoid further confusion: a strong belief in free market economic liberalism. Objectivism and Right-Libertarianism also share this dogma, that doesn't mean that they all collapse into the exact same ideology. They are simply ideologies that have sprung from the same schools of thought in economics in the neoliberal era. I've never implied that your broad political views align with every politician who also embraced neoliberal policies.
I have also often made the claim that secular humanism is rooted in Christian dogma, following the ideas of Cioran and John N. Gray. Does that mean that I would be saying that they are the exact same thing? Is that too nuanced of a discussion to be having here? It shouldn't be. It's not difficult to understand that ideologies don't originate in a vacuum.
Why are you under the impression that I'm not advocating for gradual change? What have I said that revealed juvenile impatience? I've stated that I don't have faith in a communist revolution and that the road towards a better world is to be built with small scale efforts and associations that would thrive and eventually render the current authoritarian system obsolete. Protests are useful insofar as they help people organize, solidarize, build bonds and come across ideas that they didn't know about.
The problem is, it's easy to see we don't have that much time once we take to heart the warnings of nuclear scientists and climate scientists. There is also the threat of Superintelligence which is why we have Elon Musk trying to colonize Mars as soon as possible. We are en route towards global catastrophe and it's not slowing down, it's only speeding up. The world is run by right-wingers who are science deniers but you think the biggest threats are campus activists and feminists.
playing dictionary once again... neoliberalism isnt a synonym for free market for fucks sake.
I think your apocalyptic fears are silly to say the least.
Who are these right-wing science deniers who run the world, Trump runs the world? is Europe right wing now? please expand on this lol.
Peace of mind is a luxury that is not afforded to most people under the current socio-economic circumstances.
Theres suffering in this world? oh thanks for letting me know, I was not aware.
I'm also curious how do you reconcile playing poker for a living with your political views? I cant think of many activities more predatory capitalistic than poker, a zero-sum game meritocracy thats like the anthithesis of your beliefs, so what kind mental gymnastics you do to justify it or do you think of yourself as a former evil now reformed man?
Doesn't Jeff Bezos also has pretty much an open war with Trump?
Yes powerful people have political ideologies shocker... none of them individually nor collectively run the world, or are we going full Rothschild & Bohemian groves now?
The right is winning the climate change debate right now in the USA. Which pretty much means anywhere that was globalized in the USA's vision are climate change deniers too. Do you know how stupid and arrogant it is to be a climate change denier in 2018? Well, not stupid and arrogant if your profit and power depends on it.
Rupert Murdoch takes it to the next level by denying climate change in all his media outlets yet buying up land that will be prime real estate in the future.
When I said cabal I meant it. These guys literally have strategy sessions on how they are going to manipulate and exploit anything for the increase in their profits and power. George Soros may have his own cabal as well. I don't really know. Looking into it he has donated relatively little to democrats through the years. Maybe he has donated more not publicly. I don't know. After skimming his Wikipedia page it looks like he has done a lot of good for the world. Maybe there are profit, power, prestige motivations there. Maybe not. It's more than can be said for the Koch brothers. I don't really care what Fox News or Breitbart has to say about him just as I wouldn't care what CNN or MSNBC has to say about the Koch brothers.
I realize there are also people who stand to gain a lot from climate change. I know for a fact Al Gore was all-in a long time ago on climate change. He is bound to make a fortune off of it but there are also real, serious repercussions coming our way.
On May 25 2018 21:56 RiKD wrote:
anywhere that was globalized in the USA's vision are climate change deniers too
What in the fuck does that even mean?
The US has a climage-change-denying president, he has no control over the house nor support from even his own party, so far he has pulled out from a meaningless agreement.
Meanwhile the supposedly pro-science left leaning leader of Geramny, Angela Merkel stopped all nuclear energy research and funding after the Fukushima event, because naturally that was going to be a popular opinion despide the fact that the cleanest and more logical option as a transitional energy source is nuclear power. Angela Merkel has been far more damaging for the environment than Trump has by far.
This is why protesting like Loco likes is retarded, going to the streets chanting how you want more fucking windmills or solar panels is idiotic, do you want to help? Then go and study a few years and help build and run thorium reactors, go clean your room before you try to change the world.
A right-wing reporter (Tommy Robbinson) was arrested, tried, found guilty and senteced to 13 months in jail in less than 12hours because he was livestreaming outside of the courthouse where a grooming, gang-rape gang were in trial.
The judge also forbid any news reporting on this incident.
Yeah loco, the world is run by righwingers and I'm concerned about feminist schoolgirls.
On May 25 2018 21:56 RiKD wrote:
anywhere that was globalized in the USA's vision are climate change deniers too
What in the fuck does that even mean?
The US has a climage-change-denying president, he has no control over the house nor support from even his own party, so far he has pulled out from a meaningless agreement.
Meanwhile the supposedly pro-science left leaning leader of Geramny, Angela Merkel stopped all nuclear energy research and funding after the Fukushima event, because naturally that was going to be a popular opinion despide the fact that the cleanest and more logical option as a transitional energy source is nuclear power. Angela Merkel has been far more damaging for the environment than Trump has by far.
This is why protesting like Loco likes is retarded, going to the streets chanting how you want more fucking windmills or solar panels is idiotic, do you want to help? Then go and study a few years and help build and run thorium reactors, go clean your room before you try to change the world.
You think Guatemala can do anything about the U.S. corporations there? Actually, we can make the conversation closer to home. You think Mexico can do anything about the U.S. corporations there?
It's not Trump that is damaging. Well, it is partially but the damage is caused by the power the corporations have. If someone is a coal exec. for example they are fucked but they are still going to grab as much cash as they can. They have a warchest of bilIions to keep the profits and power flowing for hopefully the remainder of their life. The Koch brothers are in this category. I was looking up Arcelormittal which is a company I am most familiar with. They are big on bragging about their sustainability changes but the only reason they are so compliant is that they know it is inevitable and will only help their profitability and power in the future. They only change just as much to comply and then run big marketing campaigns about how great they are.
I don't like Merkle. Actually, I don't know that much about her to be honest but I think you have brought up the nuclear power thing before which caused me to have a discussion with my brother about it. He has a PhD in nuclear physics and concluded that in his scientific opinion the rewards outweigh the risks. So, then I reduced Merkle to that one position and haven't like her since.
Oh, come on. How cool would a million man march be for the reduction of class inequality? A march against profit over people? Connection and collaboration are very powerful. With that said I've never been to a protest. I've barely even voted. I wish I could say I've never voted but I voted for Barack Obama in 2008 when I was younger and more stupid.
There was a story about protests in Berlin over rent increases in the book ... shit, I can't even remember the book and I can't find any articles detailing it. Cliff notes would be it brought the whole community together and they eventually got what they wanted. Surely protest can be a tool for positive change.
I meant the most powerful country in the world, though it's clear that the influence and repercussions of US neoliberalism has spread throughout most of the world. On environmental matters, the rest of the Global North is not doing enough either, but they are doing something.
Trump is not getting support from his party? Can you name even a single Republican Party member who has acknowledged that climate change is real and something should be done about it? Myron Ebell is a proud climate change denier and he was put in charge of the EPA transition. Scott Pruitt has been made head of the EPA and he doesn't understand basic climate science. Today we've learned that the EPA has spent $3.5M for his own personal security. Trump's top adviser on energy is the billionaire oil executive Harold Hamm who works to dismantle regulations and give tax cuts for the industry (the wealthy and corporate sector generally), more fossil fuel production, and he lifted Obama's temporary block on the Dakota Access pipeline. Trump’s NASA nominee Jim Bridenstine is a climate denier who wants to end the agency’s climate research. Should I go on? Ok, here's something more, released today as well:
"Newly released emails show senior Environmental Protection Agency officials working closely with a conservative group that dismisses climate change to rally like-minded people for public hearings on science and global warming, counter negative news coverage and tout Administrator Scott Pruitt’s stewardship of the agency." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/emails-show-collaboration-among-epa-climate-change-deniers/2018/05/25/16c056d4-605e-11e8-b656-236c6214ef01_story.html?utm_term=.d968340899cd)
Angela Merkel is not "left leaning". The CDU is a center-right party. Though her party isn't entirely up to blame, the junior partner in the current grand coalition government, the SPD, has also resisted calls for a deadline to give up cheap, carbon-heavy coal. This shouldn't surprise anyone, politics serves corporate interests, and regulations do not serve corporations. Blaming individual politicians instead of the inherent flaws in neoliberal capitalism is very misguided. If we want to play the pointless rank-ordering game, then Merkel seems to be the most destructive currently, but Trump is definitely set to cause more damage.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
what US corporations here? wtf are you talking about?
We had a million man march in Mexico city against violence all dressed in white, guess what happened? nothing.
If you want people over profit and class equailty then live a frugal life and donate the rest instead of bitching to the government that they should take it from others by force.
I'm also curious how do you reconcile playing poker for a living with your political views? I cant think of many activities more predatory capitalistic than poker, a zero-sum game meritocracy thats like the anthithesis of your beliefs, so what kind mental gymnastics you do to justify it or do you think of yourself as a former evil now reformed man?
I don't play poker for a living. I haven't done so since 2010. And even when I did, and you could ask Fayth to confirm this, I didn't do any "mental gymnastics," I found it very depressing. I played poker because I had no other options to allow me to earn enough money to escape a bad living situation. I was a product of my environment and quite uneducated, no need to place a strong value judgment on it.
I think your apocalyptic fears are silly to say the least.
Or I'm simply aware of things that you won't let yourself care about because you value your peace of mind more. The scientists are certainly not in agreement with you at the moment. Two minutes to midnight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On May 26 2018 00:37 Loco wrote:
I meant the most powerful country in the world, though it's clear that the influence and repercussions of US neoliberalism has spread throughout most of the world. On environmental matters, the rest of the Global North is not doing enough either, but they are doing something.
Trump is not getting support from his party? Can you name even a single Republican Party member who has acknowledged that climate change is real and something should be done about it? Myron Ebell is a proud climate change denier and he was put in charge of the EPA transition. Scott Pruitt has been made head of the EPA and he doesn't understand basic climate science. Today we've learned that the EPA has spent $3.5M for his own personal security. Trump's top adviser on energy is the billionaire oil executive Harold Hamm who works to dismantle regulations and give tax cuts for the industry (the wealthy and corporate sector generally), more fossil fuel production, and he lifted Obama's temporary block on the Dakota Access pipeline. Trump’s NASA nominee Jim Bridenstine is a climate denier who wants to end the agency’s climate research. Should I go on? Ok, here's something more, released today as well:
"Newly released emails show senior Environmental Protection Agency officials working closely with a conservative group that dismisses climate change to rally like-minded people for public hearings on science and global warming, counter negative news coverage and tout Administrator Scott Pruitt’s stewardship of the agency." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/emails-show-collaboration-among-epa-climate-change-deniers/2018/05/25/16c056d4-605e-11e8-b656-236c6214ef01_story.html?utm_term=.d968340899cd)
Angela Merkel is not "left leaning". The CDU is a center-right party. Though her party isn't entirely up to blame, the junior partner in the current grand coalition government, the SPD, has also resisted calls for a deadline to give up cheap, carbon-heavy coal. This shouldn't surprise anyone, politics serves corporate interests, and regulations do not serve corporations. Blaming individual politicians instead of the inherent flaws in neoliberal capitalism is very misguided. If we want to play the pointless rank-ordering game, then Merkel seems to be the most destructive currently, but Trump is definitely set to cause more damage.
Republicans have always been against carbon-tax/regulation, that doesnt mean they support Trump, the party was fractured by McCain and I cant think of any president with less support in the senate and the house than Trump, democrat or republican.
Well I guess if you consider Merkel right leaning then I can see why you believe the world is controlled by right wing people.
I believe the the whole "political compass" is absurd not only we superimpose the right/left wing labels for economic and societal beliefs which should have little correlation but also it fails to quantify some things like, what if you are anti-gun but anti-abortoin, are you left or right or does that make you a centrist? I suppose many people can be described with right/left since groupthink is a strong phenomenon in people but those tags are simply lacking in complexity to describe free-thinking people.
"Several years ago, Jordan Peterson told me he wanted to buy a church. This was long before he became known as “the most influential public intellectual in the Western world,” as he was described in the pages of the New York Times a few months ago. It was before he was fancied to be a truth-telling sage who inspired legions, and the author of one of the bestselling books in the world this year. He was just my colleague and friend.
I assumed that it was for a new home — there was a trend in Toronto of converting religious spaces, vacant because of their dwindling congregations, into stylish lofts — but he corrected me. He wanted to establish a church, he said, in which he would deliver sermons every Sunday."
This part is scary, especially considering that we are at two minutes to midnight, in part thanks to the distracting influence of misguided people like him:
Shortly after Jordan’s rise to notoriety back in 2016, I emailed him to express my upset with his dishonesty and lack of intellectual and social integrity. He called in a conciliatory voice the next morning. I was reiterating my disappointment and upset when he interrupted me, saying more or less the following:
“You don’t understand. I am willing to lose everything, my home, my job etc., because I believe in this.” And then he said, with the intensity he is now famous for, “Bernie. Tammy had a dream, and sometimes her dreams are prophetic. She dreamed that it was five minutes to midnight.”
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On May 26 2018 00:37 Loco wrote:
I meant the most powerful country in the world, though it's clear that the influence and repercussions of US neoliberalism has spread throughout most of the world. On environmental matters, the rest of the Global North is not doing enough either, but they are doing something.
Trump is not getting support from his party? Can you name even a single Republican Party member who has acknowledged that climate change is real and something should be done about it? Myron Ebell is a proud climate change denier and he was put in charge of the EPA transition. Scott Pruitt has been made head of the EPA and he doesn't understand basic climate science. Today we've learned that the EPA has spent $3.5M for his own personal security. Trump's top adviser on energy is the billionaire oil executive Harold Hamm who works to dismantle regulations and give tax cuts for the industry (the wealthy and corporate sector generally), more fossil fuel production, and he lifted Obama's temporary block on the Dakota Access pipeline. Trump’s NASA nominee Jim Bridenstine is a climate denier who wants to end the agency’s climate research. Should I go on? Ok, here's something more, released today as well:
"Newly released emails show senior Environmental Protection Agency officials working closely with a conservative group that dismisses climate change to rally like-minded people for public hearings on science and global warming, counter negative news coverage and tout Administrator Scott Pruitt’s stewardship of the agency." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/emails-show-collaboration-among-epa-climate-change-deniers/2018/05/25/16c056d4-605e-11e8-b656-236c6214ef01_story.html?utm_term=.d968340899cd)
Angela Merkel is not "left leaning". The CDU is a center-right party. Though her party isn't entirely up to blame, the junior partner in the current grand coalition government, the SPD, has also resisted calls for a deadline to give up cheap, carbon-heavy coal. This shouldn't surprise anyone, politics serves corporate interests, and regulations do not serve corporations. Blaming individual politicians instead of the inherent flaws in neoliberal capitalism is very misguided. If we want to play the pointless rank-ordering game, then Merkel seems to be the most destructive currently, but Trump is definitely set to cause more damage.
Republicans have always been against carbon-tax/regulation, that doesnt mean they support Trump, the party was fractured by McCain and I cant think of any president with less support in the senate and the house than Trump, democrat or republican.
Well I guess if you consider Merkel right leaning then I can see why you believe the world is controlled by right wing people.
I believe the the whole "political compass" is absurd not only we superimpose the right/left wing labels for economic and societal beliefs which should have little correlation but also it fails to quantify some things like, what if you are anti-gun but anti-abortoin, are you left or right or does that make you a centrist? I suppose many people can be described with right/left since groupthink is a strong phenomenon in people but those tags are simply lacking in complexity to describe free-thinking people.
His overall support is irrelevant, we were talking of his party, leading the most powerful country in the world being science deniers. And they are.
I don't just "think" that she's right leaning. She's a "liberal conservative", i.e. center right, which in the US just means you're a conservative. The word liberal no longer means left-leaning. It's like when Jordan Peterson calls himself a classical liberal, you have to be silly to take that at face value and assume it means he's sympathetic to the left.
Excluding to some degree the Nordic countries where there is a high percentage of workers belonging to labour unions, in the big so-called democratic countries, I don't see the left having power. I see the illusion of choice between a left and a right, while it is effectively the corporate right and the theological right that you're choosing from. To answer your question, if most of your socio-economic views don't align with either the left or the right, yes, that makes you a centrist. I think where the left/right distinction fails is when individuals are treated as being part of two monoliths. There's never been "a left" and "a right". There's a lot of space for disagreement between leftists and though maybe it's more limited, for right wingers as well.
I couldn't possibly disagree more, fiscal issues and social issues are fundamentally interlinked. The popular libertarian slogan of being "socially liberal but fiscally conservative" is a joke, no such thing can exist. A picture is worth a thousand words.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
I couldn't possibly disagree more, fiscal issues and social issues are fundamentally interlinked. The popular libertarian slogan of being "socially liberal but fiscally conservative" is a joke, no such thing can exist
So if you are fiscally conservative you must also hold traditional conservative ideals like nationalism, pro-life, anti gay marriage etc?
United States. May 25 2018 20:08. Posts 8534
