General US Politics

[Phoenix Wright]

he drained the swamp so that he could have a nice septic tank.

[Stephen the Great]

Errrr... I seem to have come in at a particularly (ahem) intense part of the discussion.

Forgive my adding to your disagreements, but I'd like to know:

• For those of you that are not socialist/social democratic, what problems do you have with socialism or social democracy?
• For those of you that are not capitalist, what problems do you see in the capitalist system?
• "Seven paradoxes of the socialist state:
  Nobody works, but the plan is always fulfilled. The plan is fulfilled, but the shelves in the stores are empty. The shelves are empty, but nobody starves; nobody starves, but everybody is unhappy; everybody is unhappy, but nobody complains; nobody complains, but the jails are full."
  Agree or disagree?

(If you've already answered, please refer me to your old quotes rather than restating them.)

Edited November 6, 2017 by Sigismund of Luxemburg

[Lushen]

22 minutes ago, Sigismund of Luxemburg said:

• For those of you that are not socialist/social democratic, what problems do you have with socialism or social democracy?

It could be debated on a logical or a moral level.  I think moral is more relevant because most people acknowledge that full blown socialism would fail and exists only in utopian society.

Social Democracies, per wikipedia definition, "supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice . . ."   I've said it before - the only existing racist legislature in America is Affirmative Action.  Combating racism with more racism just doubles the level of bigotry in America.  Social Democrats, quite literally, embrace racism - so long as the racism is against the majority in order to counter the racism that already exists.  Think I'm being extreme?  Again, the only racist legislature in America comes from social democrat philosophy - Affirmative Action.  

There's also no moral justification for redistribution of wealth.  It is quite literally theft.  And this applies to medicaid for all as well (unless it's free for rich people too).  People say it is not because the rich don't need it and the poor do, but why should that matter?  It is also just stupid rationale because it assumes that as a poor person in America you live a terrible life and deserve all kinds of benefits while people poorer than you (in Africa) can go screw themselves.  It's a false moral justification.

From a logic perspective, they also openly believe in long-term Keynsian economics.  Now, plenty of Republicans do the same thing which is why I identify more as a conservative than a Republican.  But Keynesian economics and trickle down economics are both equally horrible.  Especially when we're doing great economically.

  

[Stephen the Great]

22 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Social Democracies, per wikipedia definition, "supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice . . ."   I've said it before - the only existing racist legislature in America is Affirmative Action.  Combating racism with more racism just doubles the level of bigotry in America.  Social Democrats, quite literally, embrace racism - so long as the racism is against the majority in order to counter the racism that already exists.  Think I'm being extreme?  Again, the only racist legislature in America comes from social democrat philosophy - Affirmative Action.  

1

Interesting. I've heard that argument made before and I do see some merit to it. But what then is the cure for the racism problem in America, if there is any?

Furthermore, would you agree with the idea - once said to me by a teacher - that Democrats and liberals in the West are suppressing freedom in the name of freedom with measures such as political correctness?

Edited November 6, 2017 by Sigismund of Luxemburg

[Lushen]

39 minutes ago, Sigismund of Luxemburg said:

Interesting. I've heard that argument made before and I do see some merit to it. But what then is the cure for the racism problem in America, if there is any?

Furthermore, would you agree with the idea - once said to me by a teacher - that Democrats and liberals in the West are suppressing freedom in the name of freedom with measures such as political correctness?

Curing racism would require one to cure racists.  This is not something legislature can fix, it's something society needs to fix.  I am fine with anti-racist activists as long as they don't move into the domain of legislation.

Not quite.  I think there are some liberals that would go so far as to promote legislation requiring political correctness, but they are a large minority.   Those that do, however, directly contradict the first amendment.  The only time "Free Speech" is not "Free Speech" is when it promotes or encourages violence.  If it does not, it is protected by the first amendment  (with some exception there's obviously time/place restrictions as well).  But again, I think most people who want to outlaw what they consider "hate speech" are the very far left and doesn't represent most democrats or liberals.

I will say that Political Correctness in America was always a mess.  I remember on another forum like 7 years ago the moderators required everyone to say "homosexual" instead of "gay" because they thought it would be more appropriate.  Eventually, some gay guy started a thread explaining that he actually found "homosexual" more offensive than "gay" and would prefer to be called "gay".  Now we see this is the standard, but it wasn't always - "gay" used to be considered by some as the insulting term.  We also saw this with Blacks in the US when people were saying they should be called "African Americans".  But, in the words of Morgan Freeman, ~"I'm not an Africian American, I'm just an American".  The reason I don't give a shit about political correctness is because this kind of crap happens all the time and I, to this day, don't know what I'm "supposed" to say.  It's like keeping up with fashion.

Edited November 6, 2017 by Lushen

[Time the Crestfallen]

34 minutes ago, Sigismund of Luxemburg said:

that Democrats and liberals in the West are suppressing freedom in the name of freedom with measures such as political correctness?

Political Correctness isn't a measure, it's a concept. If you want to talk about the pros and cons that arise from embracing political correctness, fine, but anyone who argues that political correctness is 'suppressing freedom' obviously has no idea what it actually is.

[Res]

Political correctedness is politeness, respect. It's actually not hard to modify one's language. And yes, it's easy to screw up - but never known anyone to mind if one just apologizes and moves on.

 

[Stephen the Great]

41 minutes ago, Archer of Red said:

Political Correctness isn't a measure, it's a concept. If you want to talk about the pros and cons that arise from embracing political correctness, fine, but anyone who argues that political correctness is 'suppressing freedom' obviously has no idea what it actually is.

 

Please do note, then, that this was something somebody else told me. 

@Res @Archer of Red : What, then, do you think are the pros and cons of political correctness?

[eclipse]

On 11/2/2017 at 9:09 AM, Lushen said:

I'm not sure what kind of a source you people are expecting.  

Whatever you're reading/listening to that supports your mindset.  It's clear that your logic is very different from the people who respond to you.  Thus, you're probably getting your information from a completely different source than them.

[Tryhard]

7 hours ago, Lushen said:

Curing racism would require one to cure racists.  This is not something legislature can fix, it's something society needs to fix.  I am fine with anti-racist activists as long as they don't move into the domain of legislation.

Not quite.  I think there are some liberals that would go so far as to promote legislation requiring political correctness, but they are a large minority.   Those that do, however, directly contradict the first amendment.  The only time "Free Speech" is not "Free Speech" is when it promotes or encourages violence.  If it does not, it is protected by the first amendment  (with some exception there's obviously time/place restrictions as well).  But again, I think most people who want to outlaw what they consider "hate speech" are the very far left and doesn't represent most democrats or liberals.

I will say that Political Correctness in America was always a mess.  I remember on another forum like 7 years ago the moderators required everyone to say "homosexual" instead of "gay" because they thought it would be more appropriate.  Eventually, some gay guy started a thread explaining that he actually found "homosexual" more offensive than "gay" and would prefer to be called "gay".  Now we see this is the standard, but it wasn't always - "gay" used to be considered by some as the insulting term.  We also saw this with Blacks in the US when people were saying they should be called "African Americans".  But, in the words of Morgan Freeman, ~"I'm not an Africian American, I'm just an American".  The reason I don't give a shit about political correctness is because this kind of crap happens all the time and I, to this day, don't know what I'm "supposed" to say.  It's like keeping up with fashion.

You talk about free speech as if there's a huge amount of people in the US being arrested by the government, which is what it's referring to. A private forum has the right to conduct themselves in any way they choose as long as it is not breaking any laws. That's part of the individualism that conservatives claim to uphold, and while it might be unhelpful, what would you do other than voice your disagreement of it (which you are absolutely able to do without any fear of federal reprisal)

Is it an often clumsy way of negotiating language? Sure. Is it better than what we had before, in which slurs were allowed to hang in the public discourse? Perhaps. I've got my own problems with the concept, in that while people holding bigoted views now understand they are unpopular and might seek to cloak them, that doesn't cure them of their opinions, it simply hides them.

Let's remember too though, that conservatives and specifically Republicans were having their own spats at rap and rock music, profanity and the like not too long ago in the 90's and 2000's. They quite often believe in family values so the older conservatives aren't exactly opposed to political correctness (in the way they envision it to be) themselves.

And of course, there is always the people that don't understand what political correctness even is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/01/17/police-conn-politician-said-he-no-longer-has-to-be-politically-correct-pinches-womans-groin/?utm_term=.b0f244bab875

Edited November 6, 2017 by Tryhard

[Time the Crestfallen]

7 hours ago, Sigismund of Luxemburg said:

@Res @Archer of Red : What, then, do you think are the pros and cons of political correctness?

Pros and cons was a bit of an ill-fitting statement really, because I personally don't think there is a con to political correctness. Of course, you get people who take the concept entirely too far as always, but that's the kind of discussion that needs to be happening i.e. what is and is not acceptable for a person to say or do. Sure, people will do stupid shit in the name of political correctness, but the same could be said for all such things. Fact is, there's nothing wrong with political correctness and anybody who claims that it 'ruins freedom' or other such things is either a) massively overstating what political correctness is and what results from discussion surrounding it or b) massively understating the nature of the latest 'political correctness gone mad' controversy.

[Lushen]

7 hours ago, Tryhard said:

You talk about free speech as if there's a huge amount of people in the US being arrested by the government, which is what it's referring to. A private forum has the right to conduct themselves in any way they choose as long as it is not breaking any laws. That's part of the individualism that conservatives claim to uphold, and while it might be unhelpful, what would you do other than voice your disagreement of it (which you are absolutely able to do without any fear of federal reprisal)

Right, I was actually defending most liberals and democrats - I said that people who want legislation that calls for arrests against free speech are the vast minority.  

They still exist, however.  You just need to look in college campuses where people are not allowed to speak because of protesters.  Disrupting free speech is a violation of free speech, it is not more free speech.  Then school administrations are forced to pay large amounts of money for the security of these speakers and insist that taxes or the speaker should pay for it instead despite the fact that it's usually their staff that insight the protests.  Then you have CA holding hearings to discuss how they can combat hate speech and they bring in only left-leaning speakers to discuss the matter.  

 

On another topic, I don't want to get into gun control because we discuss that all the time.  However, let me explain why Devin Kelley and Stephen Paddock are NOT terrorists, because some people are insisting that all mass shootings are terrorist attacks and conservatives just don't label white people as terrorists.  The definition of terrorism requires the suspect to be motivated politically, religiously, or otherwise and his actions are to promote these agendas by spreading fear.  If you don't have motive, it cannot be terrorism.  Terrorism is not a synonym for mass-killing.  Trump and conservatives are not saying "Domestic Terrorist" because terrorist has a definition.  When someone shouts Allahu Akbar when they commit mass murder, it is terrorism because it is religiously motivated and promotes a religious agenda.  When Stephen Paddock (and what we know so far of Devin Kelley) commits mass murder, it's just mass murder.  It has nothing to do with Islamophobia.  Even a political/religious motive is not enough to call it domestic terror, it has to be clear that they committed the act to promote a political/religious agenda which is different from being religiously/politically motivated.

Edited November 6, 2017 by Lushen

[Tryhard]

38 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Right, I was actually defending most liberals and democrats - I said that people who want legislation that calls for arrests against free speech are the vast minority.  

They still exist, however.  You just need to look in college campuses where people are not allowed to speak because of protesters.  Disrupting free speech is a violation of free speech, it is not more free speech.  Then school administrations are forced to pay large amounts of money for the security of these speakers and insist that taxes or the speaker should pay for it instead despite the fact that it's usually their staff that insight the protests.  Then you have CA holding hearings to discuss how they can combat hate speech and they bring in only left-leaning speakers to discuss the matter.  

I understand that free speech is colloquially used as censorship or favoring of political positions, but free speech as it is in the constitution and by definition only refers to that the government can't throw you in jail for what you say unless it's a threat or some other disturbance of the peace. That's why people will always say that your freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences. I don't think the people protesting a visit are in themselves a problem, as they should be able to express their disapproval. Then it is ultimately up to the education officials to decide whether to bring that speaker even if it is unpopular. Is it regrettable? Yes, but I sort of view the opinions of optional speakings in education as low down on the list on political priorities, and yet people treat political correctness as if it is the most important thing in politics. Not even close.

Edit: for example, Google firing that engineer who wrote that memo because they didn't want to be associated with it.

I don't know, I would attribute random acts of violence to cause fear or panic to be a form of domestic terrorism. (plus I've seen reactionaries claim that both Stephen Paddock and Devin Kelley are Democrats and that's why they committed these mass killings lol)

But I assume you would call Timothy McVeigh a domestic terrorist, then?

Edited November 6, 2017 by Tryhard

[Phoenix Wright]

9 hours ago, eclipse said:

Whatever you're reading/listening to that supports your mindset.  It's clear that your logic is very different from the people who respond to you.  Thus, you're probably getting your information from a completely different source than them.

uh, no. a source is not whatever supports your belief. or, i should say, a source worth considering is not whatever supports your belief. if you think tap water is turning the frogs gay and you cite alex jones, you're an idiot.

13 hours ago, Sigismund of Luxemburg said:

Errrr... I seem to have come in at a particularly (ahem) intense part of the discussion.

Forgive my adding to your disagreements, but I'd like to know:

• For those of you that are not socialist/social democratic, what problems do you have with socialism or social democracy?
• For those of you that are not capitalist, what problems do you see in the capitalist system?
• "Seven paradoxes of the socialist state:
  Nobody works, but the plan is always fulfilled. The plan is fulfilled, but the shelves in the stores are empty. The shelves are empty, but nobody starves; nobody starves, but everybody is unhappy; everybody is unhappy, but nobody complains; nobody complains, but the jails are full."
  Agree or disagree?

(If you've already answered, please refer me to your old quotes rather than restating them.)

don't conflate socialism with a socialist democracy--they're far different. socialism is an actual economic system with the means of production owned by the public. similar if not the same as communism (and wikipedia notes that marx & engels used the terms interchangeably). a socialist democracy is inherently under capitalism but regulates it. 

so as someone who's not a capitalist purist, the problem with pure capitalism is that there are no controlling forces against: exploitation, monopoly, or plutocracy. keeping state and means of production wholly separate is doomed for failure. examples: slavery (extreme case of exploitation), anti trust laws (monopoly, with highlights like the sherman anti-trust act), and the gilded age (plutocracy). economic systems left purely to their devices don't seem to work, period. capitalism does not seem to agree well with democracy, hence heavy regulations. communism also does not seem to agree with democracy, hence authoritarian governments. 

ideally, i am a socialist. but that's irrelevant.

can you provide more context for the quote?

[Lushen]

5 hours ago, Tryhard said:

I understand that free speech is colloquially used as censorship or favoring of political positions, but free speech as it is in the constitution and by definition only refers to that the government can't throw you in jail for what you say unless it's a threat or some other disturbance of the peace. That's why people will always say that your freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences. I don't think the people protesting a visit are in themselves a problem, as they should be able to express their disapproval. Then it is ultimately up to the education officials to decide whether to bring that speaker even if it is unpopular. Is it regrettable? Yes, but I sort of view the opinions of optional speakings in education as low down on the list on political priorities, and yet people treat political correctness as if it is the most important thing in politics. Not even close.

Edit: for example, Google firing that engineer who wrote that memo because they didn't want to be associated with it.

I don't know, I would attribute random acts of violence to cause fear or panic to be a form of domestic terrorism. (plus I've seen reactionaries claim that both Stephen Paddock and Devin Kelley are Democrats and that's why they committed these mass killings lol)

But I assume you would call Timothy McVeigh a domestic terrorist, then?

Agreed.  I think free speech is more of a concern with society than it is with the Government or legislation.  

I think there may be some credibility to Devin Kelley hating Republicans, but again the killing would need to promote an agenda and considering he didn't leave a note or say anything I think people saying he was a member of Antifa is a stretch at this point.  As for Stephen Paddock, people say he was not interested in politics in any way.  From what they're saying now, it seems like Kelley's motive was really just that he may have just hated his step-parents and targeted their Church.  

I am not overly familiar with Timothy McVeigh or the Oklahoma City bombing but I would call it domestic Terror because it was in response to Ruby Ridge and thus was meant to pursue an agenda.  I guess Terrorism could be said to be the same as "violent protests".  I would say that I think he would be labeled a domestic terrorist even if he wasn't motivated in any way, because it seems explosives are automatically attributed to terrorism by Americans.

5 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

uh, no. a source is not whatever supports your belief. or, i should say, a source worth considering is not whatever supports your belief. if you think tap water is turning the frogs gay and you cite alex jones, you're an idiot.

While I agree that Alex Jones is an idiot, a source is quite literally where information comes from.  A valid source or reliable source is different than a source.  Alex Jones is still a source, he's just an idiotic source.

 

Any predictions on the Governor race?  I'm going to go with Gillespie because polls have them neck and neck and I think there's still some bias in polls towards democrats winning.  It's also being said that democrats in Virginia rely very heavily on the turnout of young voters but Northam is not very progressive so it doesn't sound like he will insight the Obama voters.

Edited November 6, 2017 by Lushen

[Phoenix Wright]

21 minutes ago, Lushen said:

While I agree that Alex Jones is an idiot, a source is quite literally where information comes from.  A valid source or reliable source is different than a source.  Alex Jones is still a source, he's just an idiotic source.

is there some reason you're not responding to my point on wealth inequality?

also, read my post. i said, "source worth considering." why the hell would i want to respond to sources that aren't credible? your issue seems to be you aren't sure what sources are acceptable (to me at least) so i gave you standards.

 

Edited November 6, 2017 by Phoenix Wright

[Lord Raven]

On 11/5/2017 at 8:57 PM, Sigismund of Luxemburg said:

• For those of you that are not capitalist, what problems do you see in the capitalist system?
• "Seven paradoxes of the socialist state:
  Nobody works, but the plan is always fulfilled. The plan is fulfilled, but the shelves in the stores are empty. The shelves are empty, but nobody starves; nobody starves, but everybody is unhappy; everybody is unhappy, but nobody complains; nobody complains, but the jails are full."
  Agree or disagree?

1. Exploitation of labor, the top stays at the top without regulation, and slashing prices = slashing wages too. When not regulated, it leads to horrible wealth inequality that makes basic expenses tough. When regulated it becomes more meritocratistic, but not entirely because merit doesn't get you everywhere. The idea of being stuck at a job, working hard, but getting very little pay raise despite increasing costs around you very much spawned as a result of capitalism.

2. Yes. That's the issue with communism; no incentive, long-term, to continue to succeed. In some ways communism is a symbol of a perfect status quo. Such a thing does not and most likely cannot exist, however, so communism is always doomed to fail.

Also, the jails are full in our current capitalistic system, so I'm not even going to pretend that it's exclusive to communism.

[Lushen]

I thought Steven Crowder came out as a bit of a hypocrite in this interview (I might be bias since I never liked him), but it's the only interview out right now for those looking for answers.  It's really emotional, amazing guy.  

Spoiler

 

 

[eclipse]

On 11/6/2017 at 7:23 AM, Phoenix Wright said:

uh, no. a source is not whatever supports your belief. or, i should say, a source worth considering is not whatever supports your belief. if you think tap water is turning the frogs gay and you cite alex jones, you're an idiot.

Doesn't matter if you agree with it.  Part of understanding a different viewpoint is reading what they think supports their argument.  If the source is lame (like citing some random blog that references nothing else), feel free to rip it to shreds.

[Res]

14 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

1. Exploitation of labor, the top stays at the top without regulation, and slashing prices = slashing wages too. When not regulated, it leads to horrible wealth inequality that makes basic expenses tough. When regulated it becomes more meritocratistic, but not entirely because merit doesn't get you everywhere. The idea of being stuck at a job, working hard, but getting very little pay raise despite increasing costs around you very much spawned as a result of capitalism.

All of this, precisely. 

As an example: Last company I worked for the CEO and CFO budgeted a $300k bonus to themselves (despite being a R&D company that had yet to sell anything) and laid off two $50k/pa workers to accommodate this (which increased the workload for their remaining coworkers, who, as salaried employees, don't get compensated for overtime). 

[Lord Raven]

1 hour ago, eclipse said:

Doesn't matter if you agree with it.  Part of understanding a different viewpoint is reading what they think supports their argument.  If the source is lame (like citing some random blog that references nothing else), feel free to rip it to shreds.

When you ask for a source for a fact, an opinion piece does not suffice. This is not a matter of “differing opinions,” this is a matter of proper good faith debate.

[SullyMcGully]

On 11/5/2017 at 10:57 PM, Sigismund of Luxemburg said:

Errrr... I seem to have come in at a particularly (ahem) intense part of the discussion.

Forgive my adding to your disagreements, but I'd like to know:

• For those of you that are not socialist/social democratic, what problems do you have with socialism or social democracy?
• For those of you that are not capitalist, what problems do you see in the capitalist system?
• "Seven paradoxes of the socialist state:
  Nobody works, but the plan is always fulfilled. The plan is fulfilled, but the shelves in the stores are empty. The shelves are empty, but nobody starves; nobody starves, but everybody is unhappy; everybody is unhappy, but nobody complains; nobody complains, but the jails are full."
  Agree or disagree?

(If you've already answered, please refer me to your old quotes rather than restating them.)

I disagree with socialism because I don't believe in equality. In my ideal system, wealth inequality is all over the place. Those who work hard and innovate deserve to be filthy rich, and those who are lazy should be poor and destitute. Diligence should equal financial success, the same way that other virtues equate to boons in other parts of your life. People should say "that man works hard, no wonder he has that much money" the same way they say "that man is kind, no wonder everybody loves him". I know this is a system that can't exist in a flawed world, but so is most people's idea of socialism. 

As for your seven paradoxes, that is communism in a nutshell. It should be noted that any system that has to lie about itself in order to operate is severely flawed. Communism required so much deceit, you could pretty much say that communism itself was a lie.

On the subject of political correctness, I'm in favor of being polite and I personally don't prefer saying things that could offend others. However, when the time comes to speak my mind, I like having the right to do so, even if what I believe is offensive to others. I mean, I personally find the F-bomb offensive, so I suppose anything you say could be offensive in someone's book. 

[Res]

7 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

I disagree with socialism because I don't believe in equality. In my ideal system, wealth inequality is all over the place. Those who work hard and innovate deserve to be filthy rich, and those who are lazy should be poor and destitute. Diligence should equal financial success, the same way that other virtues equate to boons in other parts of your life. People should say "that man works hard, no wonder he has that much money" the same way they say "that man is kind, no wonder everybody loves him". I know this is a system that can't exist in a flawed world, but so is most people's idea of socialism.

Putting aside the fact that rich people are definitely not always hard workers or innovators (or, if they're hard-working, they can't physically work to the point where it's justified that they are paid many hundreds times what other hard workers make), what of disabled people? People whose priorities might lie elsewhere, in vocations that aren't paid (for example, a stay at home parent? A carer?). People whose skills aren't valued by capitalism (for example, it's pretty damn hard to make good money off artistic talents).

[eclipse]

1 hour ago, Lord Raven said:

When you ask for a source for a fact, an opinion piece does not suffice. This is not a matter of “differing opinions,” this is a matter of proper good faith debate.

In which case, you're dealing with someone that you can't take seriously (but do point out the issue with the sources first).  If I see a string of opinion pieces/other unverifiable sources, I'll consider a trolling warning.

1 hour ago, SullyMcGully said:

I disagree with socialism because I don't believe in equality. In my ideal system, wealth inequality is all over the place. Those who work hard and innovate deserve to be filthy rich, and those who are lazy should be poor and destitute. Diligence should equal financial success, the same way that other virtues equate to boons in other parts of your life. People should say "that man works hard, no wonder he has that much money" the same way they say "that man is kind, no wonder everybody loves him". I know this is a system that can't exist in a flawed world, but so is most people's idea of socialism.

I believe this is true, up to a point.  I think we should get everyone up to the level that they don't have to worry about starving/being homeless/dying to easily preventable things.  Which we're not at yet.

[Tryhard]

Destitute seems very harsh even if we lived in a theoretical perfect meritocracy and these people were just lazy. At the very least, you would hope they would be able to live plainly in non-luxury.

I'd wager that there would be nowhere near as many people as rich, and for those that are, not to the extent where they earn hundreds of times the salaries of poorer workers even if they are both skilled and motivated in the same way money can be hoarded in our world. Preferably without raping the environment for maximum profits as well.

Edit: Something worth considering if we're talking capitalism and the idea of the rich "job creators".

 

Edited November 7, 2017 by Tryhard