Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
Sometimes the "best person" for the job doesn't get promoted, I can say that much.
It's the reason why constantly learning and developing your skillset is essential because there are going to be those situations where you're going to have to move to a different workplace instead of being stuck at your current one.
Here's a question for ya: Would you want Steve Jobs as your manager?
It's the reason why constantly learning and developing your skillset is essential because there are going to be those situations where you're going to have to move to a different workplace instead of being stuck at your current one.
Here's a question for ya: Would you want Steve Jobs as your manager?
If people want to figure what their or some else's true political affiliation would be, we can start by listing political terms by definition, and differentiating social and economic views. You can easily be socially left and ecomically right for example. What confuses a lot of people is that some political terms are social ideologies(Marxism), some are economic ideologies(captialism) and others are a mix of both(liberalism). Let's quickly name drop a few:
Progressive
Conversatism
Liberalism(umbrella term)
Modern Liberalism
Classical Liberalism
Neoliberalism
Socalism(umbrella term)
Anarchism
Communism
Marxism
Classical Marxism
Lenninism
Democratic socialism
Social democracy
Captialism
Corportracy
Authoritarianism
Militarianism
Patriotism
Nationalism
Faciam
Globalism
Classical Wokeism
Modern Wokeism
Sad thing is that there are like 50 more...
Progressive
Conversatism
Liberalism(umbrella term)
Modern Liberalism
Classical Liberalism
Neoliberalism
Socalism(umbrella term)
Anarchism
Communism
Marxism
Classical Marxism
Lenninism
Democratic socialism
Social democracy
Captialism
Corportracy
Authoritarianism
Militarianism
Patriotism
Nationalism
Faciam
Globalism
Classical Wokeism
Modern Wokeism
Sad thing is that there are like 50 more...
Good morning.
This is actually a good idea. In my case:
Economical: Liberalism (almost following Keynes but I believe that state intervention should only be done in the most extreme of circumstances compared with normal Keynesians - basically that the market will naturally fix itself but intervention by powerful monopolies must be compensated by the government body) opposed to protectionism ( the more the state meddles in the economy, more issues appear and more the general populace suffers. Anyone that wants to be a socialist is just a thief that don't care about others)
Society: Meritocracy/Capitalism (The best should be in charge and opportunities should be equal, with those be given for the ones with the best results. The government should give the tools for kids to reach this potential.) opposed to Socialist (People are not equal. Removing incentives to improve leads to suffering in masse. Most socialists are thieves and failures that are unable to survive in normal society and want riches without working for it)
Politics: Neo-Realism ( States act based on power and decisions should be made according. Hierarchies of power determines the actions of states. Note that while I believe in cooperation, this will be a frail construct that will not last in the end without the nations having some power/interest behind) opposed to Neo-liberalism (cooperation is frail in international relations and you will be stabbed by your allies if you turn your back)
This is actually a good idea. In my case:
Economical: Liberalism (almost following Keynes but I believe that state intervention should only be done in the most extreme of circumstances compared with normal Keynesians - basically that the market will naturally fix itself but intervention by powerful monopolies must be compensated by the government body) opposed to protectionism ( the more the state meddles in the economy, more issues appear and more the general populace suffers. Anyone that wants to be a socialist is just a thief that don't care about others)
Society: Meritocracy/Capitalism (The best should be in charge and opportunities should be equal, with those be given for the ones with the best results. The government should give the tools for kids to reach this potential.) opposed to Socialist (People are not equal. Removing incentives to improve leads to suffering in masse. Most socialists are thieves and failures that are unable to survive in normal society and want riches without working for it)
Politics: Neo-Realism ( States act based on power and decisions should be made according. Hierarchies of power determines the actions of states. Note that while I believe in cooperation, this will be a frail construct that will not last in the end without the nations having some power/interest behind) opposed to Neo-liberalism (cooperation is frail in international relations and you will be stabbed by your allies if you turn your back)
Wanna talk about Socialism real quick cause there are some misconceptions. Socialism is an umbrella term for the belief that the means of production and exchange should be controlled by the workers or community as a whole. There are numerous variations of socialism, and socialism in general is anti-capitlaistic. There's one socialist ideology that isn't anti-capitalistic which is Social Democracy. A social democracy instead tries to find the sweet spot between socialism and capitalism.
America has an extensive socialist, but not anti-capitalist history. Back in the day, work hours, work days and pay rate weren't mandated and the owner could make you do whatever he wanted or you're fired. There was also no annual leave, sick leave, or paternity leave, along with a ton of child labor. 7 day, 12 hours work weeks with shit pay and no benefits was very common. This type of capitalism is what lead to the Russian revolutions and scared the hell outta America. FDR's New Deal which granted lots of worker rights was a means to prevent a worker revolt, and there were many worker protests during that time and before. Worker rights and unions are socialist in nature.
America has an extensive socialist, but not anti-capitalist history. Back in the day, work hours, work days and pay rate weren't mandated and the owner could make you do whatever he wanted or you're fired. There was also no annual leave, sick leave, or paternity leave, along with a ton of child labor. 7 day, 12 hours work weeks with shit pay and no benefits was very common. This type of capitalism is what lead to the Russian revolutions and scared the hell outta America. FDR's New Deal which granted lots of worker rights was a means to prevent a worker revolt, and there were many worker protests during that time and before. Worker rights and unions are socialist in nature.
That's the thing. You can't.
What you are describing is progressive liberalism and there is a reason why progressive liberals are not considered leftist (by leftist) but entry rightist:
Being socially left means understanding the problematic effect the economical right has SOCIALLY on people. So, when you understand those problems, you simply can't be economically on the right side.
People who are trying to say that you can be socially left and economically right are wrong, either by design or because of a lack of knowledge. What they are doing is therefore confusing the debate. Which is why I sometimes calls people "confusionnists".
Apolitics or centrist, for example, are often confusionnists, simply because they don't have the knowledge or the hindsight to understand that some value are simply not compatible and its not because they are trying to have the high ground by creating some sort of narrative on the notion of nuance and the fact that there are "good things" on both side, that they are really pertinent politically.
I was like that. In fact to the extreme. At one point I thought that centrism why the only way to be really just. But my vision of the political debate was completely biased by the fact that I considered both side as both valuables. I looked for "good things on the right" and "good things" on the left.
So once I was finished with my complotist phase:
- I became someone fighting hate on the internet, but I believed that you can become powerfull and successfull if you really deserve it and if you work for it
- I was for women's right, but I believed that business owners should have the right to fire people when they want
- I was donating found to help poor people, but I was an antiSJW
- I was for helping poor neighborhood to have a good education, but I had a hate for religions and specifically Islam
- I was for giving more right to LGBT, but I was against taxes
- I was for a society of science, but I wanted the creation of a license to vote
- I was preaching the tolerance of minorities, but I believed that women were sometimes anti men
Etc. Etc.
In my mind.. I thought I was progressive.. and because I had some rightist traits as well, I believe that I had the higher ground and that I was NUANCED and scientific.
But in reality.. I was understanding NOTHING about politics and society.
A real leftist analysing the list above would understand the problem quickly: my values were completely contradictory, but I didn't notice it, simply because I didn't care to structure my thoughts:
- I was against hate in society, but I had an Islamophobic behavior which is a paradoxe
- I was for women rights, but I believed that women were sometimes anti men
- I wanted to help poor people, but I wanted the creation of a license to vote which could create a system where poor people and people who had access to less education could be literally excluded because of the hegemony of the ruling class
- I was for helping poor neighborhood to have a good education, but I was against taxes that is literally made to create equality
- I was for giving more right to LGBT, but I was against real feminist and people fighting for LGBTQ+ (SJW)
- I was for a society of science, but I believed in merit, which is completely against the conclusion of social sciences
- I was preaching the tolerance of minorities,but I believed in anti-worker reform that would be used against those minorities.
I kept believing contradictory values for years because of I wanted to have the high ground and be nuanced, in short, by ego.
But EVEN when you look at those progressive values you can see - if you are a real leftist - that they are problematic. Because they are all in reality.... rightist.
"Why" you ask ?
Well look closer.. what do all those progressist values have in common ?
Well.. Simple:
They are all LIBERAL values. I mean by that that they are all based on the SURFACE level solution and basic knowledge and not the knowledge of systemic issues.
That's what liberalism is: The individualization of issues.
How do you help LGBTQ+ ? By making movies about LGBQT+ people
How do you fight sexism ? By explaining to boys that by working on their own sexism, they can change the lives of women (& get girls)
How do you fight poverty ? By explaining that you need to believe in your dream and work hard to succeed
How do you fight hate ? By explaining to people that hating on others is bad.
How do you fight complotism ? By explaining the dangerousity of biases to people
Those are LIBERAL SOLUTIONS to real societal problem. In other words, those are solution that consider that progress in society can only comes through better individuals.
So... "What is the problem with that ?" You might ask..
Well.. I'll tell you the problem:
Those liberal solutions will change NOTHING. Because liberals are in fact not considering the issues as they are but as they want society to be. In the mind of a liberal, society is meritocratic. This is the society of strong solitary heroic figures. This is a model of society where we, human, are in control of our environment and our destiny.
THIS
IS
A
MYTH !
- Humans are dependant of their environment.
- We can't change society simply be bettering ourself, we must fight the sources of the issues
- A single person can't make society magically better.
- Our journey is conditionned by our capitals
- And most of all.. we don't live in a meritocracy. Capitalism is a SCAM.
Liberal solution can only do one thing: Maintain the status co.
But progress comes from somewhere else. Progress comes from people who fight against liberalism and capitalism. Progress comes from people who understand the inequalities of society and the fact that meritocracy is a myth. Progress really comes when people are fighting capitalism !
In other words:
Real progress comes when we understand the existence of the structures of power and domination and when we fight against them !
Fight this:
What you are describing is progressive liberalism and there is a reason why progressive liberals are not considered leftist (by leftist) but entry rightist:
Being socially left means understanding the problematic effect the economical right has SOCIALLY on people. So, when you understand those problems, you simply can't be economically on the right side.
People who are trying to say that you can be socially left and economically right are wrong, either by design or because of a lack of knowledge. What they are doing is therefore confusing the debate. Which is why I sometimes calls people "confusionnists".
Apolitics or centrist, for example, are often confusionnists, simply because they don't have the knowledge or the hindsight to understand that some value are simply not compatible and its not because they are trying to have the high ground by creating some sort of narrative on the notion of nuance and the fact that there are "good things" on both side, that they are really pertinent politically.
I was like that. In fact to the extreme. At one point I thought that centrism why the only way to be really just. But my vision of the political debate was completely biased by the fact that I considered both side as both valuables. I looked for "good things on the right" and "good things" on the left.
So once I was finished with my complotist phase:
- I became someone fighting hate on the internet, but I believed that you can become powerfull and successfull if you really deserve it and if you work for it
- I was for women's right, but I believed that business owners should have the right to fire people when they want
- I was donating found to help poor people, but I was an antiSJW
- I was for helping poor neighborhood to have a good education, but I had a hate for religions and specifically Islam
- I was for giving more right to LGBT, but I was against taxes
- I was for a society of science, but I wanted the creation of a license to vote
- I was preaching the tolerance of minorities, but I believed that women were sometimes anti men
Etc. Etc.
In my mind.. I thought I was progressive.. and because I had some rightist traits as well, I believe that I had the higher ground and that I was NUANCED and scientific.
But in reality.. I was understanding NOTHING about politics and society.
A real leftist analysing the list above would understand the problem quickly: my values were completely contradictory, but I didn't notice it, simply because I didn't care to structure my thoughts:
- I was against hate in society, but I had an Islamophobic behavior which is a paradoxe
- I was for women rights, but I believed that women were sometimes anti men
- I wanted to help poor people, but I wanted the creation of a license to vote which could create a system where poor people and people who had access to less education could be literally excluded because of the hegemony of the ruling class
- I was for helping poor neighborhood to have a good education, but I was against taxes that is literally made to create equality
- I was for giving more right to LGBT, but I was against real feminist and people fighting for LGBTQ+ (SJW)
- I was for a society of science, but I believed in merit, which is completely against the conclusion of social sciences
- I was preaching the tolerance of minorities,but I believed in anti-worker reform that would be used against those minorities.
I kept believing contradictory values for years because of I wanted to have the high ground and be nuanced, in short, by ego.
But EVEN when you look at those progressive values you can see - if you are a real leftist - that they are problematic. Because they are all in reality.... rightist.
"Why" you ask ?
Well look closer.. what do all those progressist values have in common ?
Well.. Simple:
They are all LIBERAL values. I mean by that that they are all based on the SURFACE level solution and basic knowledge and not the knowledge of systemic issues.
That's what liberalism is: The individualization of issues.
How do you help LGBTQ+ ? By making movies about LGBQT+ people
How do you fight sexism ? By explaining to boys that by working on their own sexism, they can change the lives of women (& get girls)
How do you fight poverty ? By explaining that you need to believe in your dream and work hard to succeed
How do you fight hate ? By explaining to people that hating on others is bad.
How do you fight complotism ? By explaining the dangerousity of biases to people
Those are LIBERAL SOLUTIONS to real societal problem. In other words, those are solution that consider that progress in society can only comes through better individuals.
So... "What is the problem with that ?" You might ask..
Well.. I'll tell you the problem:
Those liberal solutions will change NOTHING. Because liberals are in fact not considering the issues as they are but as they want society to be. In the mind of a liberal, society is meritocratic. This is the society of strong solitary heroic figures. This is a model of society where we, human, are in control of our environment and our destiny.
THIS
IS
A
MYTH !
- Humans are dependant of their environment.
- We can't change society simply be bettering ourself, we must fight the sources of the issues
- A single person can't make society magically better.
- Our journey is conditionned by our capitals
- And most of all.. we don't live in a meritocracy. Capitalism is a SCAM.
Liberal solution can only do one thing: Maintain the status co.
But progress comes from somewhere else. Progress comes from people who fight against liberalism and capitalism. Progress comes from people who understand the inequalities of society and the fact that meritocracy is a myth. Progress really comes when people are fighting capitalism !
In other words:
Real progress comes when we understand the existence of the structures of power and domination and when we fight against them !
Fight this:
Last edited:
@Logiko
I'm just going to drop the fact that you, as the leader of the revolution, will need to have to gather like minded people and have these people as your underlings and party members.
As for the people who disagree with your views, it wasn't the first time that the people who harbored and expressed such thoughts were dealt with (and their fates were pretty much sealed shortly after). For a grand vision to come to fruition exactly as intended, certain freedoms that the citizens had previously must be sacrificed after all.
As for why I'm bringing all of this up, your version of real progress can only come when the structures of power that currently exist are completely toppled.
After the revolution succeeds, you would end up with a single leader, the ones closest to the leaders, and the followers and the rest of the population. I just hope too many people don't disagree with your take on a society
As for the people who disagree with your views, it wasn't the first time that the people who harbored and expressed such thoughts were dealt with (and their fates were pretty much sealed shortly after). For a grand vision to come to fruition exactly as intended, certain freedoms that the citizens had previously must be sacrificed after all.
As for why I'm bringing all of this up, your version of real progress can only come when the structures of power that currently exist are completely toppled.
After the revolution succeeds, you would end up with a single leader, the ones closest to the leaders, and the followers and the rest of the population. I just hope too many people don't disagree with your take on a society
Last edited:
First, no need for a revolution right now, at least not in the west. We just need to reform the institutions and move out liberals, conservative, libertarian and cryptofascist out of power.
We we can't do that with the help of the institution, then we can talk about revolution (Russian and chinese might wanna think about this right now for example)
Second, careful, when you start talking about your party members as your underlings.. its not a good sign for democracy.
This is dictature... let's not do that.[/QUOTE]
Removing liberals from power and fighting liberal ideas doesn't mean that we should put rightist in jail.
It means that we must fight them politically. I know that rightists think that saying that capitalism is hurtfull is already communism but let's stay calm here...
If we are talking about the freedom of owning guns or to say that trans or people of colors are the problem of society.. well yeah.. I agree with that. Those freedom shouldn't exist in the public space.
If we are talking about normal freedom of speech, and human rights then no. I do not agree.
Not necessaraly, progress can come during the transition. But structures of power will need to be dealt with to go beyond, yes.
No. Not necessaraly. It could indeed go wrong.. like any change of power.. or it could go right if people follow a real progressist and antiliberal mindset: In france there is a party that is trying to create a new way of thinking the institutions, we call it the "sixth republic". It stands on the basis that the executive power (the president and the ministers) have too much power and that we need a better representation of the people and more power to the people.
Its not perfect, but its already better than every other propositions. In France, it would look like that:
1- You elect a president that will call a specific type of assembly "the constituante" composed by elected people and people chosen at random
2- "The constituante" will right a new constitution with new added foundamental rights. (right for abortion for example). it will be a process of back and forth between this assembly and the work of the people.
3- The president holds a referedum to make the population approve or disprove of the text. If its approved, we move to the next step, if its not, the "constituante" rewrite the text. And it goes on until the population approves of the text and create the contitution of the 6th republic. Every modification of said constitution will be held with a referundum.
3Bis - In fact, every group of citizen who manage to get a significant number of signature will be able to invocate the holding of a new referundum to delete a law, revocate a treaty or add something in the constitution.
The structure of power would therefore be created and regulated by this new constitution. So you can expect a new type of political structure, much more representative and close to the needs of the people with actions like:
- A minimum wage of 1400€
- A maximum wage authorized in the business (the maximum wage must not grow over 20 times the minimum wage in the same business)
- Financial help (around 1060€) for young people that are alone to pay for their studies and housing
- The green rule with an ecological planification (Listing of ressources we take from the earth), it consist in not taking more in nature that what nature can create.
- Taxation of big inheritances
- Refound the Police
- A progressive taxation based on the income of the population
Etc.
So you can expect a more representative type of power structure that we have now and therefore something far more equal, equitable and close to the needs of the people. If every country start to do that.. we might see the end of capitalism and neo liberalism.
That's for part one. For part two we might even see the world drift into new form of system.. Maybe something communist ? An anarchy perhaps ? Something new ? We don't know... but as long as people don't believe in the myth of single heroes saving the world.. we should be safe from despote taking over the power and creating apocalyptic societies.
Yup... I think we should be very careful about this type of content. It can quickly escalate into cultism.
We we can't do that with the help of the institution, then we can talk about revolution (Russian and chinese might wanna think about this right now for example)
Second, careful, when you start talking about your party members as your underlings.. its not a good sign for democracy.
This is dictature... let's not do that.[/QUOTE]
Removing liberals from power and fighting liberal ideas doesn't mean that we should put rightist in jail.
It means that we must fight them politically. I know that rightists think that saying that capitalism is hurtfull is already communism but let's stay calm here...
If we are talking about the freedom of owning guns or to say that trans or people of colors are the problem of society.. well yeah.. I agree with that. Those freedom shouldn't exist in the public space.
If we are talking about normal freedom of speech, and human rights then no. I do not agree.
Not necessaraly, progress can come during the transition. But structures of power will need to be dealt with to go beyond, yes.
No. Not necessaraly. It could indeed go wrong.. like any change of power.. or it could go right if people follow a real progressist and antiliberal mindset: In france there is a party that is trying to create a new way of thinking the institutions, we call it the "sixth republic". It stands on the basis that the executive power (the president and the ministers) have too much power and that we need a better representation of the people and more power to the people.
Its not perfect, but its already better than every other propositions. In France, it would look like that:
1- You elect a president that will call a specific type of assembly "the constituante" composed by elected people and people chosen at random
2- "The constituante" will right a new constitution with new added foundamental rights. (right for abortion for example). it will be a process of back and forth between this assembly and the work of the people.
3- The president holds a referedum to make the population approve or disprove of the text. If its approved, we move to the next step, if its not, the "constituante" rewrite the text. And it goes on until the population approves of the text and create the contitution of the 6th republic. Every modification of said constitution will be held with a referundum.
3Bis - In fact, every group of citizen who manage to get a significant number of signature will be able to invocate the holding of a new referundum to delete a law, revocate a treaty or add something in the constitution.
The structure of power would therefore be created and regulated by this new constitution. So you can expect a new type of political structure, much more representative and close to the needs of the people with actions like:
- A minimum wage of 1400€
- A maximum wage authorized in the business (the maximum wage must not grow over 20 times the minimum wage in the same business)
- Financial help (around 1060€) for young people that are alone to pay for their studies and housing
- The green rule with an ecological planification (Listing of ressources we take from the earth), it consist in not taking more in nature that what nature can create.
- Taxation of big inheritances
- Refound the Police
- A progressive taxation based on the income of the population
Etc.
So you can expect a more representative type of power structure that we have now and therefore something far more equal, equitable and close to the needs of the people. If every country start to do that.. we might see the end of capitalism and neo liberalism.
That's for part one. For part two we might even see the world drift into new form of system.. Maybe something communist ? An anarchy perhaps ? Something new ? We don't know... but as long as people don't believe in the myth of single heroes saving the world.. we should be safe from despote taking over the power and creating apocalyptic societies.
Yup... I think we should be very careful about this type of content. It can quickly escalate into cultism.
Self immolation as a form of protest has a long standing tradition in some Buddhist denominations for example. It's nothing new.
I'd argue that the act of not standing by one's beliefs and values is a form of violence against oneself.
You might be thinking of medieval Europe where people who killed themselves didn't even receive a proper burial and their bodies thrown in the river.
I'd argue that the act of not standing by one's beliefs and values is a form of violence against oneself.
You might be thinking of medieval Europe where people who killed themselves didn't even receive a proper burial and their bodies thrown in the river.
H
Nope. Wokeness is a term everyone knows what they defend. You are just playing Logiko now when I called him a woke amd he denied only to later identify as one and be proud of it.
[automerge]1709030868[/automerge]
I have enough empathy to not use another human being death to make my political propaganda
[automerge]1709030868[/automerge]
I have enough empathy to not use another human being death to make my political propaganda