Gaming World Forums
General Category => General Talk => Topic started by: Beasley on January 02, 2012, 11:20:09 pm
-
how do you guys feel about texas congressman ron paul? ive got to do more research on the guy, but he seems somewhat attractive as a candidate. at the very least he's a genuine, consistent candidate, offering a lot of things you can't find anywhere else in the 2012 field.
on the other hand, some of his ideas are downright whacky. he favors reverting to the gold standard, is totally isolationist (which is a great thing to a certain extent), and favors abolishing the income tax. really? the income tax? even the rightest of right wingers aren't trying to destroy the income tax completely.
he'd probably destroy medicare and medicaid too. and welfare.
ok nevermind after thinking about it he is a bad option but at least he isn't taking phat corporate kickbacks like the rest of em but i wrote this out so ima post it anyway
who are you supporting america politics 2012? anarchist? green party? repooplican? change(obama)?
vote for beasley 2012
-
seriously i was pulled in because he seems like a nice guy but i did a 180 on this fool so quick it took like 2 minutes
-
I'd vote for him if I could.
"BOOHOO BUT HE'S A RACIST" well guess what buddy? Both obama and bush got a lot more brown and black people killed over petty trivial stuff.
-
I think what he stands for is much closer to true survival-of-the-fittest anarchy than anything else. I think if the government can invest people's money better than the people could do, then it should. Doesn't seem to be the case in US or any other country that isn't a nordic welfare state, however.
Therefore, Ron Paul 2012 GO GO GO.
-
i mean the income tax is pretty ok where it is right now, it doesn't need to be abolished. plenty of incentive to be sucesful etc. etc. but i mean youve gotta reign in capitalisms monopolistic tendencies nah mean.
but imo healthcare is like the one industry the government should non-ambiguously be heavily involved in in some way
-
just the fact this he is not owned by a company makes him really appealing. honestly its impressive he is competing. does he do really well from private donations or what how is he funding his shit
-
I wish I could type a lengthy post about this but it's late and I'm tired and I've got more important work to do.
So instead I'll just link to this letter on Ron Paul by the world's leading anarchist intellectual, Noam Chomsky (http://anarchismtoday.org/News/print/sid=74.html).
Basically the gist of Ron Paul is that he has a few interesting proposals and is against interventionism (mostly accidentally) but this doesn't excuse that he upholds laissez-faire capitalism as the ideal form of social organization and believes every important victory of labor activism should be overturned.
-
DFJKFGDJ FGDKLJFG KDFLG FGD
-
Welcome to /r/saltw.
-
Pretty much all the candidates are awful - it's almost better if America as a nation decided as a nation that it's going to vote by not voting at all, it'd at least push the idea that people have SOME sort of legitimate choice as opposed to choosing shitty leader with outrageous ideas who will almost assuredly change nothing in your life for the better vs other shitty leader with outrageous ideas who will almost assuredly change nothing in your life for the better. Toss in the fact that WHOEVER takes over always inherits the fuckups of the predecessors, which have been building for decades given THEY inherited the problems of THEIR predecessors, and they basically spend their 4-year term trying to play catch-up in a game they're ultimately losing.
21st-century politics are some depressing shit. Whatever I've said is probably pretty easy to rebut, so go ahead if you want I guess! I won't argue it, since I'm not particularly attached to these sentiments so much as it's just sorta how I feel about the whole situation these days - apaaaathy.
-
it's almost better if America as a nation decided as a nation that it's going to vote by not voting at all
I don't think that will do anything. Practically nobody votes as it is because people don't think it matters.
Toss in the fact that WHOEVER takes over always inherits the fuckups of the predecessors, which have been building for decades given THEY inherited the problems of THEIR predecessors, and they basically spend their 4-year term trying to play catch-up in a game they're ultimately losing.
I don't think they're mistakes. These policies are all intentional. Obama's just continuing the same policies that are leading to the decline of the working class. He didn't inherit a mess—he inherited something that the people, the voters, think is a mess—but to him it's the perfectly logical result of decades of policy direction. It's a specific ideology that he adheres to, and it's all working exactly as intended.
-
Well, most of my college teachers would agree with you Dada, and since they're smarter cats than I ever was, I'm inclined to as well. Unfortunately that's the reason FOR my apathy, the whole situation's so fucked that it's going to take such a resolve from the society itself to change it I really don't see how it's going to happen given the power of a very well loved and established hegemony that can always just pull on people's patriotic heartstrings and all that jazz. Even here in Canada, we get pissed about this kind of stuff but it's not bad ENOUGH that we're willing to acknowledge it to the point of taking interest in our own fate beyond putting a check mark in a box every couple of years.
Sucks to live in America I guess!
-
I would rather have fallout happen, then I would make my own tribe and shoot motherfuckers in the head who thought like any of the current candidates for president of the united states 2012.
I used to hate the idea of dictators, monarchs, and militant leadership but I think if its done right its way better than this bullshit.
Che "Farren" Villa for international warlord - 2016
-
The important part of the whole dictator thing Farren is to keep in mind none of us have actually lived under such conditions, so it's easy to speak on.
As retarded as some of the stuff going on here in North America seems, we're kidding ourselves if us 20-25 year old adults think we're qualified to speak on actual atrocity. Our connection to that shit is History Channel level.
This is the second time I've referenced it today but this whole thing is like that Good Will Hunting clip where Robin Williams tells Matt Damon what's up in relation to the experience of living something versus studying it later.
-
Unfortunately that's the reason FOR my apathy, the whole situation's so fucked that it's going to take such a resolve from the society itself to change it I really don't see how it's going to happen
There are ways to change this. It's going to be slow and gradual, but there's a good starting point: Occupy Wall Street. It should turn to neighborhood and labor organizing now. The act of just protesting has pretty much run its course for them. They should realize that people are overwhelmingly on their side, and that given the right degree of organization they can start to seriously make changes. There's a well-documented inverse correlation between labor organization and the level of income of the so-called 1% (which isn't an exact number but it's basically the right visual). That's also why so much effort was put in effectively dismantling labor unions, and why they're so demonized today.
ps: I'm quite surprised you had college teachers who would agree with me on any of these things.
-
I used to hate the idea of dictators, monarchs, and militant leadership but I think if its done right its way better than this bullshit.
The problem is that the people have too little say, not that they have too much say.
-
I dunno. I understand the frustration of someone telling you or making you do shit that you don't want to or don't like but honestly. If there was a "dictator" that held the interests of the people at heart with a transparant, simple, and honest policy for the betterment of all benign living things. I think it would be way better on every level. But that person would also have to be willing to give up power once his/her job was done, back to the people.
I visialize any resistance to that like a comparison to the relationship between a parent and child. If the child isn't educated, doesn't understand the reason why then he fights. If he can learn why, he can walk his own path later on. The problem is the world is full of dumbass babies who can't shut the fuck up, think, and listen. Which is why we need a Ghandi with a gun. Shoot the gun, they shut-up and if you talk eloquently and simply enough then maybe enough can get the point?
And when I say "dumbass babies" I'm not even talking about your average layman, you're average suffering working man. Because I think they'd learn quicker than the others. The ones that are the problem, the ones that are the problem now and will always be the problem are those that HAVE and cannot fucking understand what its like to NOT HAVE or be a HAVE NOT and especially do not understand the basic principle of the greater good and sharing with the unfortunate. Regardless of the outcome of such a thing or cause for such a predicament in the first place.
Except on christmas........
-
sorry this thread is pretty much doomed bc the first few posts are talking about ron paul and not singularly negatively. his son is rand paul btw if you didn't know, named after ayn rand
beasley there is SO MUCH SHIT on ron paul you would not believe it but I think a lot of us are just sick of him by now and don't have the energy to care anymore. search for steel's posts on him if you wanna, or look up what he thinks about the FDA
I'm gonna be writing in herman cain. actually I have no idea who to vote for
-
I dunno. I understand the frustration of someone telling you or making you do shit that you don't want to or don't like but honestly. If there was a "dictator" that held the interests of the people at heart with a transparant, simple, and honest policy for the betterment of all benign living things. I think it would be way better on every level. But that person would also have to be willing to give up power once his/her job was done, back to the people.
I visialize any resistance to that like a comparison to the relationship between a parent and child. If the child isn't educated, doesn't understand the reason why then he fights. If he can learn why, he can walk his own path later on. The problem is the world is full of dumbass babies who can't shut the fuck up, think, and listen. Which is why we need a Ghandi with a gun. Shoot the gun, they shut-up and if you talk eloquently and simply enough then maybe enough can get the point?
The basic fallacy of this argument, aside from the rather obvious fact that absolute power corrupts absolutely, is that people are stupid and in need of education by some smarter being. That's just not true. Take a look at the US: widespread agreement on a number of things that politicians disagree with. Such as single-payer healthcare, which a majority has wanted for well over a decade now. Or the Iraq war, for which a minority support only existed because people were led to believe that there really were weapons of mass destruction.
So you can support a dictator, or you can support a form of government whereby people are the ones who decide what happens, rather than just ratifying what the elites want to do every few years. A form that doesn't have leaders, but representatives that can be recalled anytime as soon as they stop representing the people. A form that doesn't lead to gigantic class differences that spawn wealthy elites who eventually get to run everything. That's what democracy is. Which is something entirely different than what's going on in the US today.
-
There are ways to change this. It's going to be slow and gradual, but there's a good starting point: Occupy Wall Street.
I dunno too much about occupy wall street but to me it looked like a bunch of college student level pampered hipster jackasses with no real direction except "THE CURRENT MARKET IS FUCKING US AND WE ARE MAD!" It just seemed like a shallow ass bandwagon full of kids who would stand in the streets and shout but not take a bullet for what they believe in. That shit doesn't work. its too plastic, yuppie, and whiny to me. Now if they'd burned the wallstreet building to the ground, pawned off all of the steel foundation and building material and then gave it to the homeless. That would send a very accurate and passionate message the world would have to listen to.
I know what I'm saying doesn't sound realistic but vocalizing what you feel is not enough. No one of importance fucking cares. They have to see you stopping the status quo and breaking shit, costing them money before they even start to REALLY give a fuck.
The basic fallacy of this argument, aside from the rather obvious fact that absolute power corrupts absolutely, is that people are stupid and in need of education by some smarter being. That's just not true. Take a look at the US: widespread agreement on a number of things that politicians disagree with. Such as single-payer healthcare, which a majority has wanted for well over a decade now.
I don't think there is ever absolution with anything. It takes a person that personally doesn't want that kind of power in order to actually use it the right way. Not education in the way of the traditional sense. More like guidance and leadership. The world has/is/will be shaped by the few men/women who don't think like the rest of the world. An enlightened, good person, with the good of the people in mind would have done all those things without argument or beauracracy in less than of the tenth of the time it would take your democracy.
-
Anyone who thinks the Occupy protests have "no real direction" (or any of its variations, such as that they don't have a unified message or any policy proposals) hasn't been paying attention.
-
There are ways to change this. It's going to be slow and gradual, but there's a good starting point: Occupy Wall Street. It should turn to neighborhood and labor organizing now. The act of just protesting has pretty much run its course for them. They should realize that people are overwhelmingly on their side, and that given the right degree of organization they can start to seriously make changes. There's a well-documented inverse correlation between labor organization and the level of income of the so-called 1% (which isn't an exact number but it's basically the right visual). That's also why so much effort was put in effectively dismantling labor unions, and why they're so demonized today.
Last year I fronted a Social Justice group at my college of fairly respectable size - we marched at G20, did a lot of local activism work in the community protesting the lockouts of local steel workers and what not, stuff like that. We worked with other local sustainability groups and stuff like that.
As much as their efforts did inspire me in many ways, and definitely changed the way I view these matters, it also really made one thing clear to me: As much as these groups do want legitimate change, they are VERY us vs them. If you are not supportive of their efforts down to the last letter, they are not terribly interested in your support. They SAY they are, but in practice they are not. The ISSUE here is that people in our society are not black and white like this, they're typically fairly grey. They want change, but they want changes that they can interact with at their convenience. That's large in part due to our acculturation, but it goes deeper. If it cuts into something they care about (sports, TV, hell even just their leisure time) they are almost guaranteed unwilling to make the effort. PARTICULARLY because most leftist groups are pretty doom and gloom, they love using images of the evil man, love celebrating anything vaguely anarchistic, and are often so unrelenting in their beliefs that it makes it difficult for people to want to work with them. Instead of either speaking in language that alienates people and loses joe citizen, OR for that matter instead of speaking in overtly positive and lovey dovey terms (which alienates a whole different section of the population) where we want to convince a society that has been rooted in preservation of the self, not the whole, that it DOES want to care for its fellow man irregardless of the conditions that have been in place for centuries negating this. We need to be speaking to people with broader strokes, being a little more honest with the facts of the situation as opposed to yeah, just trying to convince people we're either all going to die in a year or that you should want to help your brothers because it's the right thing to do because humanity's the best (which even if it IS, does not compute with the way we actually live, at least not here in North America).
For those reasons and more, I eventually became disillusioned with their efforts. They're not really connecting with a percentage of the population whose ACTUAL opinions should be considered valid and necessary for making long-standing change, and instead wish to, knowingly or not, impose a different sort of ideological hierarchy based around beliefs that half the people they wish to help simply don't believe in. Capitalism is massively flawed and short-sighted, but flawed or not its roots are long-standing and one cannot simply flip a switch and everything starts over, social change cannot come without great upheaval and I don't think as a society we're quite WILLING to make the sacrifices that would come with. Hell, I'm not so sure I even am and I've been involved with this shit. If push comes to shove, that's likely to change, but it hasn't for enough yet. The question is how much will it take at the end of the day, and how many concessions will we be willing to make in the name of fear. And for that matter, is there ANY possible way of re-structuring a society so social elitism doesn't rise to the top again? That almost sounds impossible to me, we virtually left egalitarianism behind when we settled down thousands of years ago.
Sorry if this sounds rambly, I find it hard to keep my posts together on this little box (though I just realized that apparently it's because I am using the quick reply!)
-
Man that post barely makes sense, I hope nobody rips me apart too bad :(
Edit: This isn't even the only forum I'm engaged in a debate I really have no basis to be a real part of right now, I'm making an ass of myself left right and center tonight!
-
No I really liked that post and it summed up pretty much how I feel about those kinds of grassroots movements. They're fucking placid and stale.
Anyone who thinks the Occupy protests have "no real direction" (or any of its variations, such as that they don't have a unified message or any policy proposals) hasn't been paying attention.
You are right I have not been paying attention very much because I've been pretty jaded about where we're going the past couple years. But my point still stands. It doesn't matter if they have proposals if they aren't willing to go to extremes in order to have them heard.
-
Sectarianism on the left is something that will never be overcome. There need to be unified principles that we can work with, otherwise there's no critical mass. Occupy Wall Street is partly an attempt to unify a divided left, and partly an outlet for people who aren't activists. Well, the unified principles exist, and there's massive support for them from the public, so there are real possibilities here, as long as they keep those principles in mind, which are the raison d'être, as opposed to the technique.
Capitalism is massively flawed and short-sighted, but flawed or not its roots are long-standing and one cannot simply flip a switch and everything starts over, social change cannot come without great upheaval and I don't think as a society we're quite WILLING to make the sacrifices that would come with.
I think people, the intellectual left in particular, are too concerned with the backlash from making massive changes in society. For one thing, that's not gonna happen. Any change will be gradual, unless there's a revolution of some sort, at which point all bets are off and it becomes a completely different discussion. The thing people forget is that you need a plan from A to B, otherwise you might as well say you want world peace: just saying it isn't going to make it happen. You need to have a concrete plan to make it happen.
When you think about it in gradual steps, it becomes a lot more manageable. The repercussions become clear. So for example, you could start by demanding universal healthcare. Not even controversial. You could demand that the big banks that got bailed out become heavily regulated. Or even better, nationalize them. You could demand a reversal of regulatory capture. Or accountability for those that ruined the economy and the Gulf of Mexico. Or increase the minimum wage, or make income taxes steeply progressive, or end tax loopholes. The list just goes on. All of these are things we can do, and incidentally they make the discussion on getting away from capitalism easier, not more difficult.
And for that matter, is there ANY possible way of re-structuring a society so social elitism doesn't rise to the top again? That almost sounds impossible to me, we virtually left egalitarianism behind when we settled down thousands of years ago.
It's hard to say, but there's some evidence that libertarian socialism has some chance. It's been successfully tried before on a smaller scale, before the efforts got crushed.
edit: leaving now because SLEEP.
-
It doesn't matter if they have proposals if they aren't willing to go to extremes in order to have them heard.
People are too concerned with extremes to notice that it's the difficult and time-consuming work of activism and organization that's brought about all of the social structures we take for granted these days. Those are real victories for the poor and working people that helped steeply increase the quality of life. All this talk about anarchism and communism is nice, but once you start dotting out a plan from here to there, it becomes clear what has to be done first. Put some effort into those things rather than dreaming about a revolution that's not getting any closer to happening while you're sitting here typing forum posts for a site called Salt World.
-
You're right Dada, change IS a slow, gradual beast. That's one thing working with that group definitely taught me, and despite several debates on the matter with a far more knowing teacher, he was able to demonstrate that he was right on that every single time. Perhaps that's the largest issue of them all - us younger generations have become so accustomed to rapid change, we anticipate it in all things - even the foundations of society. How does one shift that perception to understand that there's more to social progression than good intention and speedy will? Does it even matter? These next few decades are going to be very telling!
But don't worry about this stuff until tomorrow go to sleep!
-
Anyone who thinks the Occupy protests have "no real direction" (or any of its variations, such as that they don't have a unified message or any policy proposals) hasn't been paying attention.
idk man, I went to the camp in my city several times and didn't see any major cohesive movements, tho granted I never made my way down into the pit (they were occupying an awful City Beautiful plaza that no pedestrian could possibly enjoy, complete with gross sunken plazas coated in granite-patterned concrete. but not because it was an excellent statement about the leaders abusing their power and doing a disservice to the people, but because it was conveniently next to the city hall (what) and it was the only place near there they were allowed to camp). one memorable guy who looked like he popped straight out of the grime-chic section of Urban Outfitters would dance in the cross-walks during a red light, waving a sign that read "create jobs and restore our crumbling economy"
there WERE some coherent trends of course, but I don't think "lacking direction" is an incorrect description of the protests at all. there's been too much white noise, and afaict most everyday people still have no clue what they're protesting
bernie sanders is the only openly socialist american politician and the only one that doesn't deserve an icepick to the brainstem. vote for him if you're gonna bother voting.
ya I saw him. I guess it's him or nothing
-
YOUP EOPLE ARE BULLSHIT COMMUNIST GRON PUAL IS A GREAT CANDIATE FOR AMERICA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmYMzxA_U-c
-
its all complete shit, don't vote for anyone, burn it all to the fucking ground(not literally)
-
Anyone who thinks the Occupy protests have "no real direction" (or any of its variations, such as that they don't have a unified message or any policy proposals) hasn't been paying attention.
actually there's a strong pull within occupy to resist making demands/policy proposals and I agree with it.
keep up the tension, demand nothing, shut down everything
-
Capitalism is massively flawed and short-sighted, but flawed or not its roots are long-standing and one cannot simply flip a switch and everything starts over, social change cannot come without great upheaval and I don't think as a society we're quite WILLING to make the sacrifices that would come with.
when that social upheaval comes, as it has in the past, it won't be because people willingly decide to make sacrifices. It'll be because our situation has become unbearable and people are thrust onto the stage of history and forced to act. the initial tremors are appearing over the place right now: The arab spring and what set it off cannot be seperated from the fact that there's nearly 50% unemployment for young people that's why that dude set himself on fire. The same is true in Greece, same with Spain, there's literally no future for young people everywhere. "Occupy" in the US has its roots in the same problem and while it will(in my opinion) ultimately be transitory it is an initial expression of this and the shape of things to come... hopefully shedding all the goofy baggage of american leftism in the process.
here everyone read this (http://nihilistcommunism.blogspot.com/)
and this (http://libcom.org/library/eclipse-re-emergence-communist-movement)
-
http://youtu.be/8Rv0Z5SNrF4
ron paul people are the most annoying dumb motherfuckers on the planet and I usually just walk away or quickly change the subject when anyone brings up ron paul in conversation because it's excruciating to even hear
-
The only problem with that dude is that the american public would never openly accept neo-communism or any socialist rule unless it just happened and they didn't realize that shit.
And honestly dada's romanticized hope for some kind of cohiesive movement would take fucking decades if it could ever even happen. Its already getting too late for that to even be an option anymore. I think you'd be more likely to see society break down into some great depression shit with a strong armed government rule over whats left of the starving populace before that shit would ever happen. In my opinion the only way that would work would be for a massive violent upheaval and for somebody to slip in and start doing that shit without people realizing what it actually was.
Because, hating communism is ingrained in our history and political culture. You'd have too many people unwilling to even consider it, starving or not they'd still want their capitalist "freedom".
-
there WERE some coherent trends of course, but I don't think "lacking direction" is an incorrect description of the protests at all.
You have to look closely, but there are concrete ideas on how to proceed. They've been enunciated and people agree with them in large part. I don't mean to say that they're universal demands, or that the protesters are even able to enumerate them, but that's hardly surprising. The reason why people aren't focusing on them is because the ideas have been around for a while. They're not new. And besides that, the main point of the protest is to show that there's an overwhelming demand for change. It's not a think tank.
keep up the tension, demand nothing, shut down everything
Protesting and occupying are just means to an end, and what you should be concerned about is the end rather than the means. There's no reason to believe these protests can become big enough to actually turn into a revolution. You actually mention that yourself. This is probably just transitory. You can either piously sit it out in anticipation of something else, or you can do something.
And honestly dada's romanticized hope for some kind of cohiesive movement would take fucking decades if it could ever even happen.
I think it's funny you're calling me a hopeless romantic when I'm the only one saying we shouldn't think of this as a revolution, and that we shouldn't be so docile as to waste a perfectly good opportunity to organize people and force through some real issues that in some cases have decades old majority support among the population.
In that light, the movement is already very cohesive on a number of issues. Take any of the ones I mentioned earlier. These are things the Occupy protesters, and more importantly, the public at large, agree on.
If you're vying for a revolution, that could take decades because there's 300 million people to convince. Which is not the case for, say, universal healthcare. That's a real issue that can improve people's lives, and that you don't need to break down too many walls for to get done.
-
Protesting and occupying are just means to an end, and what you should be concerned about is the end rather than the means. There's no reason to believe these protests can become big enough to actually turn into a revolution. You actually mention that yourself. This is probably just transitory. You can either piously sit it out in anticipation of something else, or you can do something.
a means to what end though? and what exactly do you mean by "do something"?
I think it's important to disabuse people of illusions of reformism as to inoculate against the plague of 'social democracy'(the historic expression of the defeat/capitulation of the workers movement) so 'no demands' makes sense to that end. There are real limitations to what 'occupy' can really do, mostly because it is generally a shitty leftist circus that's capable of drawing a crowd but not much else. I'm really skeptical when I hear people saying "ok now it's time for occupy to start organizing neighborhoods and workplaces" because it just seems like the kind of boilerplate one-size-fits-all response to the emergence of a mass-movement and there's really not much of a basis for it to procede along those lines. At least not here locally and I doubt it's much different elsewhere given accounts I've heard from folks I'm in contact with in places like the bay area and nyc.
-
The only problem with that dude is that the american public would never openly accept neo-communism or any socialist rule unless it just happened and they didn't realize that shit.
And honestly dada's romanticized hope for some kind of cohiesive movement would take fucking decades if it could ever even happen. Its already getting too late for that to even be an option anymore. I think you'd be more likely to see society break down into some great depression shit with a strong armed government rule over whats left of the starving populace before that shit would ever happen. In my opinion the only way that would work would be for a massive violent upheaval and for somebody to slip in and start doing that shit without people realizing what it actually was.
Because, hating communism is ingrained in our history and political culture. You'd have too many people unwilling to even consider it, starving or not they'd still want their capitalist "freedom".
call it communism or not, i think that when it emerges it won't really be a question of "lets do communism", it'll be a situation similar to what you imagine: everything crumbling/falling apart and people responding(hopefully) in accordance with their interests... i mean if you look at things like the paris commune and later initial formations of workers councils/soviets in russia and europe these were less "conscious" efforts to fulfill a utopian scheme but people's practical responses to horrible systemic failure going on around them
Though a shitty outcome is probably the more likely scenario, the degree that "organizers" or activists can influence wether or not people act in their interests when(or if) the time comes is debatable.
-
i don't have anything to contribute to any kind of political discussion anymore and i've done a good job divorcing myself from the intense frustrations i used to feel on the subject. this is probably in the same vein of dismissive anti-intellectualism i used to preach loudly against back in the day, but i just stopped being able to muster up much enthusiasm about it anymore. i'm aware of the fact that i'm pretty powerless, and i'll leave it to someone with less of a fear of driving themselves insane to start that revolution and point me in the direction of the nearest black market firearm dealer.
i do, however, have a nice heart-warming anecdote: my dad was becoming a pretty big ron paul supporter back around the time of the last election. he was falling for a lot of the bullshit and starting to talk rather earnestly about how good of a candidate he was. i think the ultimatum i delivered was something to the extent of lighting something pertinent in the house on fire if he went through with his threat of putting a ron paul sign on the front lawn.
i remember back then we all were excitedly on our FUCK RON PAUL kick and steel went out of his way to make some really nice collection of links to all the bits of online evidence proving that ron paul is a deeply untrustworthy person. because i'm not an avid arsonist, and i couldn't stand the thought of someone in my gene pool having the capacity to make such a fatal error, i linked my dad to steel's nice ron paul exposé, no doubt with some pithy sentence attached that i spent half an hour looking at before sending.
and it worked. that shit never works. he didn't admit it right away, but now whenever my dad sees ron paul on television, or his name comes up in conversation, he goes just a little far out of his way to make a comment on how ill he is. i don't really think he's just saying this to please me, either, although i think his enthusiasm on the subject is partially for my benefit. my dad doesn't bullshit like that, and his tune has entirely changed since he last suggested that president ron paul had a nice ring to it.
i don't really know if this proves anything, but i think when you really dig deeper into who ron paul is and where he came from, you have a guy who is indisputably broken and whose opinion should not carry even the slightest ounce of weight for anyway. most paul supporters don't really know much of anything about him outside of his elegant use of buzzwords and what misinformation they've been able to glean from his staggeringly effective pr department. i'm pretty convinced most people aren't goddamn stupid enough to really believe this shit is a good idea if they sat there thinking about it and doing some homework on the matter.
idk, a nice steel story i guess. i miss that dude.
-
So do I, he was an awesome dude, could be an ass at times (but then so could any body) but still awesome.
First a question, some one mentioned that reagan abolished the working class, how do you abolish a group of people? ban them from existance? explain that one to me, is it a refrence i just don't get?
I've known society was breaking down and whats sad is that most people don't know it, oh sure you have groups of people trying to do somthing like with the occupy wall street but unless they form as a cohesive whole there not gonna acheive shit. I hate politicians, I voted Liberal democrates here in the uk becuase I bought into the whole "we won't increase University fees" and yet when that asshole nick clegg got voted in as co-PM alongside conservatives he didn't do jack shit for students, the only reason he even got in was becuase of suppourt from students, way to give us the finger.
I honestly worry for the future, lol maybe this is what the mayans were predicting, and we all thought it would be a natural disaster. But seriously Society is already crumbling, things like the eurozone are just VERY early signs of a bigger thing at least that's what I belive, I mean I predicted the credit crunch and no I didn't tell any one becuase I thought no one would belive me, but those banks (northen rock) going under were just the warning signs.
-
a means to what end though? and what exactly do you mean by "do something"?
I think it's important to disabuse people of illusions of reformism as to inoculate against the plague of 'social democracy'(the historic expression of the defeat/capitulation of the workers movement) so 'no demands' makes sense to that end. There are real limitations to what 'occupy' can really do, mostly because it is generally a shitty leftist circus that's capable of drawing a crowd but not much else. I'm really skeptical when I hear people saying "ok now it's time for occupy to start organizing neighborhoods and workplaces" because it just seems like the kind of boilerplate one-size-fits-all response to the emergence of a mass-movement and there's really not much of a basis for it to procede along those lines. At least not here locally and I doubt it's much different elsewhere given accounts I've heard from folks I'm in contact with in places like the bay area and nyc.
I'm not gonna pretend to know more about this than you do, but when I mean "doing something" I mean getting people to demand specific things that they've desired for sometimes decades but never received. The typical example being universal single-payer healthcare which has had a majority support for at least over a decade now if not longer.
What I don't get is your opposition to reformism. The only reason why people are no longer working 12-hour work days for wages that still leave their children practically starving and sometimes doesn't even get paid out is because of social reformism. There are tons of examples of important battles that were won through the use of labor activism and I don't doubt the main reason things have been in such a steady decline is because organized labor has been crippled and demonized beyond the point at which it can have any meaningful impact. Unions have practically been captured, membership is at an all-time low. And I don't know of any other way to get things like this done except through massive organized popular demand.
Maybe I'm complete naive about these things and please tell me if I am, but at this point I'm beginning to think people are opposed to reformism because they want things to become so completely abysmal that a real revolution becomes more likely.
-
You're not inaccurate Dada, on any of that. Pretty much all of the positive changes we've become accustomed to in our lives have been gotten through grassroot movements pushing against the tide very arduously and slowly, and it's only through the untiring efforts that anything really does get done. The reason that pisses so many people off is because it's rare people want to be willing to put effort towards something that won't have a result that is both speedily tangible and controllable. That's simply unrealistic. I may have a lot of disdain towards those that are out there chipping away at social progression due to their non-inclusive nature and heavy-handed beliefs, but fact of the matter is they're the ones making the differences. Average people who don't know anything about politics, legislation, all that jazz and simply base their beliefs on what they read on the internet and what the news says more often than not AREN'T doing much in the ways of ensuring their fellow citizen, both today and tomorrow, has a better opportunity to lead a successful life than they themselves had.
But on that last note, that's the part you are most right about - a lot of people DO want things to become so abysmal that a real revolution becomes more likely. Hell, a lot of people these days seem almost EXCITED at the prospect. Many (typically young folks) feel things have gotten so bad that it's better if we just TAKE THE MAN OUT AND OVERTHROW THE WHOLE MOTHERFUCKING THING WOO but these people are also those who did not live through wars, have not really lived in any sort of actual social upheaval besides small-scale stuff that doesn't truly break into their day-to-day lives. And one of the main reasons for that is a lot of people want to feel like they were personally a part of something, like they themselves affected change that they can tell their grandchildren about. But that's not the age we live in, this isn't the 60s and you can chase those days as much as you please but it doesn't change the fact that we operate in different times. Things happen differently now, we're working against a far more sophisticated hegemony that is QUITE effective at keeping the base-line population contented at least enough that they aren't willing to rock that boat - not unless they're going to rock it ALL the way, in such a way we can all jump in streets and cheer and have a great time without really having to do any actual suffering.
We're a go big or go home generation - we want it our way, and if we can't have it we're more likely to not be a part of it. And given that most of these movements are led and directed by far wiser people than the kid wearing the Guy Fawkes mask yelling at an Occupy movement, they become upset that their individual voices are not the ones being heard.
I dunno though, that's just my take on it.
-
@gloomy djinni that is actually quite depressing, has it really become that any mass movments really amount to nothing? and that anything we do want to change has such a low value that it would take EVERY one before change is inacted? You know what's really sad? that people now days have so little to live for that they feel they have to do this just so they have somthing to do and somthing to say that they were apart of history... ach i'd better stop talking about this, it's so fucking depressing it's making me think bad thoughts.
-
It's not necessarily that mass movements amount to nothing, it's that they never start as mass movements. They all start on a grass roots level, unless there is some circumstance such as war breaking out or a newly imposed dictatorship or something like that.
Otherwise, all great change begins with the efforts of a small band of people. That doesn't necessarily jive unfortunately with people who want to be able to create a Facebook group, expect that millions of people are just going to agree and show up, and everything will afterwards just be better.
Edit: I should note that that's how things typically work here in this part of the world, anyways. I don't think I'm really qualified to speak on how it would go down abroad.
-
Well, in britain, when we're pissed we riot.
-
My personal opinion on that is that if there are other folks in other countries getting shot and bombed to hell and fighting tooth and nail just to SURVIVE. Then what the fuck right do I or any other citizen seeking a tangible change have to just walk around with a sign and a thumb up my ass feeling proud about myself when in the end it will do absolutely nothing? Because it won't, yes someone might make a shift or aknowledge for a brief period that I had something to say but then when it gets quiet again, go right back to fucking me and my own.
An example must be set, there must be a point where we say no and let it be known we mean business. Its how this country was founded and how it needs to be re-established. Reform fixes a problem it doesn't fix a broke ass system built into destroying the little man.
-
So all in all, you're right. I feel I live too comfortably and I feel guilty as hell for that. I don't deserve the comfort and complacancy that is all around me. I want something that matters. I want to feel like the world I live in matters, that the people in it are important and not just a bunch of ants in a hill to be controlled.
-
I don't deserve the comfort and complacancy that is all around me.
I don't think it is an issue of deserve or not deserve, it is what you were born into. If anything, everyone deserves comfort and the ability not to have to worry about whether they will get their next meal - this is the complacency you described. However...
I want something that matters. I want to feel like the world I live in matters
What you have to realize is that this is subjective. Aside from that, it is your responsibility to make the world matter to you if that's what you want. The world won't just change itself for the better, but that also doesn't mean you have to be disappointed because you haven't joined a rebellion to overthrow the government and put a better one in place. As sappy as this sounds, if you want to feel like the people in the world matter, then accept they are people. If you feel bad that you live in comfort while others do not, you don't have to run to Africa and become part of the Red Cross or something, walk down to your local soup kitchen and help out.
Other people and the government you live under are somewhat out of your control, but your own actions are not. You are unlikely to become the next Che Guevara and help lead a revolution to overthrow oppression, but you can be a good person to other people and help them when they need it. Your actions may not "matter" on some huge cosmic scale, but they will certainly matter to the people you help.
where the fuck are the real leftists at?
Not many people in America would be considered "real leftists", I would say. Even the young people who are able to break out of the conservative haze that has fallen over America since like, forever, are typically what you would call "stupid yuppies" because for the most part, all they know about leftist ideologies is what they have been spoon fed and in that way they are the same as the conservatives who don't question what is handed to them and react angrily when presented with an alternative viewpoint.
It is unlikely America will suddenly take a turn to the left, but people can be grounded in realism and promote open discussion rather than factionalism. Unfortunately when someone starts talking about leftist ideas, or any political ideas, really, it frequently devolves into a situation of two camps of people standing opposite of each other and name-calling, and it has become all to common an occurance for the smart or well read people to then leave the debate because it is often much more work to attempt to bring the camps back to the rational plane. It doesn't help that conservatism in America continues to devolve further and further into anti-intellectualism and complete distrust of anyone who appears to know what they are talking about.
-
Welcome back, Jeff
-
lmao @OccupyLA recently tweeted that "the main goal of the occupy movement is not anti-corporation, it's anti-people-who-are-bad-at-capitalism" or some stupid shit. my faith in the movement has dropped 500%. where the fuck are the real leftists at? farren was right when he said there's too many stupid yuppies in this movement.
One of the major Occupy centers also tweeted something in support of another attempt to breach the Gaza blockade through the use of a Flotilla, but it was REMOVED shortly after because they considered it too controversial. Apparently you really need to also cater to the rabid pro-occupation crowd.
-
lmao @OccupyLA recently tweeted that "the main goal of the occupy movement is not anti-corporation, it's anti-people-who-are-bad-at-capitalism" or some stupid shit. my faith in the movement has dropped 500%. where the fuck are the real leftists at? farren was right when he said there's too many stupid yuppies in this movement.
LA and the rest of semi-urban california is a wasteland, I wouldn't be surprised if they officially started supporting ron paul or ross perot or anonymous. what are they even occupying? the mowed lawns of concrete and terracotta mcmansion villas? the getty center?
edit: occupy orange county
-
well at least they're occupying themselves i guess... *returns to knitting*
-
I'm not gonna pretend to know more about this than you do, but when I mean "doing something" I mean getting people to demand specific things that they've desired for sometimes decades but never received. The typical example being universal single-payer healthcare which has had a majority support for at least over a decade now if not longer.
What I don't get is your opposition to reformism. The only reason why people are no longer working 12-hour work days for wages that still leave their children practically starving and sometimes doesn't even get paid out is because of social reformism. There are tons of examples of important battles that were won through the use of labor activism and I don't doubt the main reason things have been in such a steady decline is because organized labor has been crippled and demonized beyond the point at which it can have any meaningful impact. Unions have practically been captured, membership is at an all-time low. And I don't know of any other way to get things like this done except through massive organized popular demand.
Maybe I'm complete naive about these things and please tell me if I am, but at this point I'm beginning to think people are opposed to reformism because they want things to become so completely abysmal that a real revolution becomes more likely.
I'll ask again: What do you specifically mean, on a practical level, by "doing something"? Who would the people demand universal single payer healthcare from? Would that mean working within electoral politics? etc.
I'm not completely opposed to 'demands' in general(in fact we do a lot of em in an org i'm involved with), but in the context of "occupy" I never really see the use in presenting demands because all that will do is narrow the focus and provide an opportunity for all the horrible "experts" to swoop in and turn the thing into an obama 2012 campaign. i think the political lessons learned by people confronting police violence and fighting to hold physical space/providing for each other(food and whatnot)/practicing in forms of direct democracy and direct action are much more valuable than promising people free healthcare if they vote democrat with the rest of the nonprofit scum.
i mean i could write a whole lot about why i oppose reformism/the unions but i can already see now that it'll result in us talking past each other judging from your last point. frankly i don't really see much value in attempting to convince you otherwise but if you really want to know where i'm coming from i just suggesting checking out the links I posted up there earlier.
i guess to sum it up with a quote from one of them:
"to live in a condition of lessened exploitation is not the end of revolutionary aspiration and it is demonstrably not the means either"
-
i mean i could write a whole lot about why i oppose reformism/the unions but i can already see now that it'll result in us talking past each other judging from your last point. frankly i don't really see much value in attempting to convince you otherwise but if you really want to know where i'm coming from i just suggesting checking out the links I posted up there earlier.
I can get why you don't see value in trying to convince a Dutch guy who has nothing to do with this, but just so you know: I'm not trying to deride what you're saying, it's just that I really don't see why you're so dismissive of reformism. Yeah, it seems impossible, and we've already seen the all-too familiar faces trying to turn Occupy into their own little party, and I "get" that "lessened exploitation" is not an admirable end goal, but social reforms are still important and can help reduce certain kinds of suffering and make a real difference for people. I don't think it's mutually exclusive with a genuine revolution.
I think your posts on these things are really interesting and illuminating, so it's not that I don't want to try and understand how you think. I'll check out those links. I don't want to be a tool, I want to try and understand this.
-
i didn't mean that in like a mean way or anything(like fuck u random guy) but just like it would really require really really long discussion about history and theory that i dont have the energy for
-
I just ordered a paper version of Nihilist Communism because that's the only way I can get around to reading things. If it arrives in time I'll take it with me on vacation so Japan can appreciate the irony of a guy walking down Shibuya Square while reading a communist dissertation.
-
Remember the tea party protests? There were actual people with signs saying "GET UR BIG GOV'T HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE/SOCIAL SECURITY PS DEATH TO SOCIALESTS" completely unaware that medicare and social security IS socialism and is already run by the "big government".
They actually researched this and found the Tea Party people by and large had progressive views, except for things like "welfare" because that word's been demonized.
And yeah, Jon Stewart. I don't think he's as pernicious as, say, SOUTH PARK, but he plays a pretty crucial part in the politics of self-described liberals. His primary dogma is that you shouldn't say anything outside of the narrow, traditional left-right spectrum, because otherwise you're just a looney worthy of being reviled and joked about. So take for example people who say George W. Bush should be tried for severe violations of the Geneva Convention: that's something you can't say, because "then I can't have a discussion with you", as he himself puts it. He doesn't get, or refuses to acknowledge, that nobody wants to have that discussion.
-
I don't know about this. The problem is political discourse has been poisoned very badly by corporate controlled media/various business interests and so nobody really even knows what leftism actually is.
Being a "real" any politic is understanding the ideas you believe in and the people who first thought them up and then understanding how that ideology fits into your life and how it can coexist with other ideas. I don't really buy your idea that people are actually leftists underneath it all and just need a good push in the right direction. Many people who are conservatives (read Americans) are that way out of tradition or habit, because their parents were or their social circle is. If your ideas are set by your parents or your social circle and you do not question them, then this willful ignorance is part of who you are. It is part of who you are. The reason religious conservatism is popular is because there are plenty of easy rules to follow "you will be anti-abortion", "you will be nationalist", "you will hold Christianity in high regard". It is easy to be involved in this political faction because you don't have to think about it or know why you say the things you say, you know what you are for and against and you don't question, you don't need to question because there will always be a mass of people who are just as ignorant and ready to defend your ignorance aggressively.
My point is, the people who are conservatives are predisposed to be conservatives by their environment. They are predisposed because they have been taught not to question and there is considerable positive reinforcement on them to remain that way; this social pressure does not go away when the people around them are removed. They believe these things, they didn't logically arrive at the conclusion, they hold them to be true without proof or explanation. This isn't something you could change by isolating them or explaining it logically. You could change it by indoctrinating them with your own ideas, by getting together enough leftists and replacing the positive reinforcement with negative, but then, that's just as bad as what has already been done to them. The only way for them to truly change their ideas is to change them based on their own over time, but there is no place you can isolate them for that time to remove them from the pressure to be American. I say American because it is deeply part of what it means to be an American today to be conservative in comparison to, say, Europe. Just because many young people seem to be calling for change or disagreeing with the system doesn't mean that in 10 years they will be the same way. Society has a way of generally retarding change, especially ones designed by Constitutions to have mechanisms to prevent it.
-
i think what is equally important to people in being 'conservative' or whatever is the economic basis that allowed them to be that way. I mean when you grew up in a period where it was possible to have a good life so long as you worked hard and coasted off your white privilege in middle america it's really easy to be a religious conservative esp. if you're brought up that way. nowadays I think that whole paradigm is just vanishing; the whole idea where you can be a carpenter or factory worker for 20 years, own a house, provide for a family, and retire like your parents is just not the way things really work anymore. people are flooding into the urban centres in unprecedented numbers and all that whole mentality is disappearing fast. I'm not sure if the whole "american" ideology is as firmly rooted as some people seem to think, young people tend to shake that shit pretty fast when they move to larger cities and are faced with circumstances where they have to rely on things like food assistance and financial aid(for students).
all that ideological horseshit seems to disappear once people are faced with reality and the hardships of being in a horrible precarious situation like a lot of young people are in today
-
First a question, some one mentioned that reagan abolished the working class, how do you abolish a group of people? ban them from existance? explain that one to me, is it a refrence i just don't get?
It was increased dismantling of workers rights in favour of big business and a major promotion of the 'middleclass dream' where you too can live in the suburbs with your oversized buick, garden parties every week and children going to soccer practice. Getting into thousands of dollar of debt is fine, because you can have a garden! You can wear designer clothes! You can shake your booty at fashionable night clubs and drink wine! You can make all of your decisions under the influence of cocain! See that homeless guy, those children not recieving a proper education, the parents who can barely afford bread, Fuck them! don't let them near you, your perfectly quiffed hair and you powersuit! They pbviously ain't working hard enough to get THE BIG BUCKS! Prettymuch everyone sees themselves as middle class.
Also extensive tax breaks and loosening of restrictions on big business, strong anti-union stance, increasing power to the born-again neo conservatives, supporting south american coups which overthrew democracies and installed authoritatian regimes with favourable trade rates to the US, reduction of free speach and mccarthy style blacklisting of left-wing or 'subversive' musicians, writers and such, didn't do much to help anyone really.
A good example of Reagan culture is a film from the 70's, network, which seemed to predict exactly what happened in the 80's. Check it out, it's great.
Reagan prettymuch destroyed any chance of America having a valid left wing movement, and the whole country's culture and perception was moved towards GOD AND MONEY, whereas before, the rich and famous were still viewed with a level of contempt due to their extravagant and 'amoral' lives, now they are demigods, who clearly worked hard at THE AMERICAN DREAM. It's at the point where like 99% of american 'lefties' would still be classed as far-right over here in the UK, Ken livingstone, former mayor of london was a communist, the labour party has it's roots in communist and socialist movements (even though many of them later u-turn into capitalists unfortunately), the majority of the lib-dems (who are mostly against the coalition) strongly support the idea that the government should support the people rather than the big business. Essentially we have quite a valid left-wing scene here, that is popular enough that it can make a difference, just they need to unify and not split in an absurd fashion akin to the people's front of judea in the life of brian. Though I guess highly respected politicians such as George Galloway shouldn't appear on reality TV pretending to be a cat. The GLC was formed under socialist principles, we have (at the moment, but unlikely to stay if cameron gets re-elected) a public health service, which is respected around the world apart from here and in america, who somehow see it as evil and an invasion of people's rights. The current government is ridiculously right-wing though, but it's really helping foster support for us lefties, and not just in the form of an intillectual elite like it seems to be in america. During the 'credit crunch', Das Kapital became a best seller. Fuck, even the majority of mainstream comedians are registered socialists and anti-monarchists.
I think the kind of problems with the occupy movement, is that it has a large support from the middle class. Though this could give it some validity in the eyes of those in power who have nothing but contempt for the working class, it also seems very hypocritical, because they have played a large part in making the current situation. And also it has a large support by the anarchist nutjobs, and the facebook group for the occupy movement is really shitty. Conspiracy theories,are pretty rampant. I mean, it criticises the far-right too, but seems very centre-wing, and ultimately that'll mean nothing will get seriously changed, people will be happy if they just do small changes and then return to the middle class lifestyle. Also a high number of young-adult lefties tend to become ultra-conservative during their 30's, when they become middle-management and oh so middle class.
Ron Paul's ideas of isolationist policies are downright absurd. Isolationism is one heck of an extreme far-right policy that fosters racism and reduces international trade, thus effectively ruining the economy. America's best hope is to really increase trade with south american countries, especially the left-wing ones such as Cuba (which will actually help reduce anti-americanism due to the world-wide condemnation of america's illegal boycott). As controversal as it is, I think the us should pay more attention of Cuba. While politically it's dubious, they have state funded education any a highly regarded healthcare system (Che was a trained doctor and during the revolution, would treat villagers' illnesses and injuries, prettymuch inspiring the population to become doctors with his magnificance). Many doctors emigrate to america to work there, because they are so highly trained. America also needs to stop with it's slave labour in the form of corporation sponsored prisons, which pay judges money for every person they send to prison, creating an incentive for them to punish innocent people in the name of the mighty dollar.
eek, I think I just ranted a bit too much, but fuck it.
-
Its illegal for America to boycott a country? Don't get me wrong, it comes off as a very stupid idea (to boycott, that is). But I don't understand why it'd be illegal.
I don't believe that the rich and famous should be demigods, but I don't think they should be viewed in contempt either.
I think the kind of problems with the occupy movement, is that it has a large support from the middle class. Though this could give it some validity in the eyes of those in power who have nothing but contempt for the working class, it also seems very hypocritical, because they have played a large part in making the current situation.
So, I don't understand. Are you saying that the middle class should basically go fuck itself? And leave the occupy movement to the working class only?
I largely agree with a lot of stuff in your post (screw corporate prisons, bring on the free health care). but I don't think fostering a us vs them vibe is a good idea. And that is the vibe I occasionally got in your post. (and others here).
-
I'm British and working class. It's built into my very DNA that it's us vs them, just as much as it is that I love drinking tea or always watch Doctor Who.
also The United Nations General Assembly has condemned the embargo as a violation of international law every year since 1992. Israel routinely joins the U.S. in voting against the resolution as has Palau every year since 2004 to 2008. On October 26, 2010, for the 19th time, the United Nations condemned the embargo, 192 to 2 with 3 abstentions. Israel sided with the U.S.[39]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba
-
The United Nations General Assembly has condemned the embargo as a violation of international law every year since 1992. Israel routinely joins the U.S. in voting against the resolution as has Palau every year since 2004 to 2008. On October 26, 2010, for the 19th time, the United Nations condemned the embargo, 192 to 2 with 3 abstentions. Israel sided with the U.S.[39]
also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba)
Yeah, and also see this: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/ga11162.doc.htm (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/ga11162.doc.htm) and run a search for "international law".
Additionally, it's claimed the ban on being able to travel to Cuba is unconstitutional in the US internally.
-
I thought people didn't care about international law. *shrugs* That's what I've heard at least. Like, that most countries pretty much just ignored them. (especially when it matters)
I think its stupid that the US has an embargo on Cuba. I also think its kind of stupid that under international law, its illegal, As stupid as it is, shouldn't the US be allowed to embargo whoever it wants? Doesn't like, every country have embargoes at least sometimes?. Or is there specifically something about this particular embargo that makes it illegal that differentiates it from other embargoes?
I'm British and working class. It's built into my very DNA that it's us vs them, just as much as it is that I love drinking tea or always watch Doctor Who.
That's unfortunate, can't we all get along? :(
-
What do you guys think of anti trust laws
-
The class system here is much more rigid and enforced than in america. While the us has the pretense of 'the american dream', here we simply have 'shut up and know your place'. The undemocratic freeloading hypocrite prince charles has publicly said that people's asperations give them ideas above their station. That's prettymuch it, english culture. Like seriously everything here is defined by class, so when people like tony blair say they created a 'classless society' you know he's talking out of his ass, because an upper-middle class prick like him wouldn't even notice the working class when he drives over them on the way to work (which funnily enough he had amongst the worst attendence at the house of parliament)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6JyvkjSKMLw
-
Nah, you see the same kind of classwarfare in the states if you look for it. You're right about it being masked but its still there.
the US be allowed to embargo whoever it wants? Doesn't like, every country have embargoes at least sometimes?. Or is there specifically something about this particular embargo that makes it illegal that differentiates it from other embargoes?
In times of war then it makes sense. But the US embargo on cuba is mostly because cuba is communist, the same for N. Korea. Yet we openly trade with china and are largly dependent on china. Its wrong internationally because the united states (like most free-trade countries) is open to immagration from those countries as well. So, while having large deposits of citizens from cuba and N.korea how is it fair to stop them from going to the homeland or trading with it?
-
We have class warfare too. Its called the republican and democratic parties. You just don't have a schism with it like you guys do, here. You got dumb working class motherfuckers who vote and think against themselves, my father is one of them. Except he doesn't vote and just bitches about the president being black and watches fox news all day.
-
that's about what i do all day, except i don't have cable so i cant watch fox
-
yeah but his favorite TV show is the wire
how the fuck did we ever take this guy seriously
-
Yet we openly trade with china and are largly dependent on china.
We trade with China because it isn't communist. Not that I support embargoes against communist countries.
-
there's no such thing as a communist country
B-)
-
there's no such thing as a communist country
You're right, I meant:
We trade with China because it isn't "communist". Not that I support embargoes against "communist" countries.
-
idgi, both of these parties represent the same class (the elites, with minor lip service to different pockets of middle class). there is no party in america that supports the working class. count how many times obama mentions the words working class or poor people (the answer is zero). all he ever talks about is the middle class and restoring reagan's dream of america being the lighthouse on a hill or some fucking stupid shit i dont give a fuck. fuck obama.
I know, its class warfare. You have both these classes fucking the working class and the working class doesn't even know its getting fucked or how to fuck back. Its like germany vs poland; "what the fuck you mean I have to put this uniform on and march with you?" "Its because you lost..." "oh, ok......lost what?"
Its kind of like how the kid on the ground getting his face beat in for pretty much no reason and hasn't thrown a single punch back is still considered fighting.
What I know they aren't real communist but the american percieved version of communism. I thought china's republic wasn't very differen't from cuba or N.Korea at all. Which is why I made the comparison.
-
In case anyone is still interested in Ron Paul (no you're not because why would you be) I just made a post (http://www.reddit.com/r/GreenParty/comments/o2l5b/i_propose_a_greenlibertarian_alliance_and_joint/c3e5tkv) about him on Reddit that explains a few basic things in response to someone who advocates for a green/libertarian alliance.
-
Reddit has really gone to shit. I would say that I find it hard to believe Ron Paul has gained so much traction in such a progressive community, but on second thought it's not so surprising. Fuck that echo chamber.
-
Reddit has really gone to shit. I would say that I find it hard to believe Ron Paul has gained so much traction in such a progressive community, but on second thought it's not so surprising. Fuck that echo chamber.
Hello, who are you again? Also yes absolutely (http://twitter.com/#!/msikma/status/153467357942128641). It was never really progressive to begin with though.
-
pretty much. i noncommittally call myself agnostic if asked just to avoid stupid assocation
maybe i should say to all fiscal centrists YOU ARE HITLER in a bid to prove just how stupid that line of thinking is
-
New Atheism is all about making extreme claims about how religion is really to blame for everything, and that religion has an inherent quality that makes people do bad things. And red herrings, mostly, like when they accuse Christians of supporting genocide because it says so in the bible.
I still call myself an atheist though because nobody here knows what New Atheism is. Maybe I'll still call myself that in the US as an attempt to hopefully undo some of the damage.
-
parts of reddit are awesome if you only use it as a link aggregator, once you look at comments/posts there though it's fucking awful
-
like youtube
-
Extreme aitheism sounds like that prat dawkings, he said and i quote "it takes religion for good men to do evil things" I say it takes corupt leaders twisting the teachings for there own gain for good men to do evil things, Religion didn't cause problems, people did. Still I don't believe or disbelieve that god exists and if anything I'm a buddhist, I belive in reincarnation, and I like how buddhism is about improving one's self, that said if I am reincarnated as a "lesser creature", I'd like to be reborn as a sea otter if any thing, not sure why but I like sea otters, I think they live amazing lives.
-
parts of reddit are awesome if you only use it as a link aggregator, once you look at comments/posts there though it's fucking awful
Even as a link aggregator it's aggravating because of editorialization. Don't look at the link titles either.
-
nice post dada, pretty hilarious. ron paul wants to abolish the epa lol. how can someone actually advocate for this?
-
abolishing the epa that is. if they don't do it no one will :/
-
Extreme aitheism sounds like that prat dawkings, he said and i quote "it takes religion for good men to do evil things" I say it takes corupt leaders twisting the teachings for there own gain for good men to do evil things, Religion didn't cause problems, people did. Still I don't believe or disbelieve that god exists and if anything I'm a buddhist, I belive in reincarnation, and I like how buddhism is about improving one's self, that said if I am reincarnated as a "lesser creature", I'd like to be reborn as a sea otter if any thing, not sure why but I like sea otters, I think they live amazing lives.
richard dawkins is one of the leading lights of new atheism. he's also a grade a++++ cunt
got a shout out in metal gear solid though
-
nice post dada, pretty hilarious. ron paul wants to abolish the epa lol. how can someone actually advocate for this?
people who support and vote for ron paul are insufferable morons so cocksure that the market will fix everything. if they were just nihilists and didn't pretend to give a fuck about anything and just wanted to be harbingers of collapse and misery I might almost admire it but instead they just want to worship a golden idol
-
nice post dada, pretty hilarious. ron paul wants to abolish the epa lol. how can someone actually advocate for this?
Because *vague platitudes about property rights* (obviously the free market will solve global warming if only we stop regulating them).
-
Extreme aitheism sounds like that prat dawkings, he said and i quote "it takes religion for good men to do evil things" I say it takes corupt leaders twisting the teachings for there own gain for good men to do evil things, Religion didn't cause problems, people did. Still I don't believe or disbelieve that god exists and if anything I'm a buddhist, I belive in reincarnation, and I like how buddhism is about improving one's self, that said if I am reincarnated as a "lesser creature", I'd like to be reborn as a sea otter if any thing, not sure why but I like sea otters, I think they live amazing lives.
religious texts are so open to interperetation that the only difference between doing that and just making up your own bullshit religion is that you have an actual piece of paper to go off of. So really, judging anyone on what religious texts they reference without further study is wrong on every level. Just ask a couple questions and wait a couple seconds and you'll either hear enough to not have to be worried or know for sure that the person you are talking to is a completely delusional jackass.
I'm pretty much with konix on religion. I quit caring but I took enough psychadelics, have nearly died a couple times, and have had some really unusually coincidental shit keep happening enough for me to consider that there might be more to it then just nothingness.
I think the closest I've seen in media to my interperetation of god is the movie "the nines" that movie is so friggen awesome.
-
I got a couple of Richard Dawkins' books. He's a clearly intelligent man, writes in a nice poetic sense of english and does have some very good points to make, however he does randomly descend into angry rants at the drop of a hat. And it really gets in the way, especially in 'The greatest show on earth'. It is a good biology book, explaining in excellent detail about the evidence for evolution and how it's absurd not to believe it in the face of all this. However he could have left it at that, and it would have been a fantastic enjoyable book full of wonders and the magic of life. Instead it veers off far too often into rant-mode and can't help kicking religion at every opportunity, to the point where it actually distracts from the feel of the text, and greatly reduces the book.
In The God Dellusion, it's clear he knows a great deal about religious texts, and it really does cut in deep, showing it's flaws. However large parts of the book do go into just visious attacks and conjecture, and a strong sense of patronising those who believe. It makes some very very good points, but again his vendetta does diminish those points and it does become annoying. It could have simply been a critical text about religion, but becomes a rant. Sure nowhere near as ranting as the preachers he's been up against, but still annoying.
Also the quote 'it takes good people to do good things, bad people to do bad things, but it takes religion for good people to do bad things' was by someone else. I cant remember who, but I have the feeling it was someone during the enlightenment. Many of America's founding fathers were deeply anti-religious, which is ironic conscidering that the majority of the population seem to like the idea of a christian theocracy. Dawkins kinda adopted it.
I enjoy reading science books, physics and biology and such, so I'm prettymuch an athiest due to the overwhelming lack of scienitfic evidence. I'm not 100% certain, but then nobody really is. The universe is such a magical and wonderous place, and the idea of a god somewhat cheapens it for me. I agree with many buddhist philosophies and ideals, and also the concept of a higher level of consciousness to an extent. I do think that the strong arm tactics of the new athiest movement is it's downfall and damage the good points it can make. For a left-wing intillectualist movement, they sure seem authoritarian.
-
i'm pretty anti-religious
-
instead of reading my shitty post in your shitty home you're instead sitting atop a pile of gold coins having an orgy with everyone you've always wanted to fuck and you're the king of the world. this is science.
uh yeah, i'm doing both, ever heard of an ipad?
-
(actually im watching felix the cat on a kindle but close enough)
-
the funny thing is if you read enough science there's more evidence to suggest a point of creation (which hints at a god) than there is against it. for starters the universe is not infinitely large nor is it infinitely old. if it were then there would be no darkness whatsoever in space. if it were infinitely large then then would be an infinite amount of stars in all that real estate, and if it were infinitely old then the light from all those stars would've traveled everywhere by now. these are scientific facts, and if you're a believer of science you cannot disagree with them. of course all this only means is that the universe doesn't exist for an infinite amount of time and instead was 'created' at some point (and the big bang theory/expansion of the universe/existence of dark matter all suggest there will be a finite end point as well). whether or not a god created it all is up to you if you want to believe in it. personally i think it's a waste of time even thinking or arguing about it. go with whatever makes you happy, none of it matters and nobody else really gives a shit.
I believe Neil deGrasse Tyson referred to this as the "ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance".
then there's also m-theory, the multiverse, and parallel universes. they're not fully proven yet, but there's a lot of stuff suggesting these may be the Real Deal. at the very least they're theoretically possible. if m-theory is correct then every possible combination of every possible way a universe could exist can and does exist simultaneously. the only limit are the basic laws of nature/physics (ie. there can't be a universe where, idk, gravity doesn't exist lets say). right now somewhere out there there's a parallel universe where instead of reading my shitty post in your shitty home you're instead sitting atop a pile of gold coins having an orgy with everyone you've always wanted to fuck and you're the king of the world. this is science.
Many Worlds is an interpretation of quantum physics that holds all quantum outcomes exist simultaneously. Idk it's not like I'm an expert on this but from what I've read about it, it's doubtful this means *every* possible scenario actually exists, since it would only affect quantum states. Whether you do or do not get killed by a bus in traffic doesn't rely on one or even a trillion random quantum fluctuations.
-
I believe that god existing is a small possibility. Small enough that its probably not worth worrying about. Thus I usually don't unless I'm having a discussion about him.
On the other hand, organized religions, sects, and beliefs all have about as much chance of being "correct" as the probability of pancakes falling from the sky in the next half an hour around my house, on plates, with butter and maple syrup, ready to eat.
Technically possible! but so unimaginably unlikely that it doesn't warrant a fraction of a fraction of the amount of consideration people put into organized religion.
My reasoning: The simplest answer, when you lack any more data, is often the correct one. Organized religion is a very complex answer to something we don't have any (or will ever have any) data on at all. There being a god? A little more complex than the universe just existing. A god with any kind of morality, maybe throw in a after life, even more complex.
See were I'm going with this? To be honest, I'd LOVE for there to be a god and an afterlife in some form. because I don't want to cease to be, and I don't want my family to cease to be, or my friends, or anyone else on earth for that matter. It would be comforting to know they continue to exist, and that I'll continue to exist.
However, since its so unlikely, first chance I get to become ageless/immortal or whatever I'm taking it and pushing it on everyone (assuming that happens, but I sadly doubt it). I'm not taking a chance even a gambling addict would scoff at nor standing by and letting everyone else take such a chance.
-
I just realized that this was the political topic... I need to read back and find out why religion came up. :P
-
somewhere out there is an alternate parallel universe where carl sagan is still alive, seth mcfarlane died on 9/11 like he should have, and i don't have to light anyone on fire because we never had this disagreement
Somewhere there is a universe where Carl Sagan is god.
-
has anyone seen this guy yet?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE
He's a dude dressed up like a wizard running a joke campaign for the democratic party. Its pretty hilarious. I think thats what we need. A flood of candidates like this telling both parties that they're long running game is a complete fucking joke and we don't care anymore.