The (Post-Recession/Obama) Non-Batshit Politics Thread of 2015 & Beyond

[HamburgerBoy]

Right now, in Georgia at least its the left's revisionist history. America is bad, mkay.

Such as? America has done a lot of shitty things tbh.

 

[Einherjar86]

Not necessarily punishment. When poor, unworking, and uneducated families produce poor, unworking, and uneducated babies at a higher rate than the rest of the population, they're taking space that could be occupied by more productive members of society. If we made sure that those people had easy access to birth control and abortion, and as long as there were no incentives in place rewarding reproduction, the problem would fix itself. I think removing the stigma of suicide and even supporting a culture of self-deprecation where those unable to live happy and/or net-productive lives would be a beautifully efficient system.

I see; thanks.

My only comment is that it seems less like you want to "remove the stigma of suicide" and more like you want to institute a significant incentive for those whose contributions to society do not match a certain standard to commit suicide.

Disabilities are only debilitating according to cultural context; there's nothing constitutively negative about not being able to walk, especially in a technologically developed world. I would rather live in a society that celebrates people for what they can do; not excludes them for what they can't.

 

[Draehl]

Such as? America has done a lot of shitty things tbh.

Absolutely it has, but they are excluding the positive/neutral. Any balanced education/history lesson should include all elements...

 

[Dak]

That violates Alinksy's Rules for Radicals instructions for fomenting change.

"...the organizer must be able to split himself into two parts -- one part in the arena of action where he polarizes the issue to 100 to nothing, and helps to lead his forces into conflict, while the other part knows that when the time comes for negotiations that it really is only a 10 percent difference."

"One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other."

 

[Einherjar86]

That violates Alinksy's Rules for Radicals instructions for fomenting change.

I don't really see why that matters.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

This still doesn't explain your claim that "the system is very logical."

It's not that politics isn't worth paying attention to. Most things are worth paying attention to if you want to be critical. The voter has no control and is duped into picking one of these "positions/views" but do these positions even exist? or is it an illusion? a hoax? Like you said, human nature is human nature - this all works out one way or another whether we think we have influence or not, but the condition isn't about whether it's pretty or ugly, It just is/there is no pretty or ugly. Our nature will always dominate and exploit its own. And the condition is that we are virtually our own prey

Elections may not give voters that much control, but grass roots activism can have a big influence on who and what ends up on the ballots. The civil rights movement is a great example of that, and I'd say the Tea Party is a good example too considering how split the Republican Party has become today between traditional conservatives and libertarian-leaning conservatives.

The media has democratized a lot with the advent of the Internet - there's a lot more give and take now between media companies and their audiences, and as media companies increasingly reflect the evolving views of their audiences they put pressure on the political parties to evolve their platforms.

Elections really aren't that big a piece of the overall picture, and they're not designed to be - the US is a republic, after all. Direct democracy still plays a role at the state level, but if my understanding of California politics is accurate (i.e. the public routinely fucking up the state budget by voting for tax cuts along with spending increases), it's probably not a system we should see at the national level.

The two party system does eliminate a lot of choice in our elections, but it still responds pretty well to changes in public sentiment, and I think it's useful to have these two opposing and equally matched umbrella ideologies in America.

Liberal ideology is good at catalyzing social changes, but those changes also affect our economic and foreign policy positions, which can be very risky to change. Minimum wage increases are a classic example of a change that obviously improves social equality domestically, but risks weakening our country on the global scene by pushing jobs overseas. I think the two party system plays an important role in delaying big changes on issues like that where the long-term consequences are difficult to foresee (especially by the public).

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I think removing the stigma of suicide ... would be a beautifully efficient system.

You're basically advocating genocide. Just look at how black people have been systematically deprived of opportunities here, and then imagine how "efficiently" the system could wipe out the race by adding a pro-suicide message to their situation. Crushing a person's spirit, and then encouraging them to commit suicide, is murder.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Free, universal college education and healthcare are a must in my view, and it's not hard to see the economic benefits of a populace with greater skills

I'm with you on healthcare, but until our university system is no longer the terrible financial drain on students it currently is (or on the government, if you choose to fully subsidize it), I'll have to disagree with you there. I think we need to focus on making primary education less of a waste of time, and ensuring that most students graduate high school with a proper sense of direction for their career.

Also, a highly educated populace would be more psychologically happy since it would seek out higher pleasures produced by the arts and humanities and not just the base pleasures provided by current materialism and consumerism. Such a diversified demand for intellectual goods will have economic benefits by keeping intellectuals and artists employed.

I still think you're biased about the value of the arts and humanities to society. I consider myself pretty educated, and I have no interest in supporting the vast majority of artists. I'm content consuming the work of the artistic "elite" through my Spotify and Netflix subscriptions, and the occasional trip to the used book store.

Fundamentally, life is a very simple process. Art and philosophy create an illusion of endless complexity in life, and a false promise of "enlightenment" to those who delve deep into that complexity. Either you approach it with Western reductionism and end up disappointed after identifying all the patterns, or you approach it with Eastern holism and it doesn't matter how much "higher pleasure" you have in life because you can be content with anything.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

Wow, we're really pushing the boundaries on both sides here...

I'll just say that the combination of corruption in government and ceding power to a faceless and truly unfeeling, unwavering machine that is the state is far more worrying than any specific issue the left or the right would like to solve via government. I'd be happy to go to a simple tax code, or even sales tax or whatever it may be at a higher tax rate. Remove all loopholes for the rich so they pay their share. Then every year pay out an equal amount to every citizen. In turn- eliminate all these government services, programs, loopholes, abuses, kickbacks, <insert term here> and let everyone spend their dollars in the free market as they see fit.

It will never happen because too many profit off this machine. The corruption and size of the monstrosity is far more problematic. The sad thing is many, and probably many here support government for the sake of government and don't recognize the inherent evil of it. Even if offered a far more progressive system with smaller government they would oppose it because they simply want people to be controlled.

Pretty spot on here but I wouldn't say it can never happen but it's certainly a long way off.

Government isn't the answer to anything other than the protection of property rights and the safety of citizens from physical harm. I know some anarchists argue for private defense but I can't see that going on without being easily abused. Either way, government has more corruption the larger it is. It's that simple and I find it almost creepy that people see it as a metaphysically definitive problem-solver.

 

[Satanstoenail]

I'm a left-leaning moderate I guess. I'm currently watching with joy as The Liberal Party (right-wing conservatives) destroy themselves in a very similar fashion to the way The Labor Party (left leaning) did back in 2013. On Tuesday it's possible our Prime Minister will be booted by his party as Kevin Rudd was back in 2010.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...if-spill-motion-succeeds-20150207-138ipa.html

 

[Cythraul]

"right-wing" natural rights libertarian. So, basically the same thing I was back in '08. My interest in hbd and evo psych/sociobiology probably makes me seem like a far right conservative, and I do harbor some conservative inclinations. But at the end of the day, if you're asking me what's a justified use of coercion, my answer is going to be a libertarian one.

Also, I have grown increasingly hostile towards the left in the past couple of years, mainly because of the "social justice" movement and political correctness.

 

[Dak]

"right-wing" natural rights libertarian. So, basically the same thing I was back in '08. My interest in hbd and evo psych/sociobiology probably makes me seem like a far right conservative, and I do harbor some conservative inclinations. But at the end of the day, if you're asking me what's a justified use of coercion, my answer is going to be a libertarian one.

Also, I have grown increasingly hostile towards the left in the past couple of years, mainly because of the "social justice" movement and political correctness.

Well there's two of us anyway. HBD is a lightning rod with a capital L though.

 

[SentinelSlain]

Syncretist.

I see everything in politics and society as being about what I call value systems. I don't accept utilitarianism and I also do not accept that an overriding principle of relativism can absorb or regulate a number of value systems into a functioning order that is "objectively" better or long lasting.

Humans vary in value according to different cultural value systems. For this reason, but not that reason alone, I think it's obvious that the group survival strategies and associated value systems that cultures have should not be readily discarded by rational actors within those groups. It may be in the interests of actors outside of that group to make them give up those values, in a Sun Tzu-ian strategy of war.

I think many important abstractions that Western man holds firm have not existed relatively recently in many other societies, in theory or in practice.

I do not accept that money and the desire for more of it can be the sole common value that a society can have and be functional and "good", according to my own value system.

 

[Vegard Pompey]

Ultimately I favor autocratic leadership by AI. But as that won't be technologically feasible for some time yet, in the interim I support HamburgerBoy as dictator of earth as I'm very curious to see his nightmarish dystopia realized.

 

[Summerian]

fuck obamacare, i don't want MY MONEY going to fucking bums and addicts and homeless and poor fucks who get sick and can't pay their medical bills. they can all fuck off and die for all i care.

fuck taxes and welfare too. no job and can't support your family? BOO HOO please just kill yourselves.

the poor should not even be allowed to procreate and bring more shitstain spawn into this world. but they keep doing it because the Obama government gives them more money for each one. god damn leeches. LET THEM STARVE AND DIE

Why don't you want the rich to die?
Sounds like discrimination to me.

And you do know the poor outnumber the rich like 100,000 to 1, right? So I know just who would die in your anarchy... so bring it on.
And if the rich are going to use a private army to fight the poor - that army would cost money. So either way the rich still have to pay up.

Taxes are good for the rich. It makes them work harder to get more money - and that's good for society.

And the rich need the poor to slave for them, right? So how are they going to do that if the slaves are all sick?

And if you want the poor spayed, who would pay for that?
And there's this:
http://www.americanhumane.org/animals/adoption-pet-care/caring-for-your-pet/spaying-neutering.html
"Through neutering, you can help your dog or cat live a happier, healthier, longer life."
So neutering might make them successful people. Making neutering law for all people. That would end mankind.
Do you want that... do you... really?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Also, I have grown increasingly hostile towards the left in the past couple of years, mainly because of the "social justice" movement and political correctness.

Can you elaborate? I understand taking issue with the economic policy aspects of the movement, or the goal of a *perfectly* discrimination-free society, but racism and sexism are still alive and greatly limiting the freedom of women and minorities. There's also been a clear economic benefit from the women's rights movement as women abandon the traditional housewife role and enter the workforce.

 

[rms]

Greatly limiting? Come on now..

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Yes. Employers still make hiring decisions based on how black a person's name sounds, the Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress are about 90% white men, and sexual assault remains one of the most underreported crimes.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Evidence? stats? data? something!?

 

[rms]

Yes. Employers still make hiring decisions based on how black a person's name sounds, the Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress are about 90% white men, and sexual assault remains one of the most underreported crimes.

Great so give everyone the same name, affirmative action for republican states and someone encourage women to have an interest in reporting crime.

Easy tasks here