Controversial General Political Discussion

[NAMELESS]

I will produce them and own the means of production

Nah, you don't want that. Working at quality control and testing the dolls is more fun. Trust me.

Virtual signalling and appeal to morals have been traits of few here.

But I will be blunt - an authoritarian ruler is person in power who impose his world view on others through force disregarding people own will.

Logiko likes to see his world view as perfect. He likes to impose it as it's the best. I am afraid to say it but if he ever gets into power then he won't be any different from any other authoritarian ruler because based on his condescending tone and superiority complex and tendency to see his view as the right approach, he will end up imposing his world view on others.


Irony is this is the element we see in patriarchy and in authoritarian rule when women or citizens are subjected to world view of the head -something logiko claims he is against

The world runs 0 risk at ever seeing Illogiko rise to power lmfao Imagine this guy spewing this much bullshit in real life, he woul be lynched by his fellow leftie bros.

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

Indeed. What I'm talking about is a society where there is no need for laws anymore.

You're talking about the afterlife

But utopia? Ideal society? Nah...

Afterlife

 

[Logiko]

You don't understand what it means when science says it's possible.

Yeah, I think I do.

Second, learn to read. I said we can make better world.


But utopia? Ideal society? Nah...


What you call kindergarten level stuff is exactly the study of science - psychology and behaviour of humans about which you know little about

Actually it seems I know a bit more than you on this subject. Which is often the case when scientists of natural sciences think they have understood everything while having completely ignored a century of human sciences because they think it's "not scientific enough".

Yes, an ideal society is perfectely feasible following simple sociological and political principles. It's not really a question of "how", but a question of "against who". And right now it's against you.

And it is kindergarden level thinking to believe that just because someone told you that an ideal society was possible, then it was a child's dream. I remember learning this type of thinking back when I was less than 10 and it already bothered me at the time.

There is no material logic behind this type of thinking it's just : "ideal, not possible".. Why ? .. "Because it's just a dream".. It's absolutely not even remotely rationnal.

I yes, I'm purposefuly using the word "ideal" to trigger that irrationnality in you. I'm indeed talking about creating an ideal society here and not just changing the world. Because I know that in your head and in the vision of many here, "changing the world" is very narrow and idealistic point of view.

Yup!


He has zero knowledge about psychology of humans which in itself is a scientific study.


Saying humans are perfectable reflects how little he knows about psychology and on the matter.

Infact, he doesn't even know the difference between idealism and realism and what science means when it says society can become better

I think on this matters its you my good mate who doesn't understand a thing. Or very little. (and I have just a surface level knowledge, so it's saying a lot)

But I have faith that you will start to understand in the years to come. After all, with fascism at the door of power, you will kinda be forced to take a deep look at reality of sociological patterns.

Logiko likes to see his world view as perfect. He likes to impose it as it's the best. I am afraid to say it but if he ever gets into power then he won't be any different from any other authoritarian ruler because based on his condescending tone and superiority complex and tendency to see his view as the right approach, he will end up imposing his world view on others.

See, that's what I'm talking about with Van.
You do not understand the nature of structural and systemic change. For you someone trying to fight oppression by thinking big MUST be someone evil who would demonstrate dictatorship in power.

But you do not understand basic principles of systemic struggles so you do not understand that we are in fact the antithesis of authoritarian while you guyz, on the other hand, are much closer to them. As when people like you are in power, it creates things like this:

https://www.thirdway.org/memo/project-2025s-attacks-on-public-education

And of course you are confusing my condescending tone that is simply a reaction of fear and defense against the BS I see here everyday for the words of an authoritarian. You are not looking beyond your nose. This is bad scientific thinking.

You do not understand the difference between materialism VS idealism so you picture someone who dreams of a better society as an idealist and irrationnal person while not realizing that by considering humans as monolithics and perfectable through their mindset, you are the idealistic one.

And finally, you do not realize that behind the dream I have, there are decades of humans studies and political struggles by millions of people. You just think it's a dream, just like any scientists who think they know everything until they realize they have just been looking at the tip of the iceberg.

The science is here and the theory is all here, you just have to look at it mate.

You're talking about the afterlife

Ask yourself why people needed to invent paradise in order for them to live through their lives

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

Ask yourself why people needed to invent paradise in order for them to live through their lives

Because A) perfect societies don't exist and B) it's not invented

 

[Logiko]

Because A) perfect societies don't exist and B) it's not invented

No indeed, more like constructed through thousands of years of influence.. The creation was not ex-nihilo.

 

[Brush D. Teeth]

No indeed, more like constructed through thousands of years of influence.. The creation was not ex-nihilo.

You don't need a dash between ex nihilo, as it's not connecting two separate concepts. By the way if you say "creation was not ex nihilo", that sort of implies a creator.

 

[Logiko]

You don't need a dash between ex nihilo, as it's not connecting two separate concepts. By the way if you say "creation was not ex nihilo", that sort of implies a creator.

More like a hand.

Creation is more of a form of transformation than "creation". In this example, the concept of paradise comes from ancient texte and stories preceeding the bible.

 

[Brush D. Teeth]

More like a hand.

Creation is more of a form of transformation than "creation". In this example, the concept of paradise comes from ancient texte and stories preceeding the bible.

Transformation has nothing to do with creation and it doesn't explain much, and if you use the word creation it still implies a creator.
About the concept of Heaven predating the Bible, everyone knows that. After all oral tradition always comes before any writing.

 

[Logiko]

Transformation has nothing to do with creation and it doesn't explain much, and if you use the word creation it still implies a creator.
About the concept of Heaven predating the Bible, everyone knows that. After all oral tradition always comes before any writing.

Creation doesn't really exist. Hence why when we talk about creation, we really talk about transformation. The creator is closer to an initiator.

For example, we talk about the creation of a sculpture, but what we really do is transform matter into an art piece based on influences that are mostly out of our control. Those influences PLUS the material conditions of existence of the artist pushes the act of transformation that we take for an act of creation.

Paradise, god, the 9th symphony or One Piece were all "created" through this process. They are the result of a previous work and a previous context which is the result of another context etc. until we arrives at the simple imitation of nature.

It's important to see creations that way as it allows us to view the world, not as a sea of creations without connections, but as an interconnected world in time and space constantly evolving and transforming.

This.. is how I can say that we can create change when others here think about humanity and its creation as a monolithic essence, do not see the connections between systems and thus, do not see the transformative potential of our civilization.

 

[Brush D. Teeth]

Creation doesn't really exist. Hence why when we talk about creation, we really talk about transformation. The creator is closer to an initiator.

Even taking for granted what you say, we do have the concept of ex nihilo creation and our use of the word creation mostly refers to that, so what you are saying doesn't appear to be true at all.
When you say an initiator, that word still implies some kind of being rearranging matter.

 

[Logiko]

Even taking for granted what you say, we do have the concept of ex nihilo creation and our use of the word creation mostly refers to that, so what you are saying doesn't appear to be true at all.
When you say an initiator, that word still implies some kind of being rearranging matter.

Ex-nihilo means "out of nothing". There is no such thing in our tangible reality.

You can call creator any "creator", I won't jump on you for that. But we need to understand that said creator is really not a creator but a "transformator". When we talk about art, for example, there is no such thing as "creation" in absolute, only people who guide a transformative process.

As such, art is never separated from the rest of the material reality of the world or other art form. Every act of what we call "creation" is a result of the material condition of the world combined:

- The political context
- The artistic influences of the artists
- The geopolitical situation of the artist
- The capitals of the artist
- The experience of the artist
- The vision and values of the artist
Etc.

Art, just like every other social domain is inter-connected with the rest of the world. It's a form of "creation" that is in constant transformation. Said transformation can become and form systems of their own, sometimes positives sometimes oppressive and influence the material condition of the world that will - in return - influence Art itself and the cycle continues..

As such, understanding the interconnectivity of all the aspect of an art piece with the reality is essential to understand it fully.

And it is essential to understand the world in order to create as relevant possible art as possible. Just like it is important to understand that to change the world, you will also need to change the way we make or consume art or create science, or build cities or educate childrens etc.

As such, changing the world can only be done through the restructuration of big systems. Those big systems will influence and guide or behaviors and will create a positive change. If we force change on people, we will destroy everything.

But if we guide change, we can create a utopia as beautiful as a masterpiece.

 

[Brush D. Teeth]

Ex-nihilo means "out of nothing". There is no such thing in our tangible reality.

-Taking for granted what you say, we can also talk about things that don't exist in our tangible reality but are only concepts in our minds, so we can talk about an ex nihilo creation and the term creation most often refers to that. It can also be noted that our tangible reality is not the only one that exists, as it also happens in science that existence of some objects is postulated long before we can physically observe them.
-Not taking for granted what you say, it is part of our tangible reality that everything that exists is caused or set in motion by something else that already existed or had movement. This means that according to our experience, there must be something that didn't exist because of a reason and everything else depended on it, matter included.

 

[Blax Blah]

Yup!


He has zero knowledge about psychology of humans which in itself is a scientific study.


Saying humans are perfectable reflects how little he knows about psychology and on the matter.

Infact, he doesn't even know the difference between idealism and realism and what science means when it says society can become better

Idealism means different things in different contexts doesn't it?

It can mean wanting an ideal, or, in the philisophy context, it means believing reality comes from ideas

Post automatically merged: Jan 15, 2025

Like, stalinism, leninism, maoism, saying that a state is socialist because its ideology is socialism, is idealism, and instead the actual practice of that state is what determines its capitalist or socialist status, all of those states being state capitalist

Post automatically merged: Jan 15, 2025

Or saying that a state is a worker's state, when the role of the state is to take direct democracy away and to impose the will of the capital owning class, whether capitalists or bureaucrats, on the workers, is idealism, thinking that because it is called a worker's state, it is a worker's state

Post automatically merged: Jan 15, 2025

And while you are wondering what people like me could enforce because you do not want to be forced not to say or do horrible stuff... capitalism is literally burning the world.

Indeed. What I'm talking about is a society where there is no need for laws anymore.

If systems are created in a way that pushes people toward positivity, there is no reasons (unless there is a societal collapse or an exterior event) for a societies to start going sideways as social pressure will do the job of laws.

Well yeah but I think it is good to call those things laws, since they are rules for how to be, even if not imposed by a small group anymore, and instead agreed upon by everyone involved

 

[Logiko]

-Taking for granted what you say, we can also talk about things that don't exist in our tangible reality but are only concepts in our minds, so we can talk about an ex nihilo creation and the term creation most often refers to that.

Even those are not created out of nowhere. Even our ideas are the long term continuation of influences on a conceptual level, but if we talk about the physical one, it's also the results of previous process (which I have touched upon last week).

Materialist like me believe that reality exist outside of us. Meaning that no matter if I'm dead or alive or if the civilization is extinct, the material reality will exist (from this state to the heat death state status)

-Not taking for granted what you say, it is part of our tangible reality that everything that exists is caused or set in motion by something else that already existed or had movement. This means that according to our experience, there must be something that didn't exist because of a reason and everything else depended on it, matter included.

Only if we rewind back 13.8 Billion years ago at the moment of the Big Bang. At this moment, things are indeed incertain and there could very well be a creator somewhere. But everything from this moment is a result of a logical reaction of causality.

AND if we listen to some cosmologists. In some scenarios, causility would be kind of a result of the expansion of the universe.

Now, I have absolutely no way of telling you how those scenario work as I have not the pretention to be a cosmologist, but I can present you some people who thought about it if you want.

It can mean wanting an ideal, or, in the philisophy context, it means believing reality comes from ideas
Post automatically merged: 9 minutes ago
Like, stalinism, leninism, maoism, saying that a state is socialist because its ideology is socialism, is idealism, and instead the actual practice of that state is what determines its capitalist or socialist status, all of those states being state capitalist

The principle of those systems was materialistic BUT It was simply not fully materialistic. It has a lot of idealist blindspot (which is one of the reason why the cult of personna started to rise)

Idealism is a philosophy, the philosophy that prioritize the mind over the material conditions of the world.

 

[Blax Blah]

Even those are not created out of nowhere. Even our ideas are the long term continuation of influences on a conceptual level, but if we talk about the physical one, it's also the results of previous process (which I have touched upon last week).

Materialist like me believe that reality exist outside of us. Meaning that no matter if I'm dead or alive or if the civilization is extinct, the material reality will exist (from this state to the heat death state status)



Only if we rewind back 13.8 Billion years ago at the moment of the Big Bang. At this moment, things are indeed incertain and there could very well be a creator somewhere. But everything from this moment is a result of a logical reaction of causality.

AND if we listen to some cosmologists. In some scenarios, causility would be kind of a result of the expansion of the universe.

Now, I have absolutely no way of telling you how those scenario work as I have not the pretention to be a cosmologist, but I can present you some people who thought about it if you want.



The principle of those systems was materialistic BUT It was simply not fully materialistic. It has a lot of idealist blindspot (which is one of the reason why the cult of personna started to rise)

Idealism is a philosophy, the philosophy that prioritize the mind over the material conditions of the world.

It's great to talk about and get a good understanding of it, I can't really say a lot about it now but I will link this video series about it:

I think either watching just the first one, what is the state, or the fourth one, left wing authoritarianism: an infantile disorder, is good to get an understanding of it, the second vieeo is specifically about the USSR and the third specifically about China and their history and how those issues said in the first and fourth video affected them,

 

[Brush D. Teeth]

Even those are not created out of nowhere. Even our ideas are the long term continuation of influences on a conceptual level, but if we talk about the physical one, it's also the results of previous process (which I have touched upon last week).

Materialist like me believe that reality exist outside of us. Meaning that no matter if I'm dead or alive or if the civilization is extinct, the material reality will exist (from this state to the heat death state status)

Whatever the case, that doesn't change that we do have that concept and we mostly refer to that with the word creation. Your statement that we use it to mean transformation doesn't seem rooted in reality.

Only if we rewind back 13.8 Billion years ago at the moment of the Big Bang. At this moment, things are indeed incertain and there could very well be a creator somewhere. But everything from this moment is a result of a logical reaction of causality.

AND if we listen to some cosmologists. In some scenarios, causility would be kind of a result of the expansion of the universe.

Now, I have absolutely no way of telling you how those scenario work as I have not the pretention to be a cosmologist, but I can present you some people who thought about it if you want.

Religiously-intended creation, for the most part, also refers to the very beginning.

 

[Logiko]

Whatever the case, that doesn't change that we do have that concept and we mostly refer to that with the word creation. Your statement that we use it to mean transformation doesn't seem rooted in reality.

What I'm telling you is precisely that we indeed do have the concept of "creation" (even many artists) when in reality, the world "transformation" is the materialistic way to look at the action.

This word is indeed not used commonly and this prevents a lot of us from really understanding how the world works.

Remember, by naming things, you can adapt your vision of the world.

Religiously-intended creation, for the most part, also refers to the very beginning.

I was not talking specifically about religion but yea.

The beginning, the only real act of "creation" that could be a reality, happened before the expension of the universe.

 

[Blax Blah]

Whatever the case, that doesn't change that we do have that concept and we mostly refer to that with the word creation. Your statement that we

What I'm telling you is precisely that we indeed do have the concept of "creation" (even many artists) when in reality, the world "transformation" is the materialistic way to look at the action.

This word is indeed not used commonly and this prevents a lot of us from really understanding how the world works.

Remember, by naming things, you can adapt your vision of the world.



I was not talking specifically about religion but yea.

The beginning, the only real act of "creation" that could be a reality, happened before the expension of the universe.

Maybe I misunderstand but I think it's also important to differentiate between materialism and physicalism

 

[Logiko]

Physicalism is an extention of materialism. It takes into account all physical systems.

But I think materialism is more adapted at the moment to talk about political concepts as it is a philosophy that take social systems into account.

 

[Daniel]

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/work...e-agency-to-collect-tariff-income/?readmore=1

WASHINGTON (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday announced plans to create a new agency called the External Revenue Service to collect tariffs and other revenues from foreign nations.

“We will begin charging those that make money off of us with Trade, and they will start paying,” Trump said Tuesday on his social media site, Truth Social. He compared his planned creation to the Internal Revenue Service, which is the nation’s domestic tax collector.

The creation of a new agency requires an act of Congress, and Republicans hold the majority of both the House and the Senate.

Trump, who has vowed to shrink the size of government, would be creating a new agency to do functions already handled by existing agencies, including the Commerce Department and the Customs and Border Patrol, which collect duties and revenues from other nations.

The president-elect has tapped two business titans to lead his Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, a nongovernmental task force assigned to find ways to fire federal workers, cut programs and slash federal regulations, all part of what he calls his “Save America” agenda for a second term in the White House.

Billionaire Elon Musk and fellow entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy are leading the DOGE’s ambitious efforts to reduce the size and scope of the federal government.

Tariffs, with the threat of a potential 25% levy on all goods from allies like Canada and Mexico and 60% on goods from China, have become a benchmark of Trump’s economic agenda as he heads into his second term.

Economists have said the cost of the tariffs will be passed on to consumers, and are generally skeptical of them, considering them a mostly inefficient way for governments to raise money and promote prosperity.

Democratic lawmakers were quick to criticize the External Revenue Service plan.

“No amount of silly rebranding will hide the fact that Trump is planning a multi-trillion-dollar tax hike on American families and small businesses to pay for another round of tax handouts to the rich,” Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement.