Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Gergar12]

There are sort of limits to these things, and yet in ways less than we might think.

For instance, if a society becomes richer and has more disposable income, one of the ways it can spend that money is fighting legal cases. Obviously there is a limit, and society can train more lawyers than it needs. But in practice, a country may be able to significantly increase the number of "elite jobs" it can support.

Yes, but that requires economic growth and a portion of the left believes in degrowth economics. Also, the people who are making it more likely in the future like Elon Musk whose rockets could make asteroid mining are in reality hated by the very left that needs his economic growth policies the most. You can't have economic growth without economic growth.

Donald Trump was not made the way he was by his Bachelor's degree in Economics.



Sounds like sheer elitism.

No, but the system that overproduced elites created Donald Trump, Bannon, and many others like them.


The problem with the university system is that it's detached from supply and demand. There are many majors we don't need more of, and many majors that we needed more of, but now don't. Soon nursing and computer science will be like this. First, we needed lots of them, now we are beginning to see oversupply.

 

[Silvanus]

No, but the system that overproduced elites created Donald Trump, Bannon, and many others like them.

Trump came from a very wealthy family and inherited their business interests. The system that 'created' him is the system of wealth inheritance, which long predates the broad accessibility of Higher education.

The problem with the university system is that it's detached from supply and demand. There are many majors we don't need more of, and many majors that we needed more of, but now don't. Soon nursing and computer science will be like this. First, we needed lots of them, now we are beginning to see oversupply.

It's detached from supply and demand because there is no equitable or moral way to restrict it by demand.

Of course, I also don't believe it should be connected to the demand for certain professions. Education is a good in and of itself, and limiting it will only result in those smaller "elites" becoming less and less representative of the population, less empathic, more elitist and more exploitative.

 

[Agema]

Yes, but that requires economic growth and a portion of the left believes in degrowth economics.

No, it doesn't require economic growth. It can be achieved by reformulation of the economy to other motivations and aims, which is what "degrowth economics" basically is. So, for instance, stop buying a new wardrobe every three months when the latest fashion comes out, and buy additional legal services instead.

Also, the people who are making it more likely in the future like Elon Musk whose rockets could make asteroid mining are in reality hated by the very left that needs his economic growth policies the most.

We don't need Elon Musk. Unless everyone forgets, virtually all major progress in space travel to date was made by the public sector. In some countries, it's still the public sector leading the way. The USA has left it to people like Musk because that's the ideology of the USA - but for all we know, the first people to mine asteroids will be the government-owned Chinese space agency. Or even NASA, because it will effectively co-opt Musk, Bezos et al as contractors for its own aims.

 

[Trunkage]

What policies are being pushed anywhere that is right-wing? You might have an example here or there, just like you would for left-wing, but where's this overall push for right-wing policies being pushed by the republican party? What politicians say (to get votes) and actually do are 2 different things. Look at what the democrats say vs what they do as well. Just doing a quick skim of the Proud Boys, how are they fascists except for Wikipedia calling them neo-fascists? What are they for that is actually fascist? People throw around terms like fascism, socialism, communism without knowing what they are all the time. Like the right calls Bernie a communist for example. I'd say the same thing in reply to those calling Bernie a communist that I did here. When you go about labeling people with such terms, it only causes more polarization and you are less and less likely to listen to what someone is saying with an open mind and now it seems people write others off without even listening at all.

Did ya mean far right here?

If you mean right-wing/conservative that means having any policy that MAINTAINS the status quo.

So.... literally everything from their stance on coal, companies, unions (or the lack there of), medical care, schools, water and infrastructure. Let's use the last example. The Republicans have gone out of the way not to fix up bridges etc because they just believe in maintaining whatever has happened previously. It's does not matter if its broken or not.

Mainly what I said above to Trunkage. FDR was far more "fascist" than Trump.

I think FDR was quite fascie. Not as much as Trump. The main difference is on this dimension. Trump generally forcing the workforce into workplaces and removing alternatives. FDR provided a bunch of alternatives if workplaces were unsatisfactory.

Also...Again. These people CALL themselves right wing. Or far right. It's not us calling them that. If you want me to be in trouble for calling FDR a little fascie just now, so be it. I'll retract it as soon as you retracted every label you have used to denigrate women, Transpeople, teachers, people seeking abortions, homosexuals and doctors. I'll do you a favour, I'll limit to the ones you said in the last month. I also hope you noticed that I didnt include political groups or media in general. I'm making it easier for you. But that's still thousands of retractions.

Imagine being cranky over calling Trump right wing....

 

[tstorm823]

or someone with sorts of tendencies and techniques of fascists Democrats.

Fixed that for you. Trump had the tendencies and techniques of a Democrat.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Fixed that for you. Trump had the tendencies and techniques of a Democrat.

And that's why Republicans have been throwing themselves at his feet and tearing each other apart for his favor!

...no, wait, that makes no sense at all. In fact, that's insane.

 

[Agema]

Fixed that for you. Trump had the tendencies and techniques of a Democrat.

Only in your little personal universe.

God forbid the Republicans do ever put a full-on fascist up: rather than face up to the problems in the Republican Party that lead to it, you'll be making excuses for him and blaming the Democrats.

 

[MrCalavera]

Stop getting news from twitter.

Right. Youtube is so much better.

Mainly what I said above to Trunkage. FDR was far more "fascist" than Trump.

Sure, he was """fascist""".
The difference between them is that FDR was (allegedly)a target of a planned fascist coup, while Trump has their open support.

 

[tstorm823]

Only in your little personal universe.

God forbid the Republicans do ever put a full-on fascist up: rather than face up to the problems in the Republican Party that lead to it, you'll be making excuses for him and blaming the Democrats.

I didn't blame the Democrats. I said that Trump acts like one. That's not making excuses for him, rather it's a pretty big condemnation. Trump's a man of poor character who's been heinous with his attacks on political opponents (Lyndon Johnson), a complete sleaze in his dealings with women (Bill Clinton), who inspired a riot at a federal building with politically expedient lies (exactly what Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) did with Bret Kavanaugh). Trump is a populist at times, latching onto whatever rhetoric seems to gain traction, whether or not he intends to go through with any of it, which is exactly the Democratic Party.

 

[Agema]

I didn't blame the Democrats. I said that Trump acts like one. That's not making excuses for him, rather it's a pretty big condemnation. Trump's a man of poor character who's been heinous with his attacks on political opponents (Lyndon Johnson), a complete sleaze in his dealings with women (Bill Clinton), who inspired a riot at a federal building with politically expedient lies (exactly what Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) did with Bret Kavanaugh). Trump is a populist at times, latching onto whatever rhetoric seems to gain traction, whether or not he intends to go through with any of it, which is exactly the Democratic Party.

So it is your contention that no Republicans have made heinous attacks on political opponents, been complete sleazes with women, or incited political violence, then?

 

[Silvanus]

Trump's a man of poor character who's been heinous with his attacks on political opponents (Lyndon Johnson), a complete sleaze in his dealings with women (Bill Clinton), who inspired a riot at a federal building with politically expedient lies (exactly what Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) did with Bret Kavanaugh).

Even if you discount Trump, these characteristics are still more common among Republicans.

Something that really sticks in my craw is how Republicans and US conservatives condemn the Dems for being overly hostile or personal towards them... when the Republicans sling constant shit, day after day, on a far greater level. Essentially: they can dish it out but can't take it.

 

[Buyetyen]

Something that really sticks in my craw is how Republicans and US conservatives condemn the Dems for being overly hostile or personal towards them... when the Republicans sling constant shit, day after day, on a far greater level. Essentially: they can dish it out but can't take it.

Story of any bully. They're paper tigers who don't know what to do except cry when you stand up to them.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

It's...it's literally in the video. The video that Marjorie 3-names willingly made herself. It's right fucking there. All you have to do is look and press play. She's saying it herself for you. Are you a bot? Have you received brain damage?

It was not for that specific post, all Mysterious does is post twitter links all the time. Get off twitter, it's not good for ya.

You don't get to use the word "fascist" anymore because you don't know what it means.

I know what the word fascist means, you guys don't seem to know what it means. FDR was easily more fascist than Trump if you actually know what the word means.

Sure sure. Next up, I expect to hear such gems of profundity as "It must be left-wing because they were the national socialist party", or "Hitler made welfare programs, liberals made welfare programs, liberalism is therefore fascism!" I can't help but point out that the USA did have a genuine fascist movement when FDR was around, what with it being the 1930s-40s and all. If nothing else we should respect fascists' ability to recognise their own, and needless to say FDR was very unpopular with them.

In a sense, pretty much no-one is a fascist in the traditional sense these days. Fascism was a creation of a particular time and situation (and with some varying characteristics by nation), which doesn't really map well onto the current era. But fascist (more strictly, neo-fascist or post-fascist) as right-wing authoritarian nationalism, along the lines of early-mid 20th century fascist parties, is a term with some justification for Trump, the Proud Boys, and numerous other elements of the US alternative right.

If you cannot see the ways that Trump was fascistic, then you don't get fascism. I don't think Trump was really fascist himself: after all, it's not like he has any coherent political ideology, he's mostly just a monstrous narcissist obsessed with his own self-aggrandisement and a crude demagogue's insight into mob manipulation. I might rather call him a proto-fascist, or someone with sorts of tendencies and techniques of fascists. But he's opened the door to someone worse, and his party has declined to close it, so be careful what you end up with.



He's clearly got certain strong leanings towards or sympathies with the US right. But that's not necessarily the same as being right-wing overall, as individual political ideology can be very complex. In particular, some political beliefs cut across conventional political "sides" rather than between. This is part of why people can switch allegiances in what might seem very unusual ways: they're being motivated by some thing(s) that doesn't easily fit standard political or party discimination.

Again, FDR was far more fascist than Trump when actually applying what the word means.

I don't have any strong leanings towards the right. I don't vote for either party, I don't know how many times I have to say this. I only care about whatever is the best thing to do in any circumstance; sometimes that is what the conservatives want, sometimes that is what the liberals want, and sometimes that is what neither of them want but something else. For example, the republicans voting against giving millions to the FDA for the baby formula shortage is the right thing to do because that doesn't help get baby formula on the store shelves in any way. Yet you have people on here and Facebook posting how the republicans don't want to give food to babies when they don't even understand what's going on and just side with their tribe and paint the other side as evil, which only causes more polarization. People don't even attempt to understand where someone else is coming from regardless if they are right or wrong, but if you understand where they are coming from, they are probably right about a couple things that you can implement into the solution that is better than your proposed solution.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

It was not for that specific post, all Mysterious does is post twitter links all the time. Get off twitter, it's not good for ya.



I know what the word fascist means, you guys don't seem to know what it means. FDR was easily more fascist than Trump if you actually know what the word means.


Again, FDR was far more fascist than Trump when actually applying what the word means.

I don't have any strong leanings towards the right. I don't vote for either party, I don't know how many times I have to say this. I only care about whatever is the best thing to do in any circumstance; sometimes that is what the conservatives want, sometimes that is what the liberals want, and sometimes that is what neither of them want but something else. For example, the republicans voting against giving millions to the FDA for the baby formula shortage is the right thing to do because that doesn't help get baby formula on the store shelves in any way. Yet you have people on here and Facebook posting how the republicans don't want to give food to babies when they don't even understand what's going on and just side with their tribe and paint the other side as evil, which only causes more polarization. People don't even attempt to understand where someone else is coming from regardless if they are right or wrong, but if you understand where they are coming from, they are probably right about a couple things that you can implement into the solution that is better than your proposed solution.

"Get off Twitter! Go to YouTube, where you can have batshit insane definitions of fascist thrown at you instead!"

 

[Buyetyen]

It was not for that specific post, all Mysterious does is post twitter links all the time. Get off twitter, it's not good for ya.

Says the guy who think YT science is best science.

I know what the word fascist means, you guys don't seem to know what it means. FDR was easily more fascist than Trump if you actually know what the word means.

There's a difference between knowledge and belief.

People don't even attempt to understand where someone else is coming from regardless if they are right or wrong, but if you understand where they are coming from, they are probably right about a couple things that you can implement into the solution that is better than your proposed solution.

This is rich in the extreme coming from you. To be fair, the more I see of you, the less I believe you're a fascist. Your worldview is too shallow and incurious to have a coherent political ideology. Unfortunately, this functionally means that your actions are going to benefit the status quo more often than not.

 

[Agema]

Again, FDR was far more fascist than Trump when actually applying what the word means.

Fascism is generally characterised as a far right political ideology of authoritarianism, anti-democracy, extreme nationalism, and a strong belief in social order and hierarchy. It is generally also heavily associated with militarism, racism, anti-communism and anti-capitalism (although in the latter case, the capitalist structure was not dismantled, but simply co-opted by the state).

Comparisons in some ways can be difficult because of the differences between the 30s/40s and now. But basically anyone who thinks Trump is less fascist in attitude, inclination and intent than FDR is in cloudcuckooland.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Fascism is generally characterised as a far right political ideology of authoritarianism, anti-democracy, extreme nationalism, and a strong belief in social order and hierarchy. It is generally also heavily associated with militarism, racism, anti-communism and anti-capitalism (although in the latter case, the capitalist structure was not dismantled, but simply co-opted by the state).

Comparisons in some ways can be difficult because of the differences between the 30s/40s and now. But basically anyone who thinks Trump is less fascist in attitude, inclination and intent than FDR is in cloudcuckooland.

Well it's obvious, fascism is like socialism, and we know how socialism works.

 

[Trunkage]

I don't have any strong leanings towards the right. I don't vote for either party, I don't know how many times I have to say this. I only care about whatever is the best thing to do in any circumstance; sometimes that is what the conservatives want, sometimes that is what the liberals want, and sometimes that is what neither of them want but something else. For example, the republicans voting against giving millions to the FDA for the baby formula shortage is the right thing to do because that doesn't help get baby formula on the store shelves in any way. Yet you have people on here and Facebook posting how the republicans don't want to give food to babies when they don't even understand what's going on and just side with their tribe and paint the other side as evil, which only causes more polarization. People don't even attempt to understand where someone else is coming from regardless if they are right or wrong, but if you understand where they are coming from, they are probably right about a couple things that you can implement into the solution that is better than your proposed solution.

Yeah. This baby formula has got way more to do with you not understanding the problem

Republicans want to give money to big business, hence they passed what they passed. They don't want any department (except Defense) to get more money, hence they denied what they denied.

They did not once look at the problem and thought about what would get baby formula on shelves

Another example would be gun control. I think the Dems are pushing for pretty ineffective gun control. It's probably not going to have a major positive impact.... but it wont have a major negative impact. The Republicans are handing out rifles to everyone which is definitely going to have a negative impact.

They did not once look at the problem and thought about what could stop mass shootings. (Possible exception being Pat Toomey and that cadre recently. I'll wait and see.) They just want more guns

 

[Terminal Blue]

Radical mass politics in a country full of guns is a recipe for disaster. If you want political change vote for it, don't go to the streets and fight people. Also, many populists end up being dictators if they win. I would rather we not lose our democracy.

A political system without mass politics is a political system that is ruled by a political elite and where the vast majority of people are disenfranchised. It might nominally be a democracy, but every candidate and politician will come from the same class and represent the same interests. In short, it's a democracy where every candidate is basically identical, where the interests of the vast majority of people are not represented in the political system and where the vast majority of people don't bother to vote at all.

Trump wasn't elected by college graduates who were mad they ended up working at Starbucks (college graduates in general tend to lean more democrat than the rest of the population). Trump was elected because he was able to present himself as someone who would stand up for the white working class against the elites and the existing political establishment. It was a complete lie, but it made sense to tell that lie because those people who would fall for it had nowhere else to turn.

By trying to create a political system without mass politics, not only do you end up creating a lame excuse for a democracy, but you also end up creating a political system where the worst, most insincere forms of mass politics work.

You can't just decide that most of the population don't matter. They will find ways to remind you that they do.

 

[Gordon_4]

Well it's obvious, fascism is like socialism, and we know how socialism works.

Its utterly off topic but by God did Marx have a hair, moustache and beard combo that would make any Son of Durin proud.