A Problem With Ideologies

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2734
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Re: A Problem With Ideologies

Post by Red » Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:27 pm

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:12 am
You've given no reason for saying that it will.
It's human psychology. Once you label youself as something, you tend to stick with it. Why do you think so many people are uncompromising in their debates, especially political ones?

Have you heard of Label Theory? I didn't bring it up since I thought you were familiar with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labeling_theory

Also the golem effect might play a role, in that setting standards for someoe will make them meet those standards, especially if they are low.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:12 am
If that's the case, then not attaching a label to your beliefs isn't going to affect anything, so it's pointless even suggesting such a thing.
This is true, but I never really said that's a serious goal of mine.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:12 am
This video shows how ideology colours one's beliefs and ideas, however, I never denied that. What I'm denying is your claim that disassociating oneself from the label of that ideology is going to remove the bias that comes with it.
Did you even watch the entire video?

The guy even says that, the reason why politics gets people going is because 'people are starting to root their idenities off their political beliefs.'
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:12 am
That's why I said it's not relevant whether it's an ideology or not. It's still something that affects your beliefs and attitudes to life in the same way an ideology can. Later on in the episode of Adam Ruins Everything where the clip comes from, a man is doing CrossFit and is unwilling to recognise its negative impacts. CrossFit is not an ideology, yet it still affects your beliefs and attitudes to life in the same way that an ideology can and in the same way that veganism can. The fact is that if you're going to say that one should disassociate oneself with the label of their ideology, then the same should go for all other things that work in the same way as ideologies.
This kind of reinforces my point if you think about it. I never said that it's only ideologies that people can get attached too, and once you take that into account, you're supporting my point of how people are stubborn when it comes to their beliefs.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:12 am
Well that's how things are for rational people. For irrational people, whether they attach a label to their beliefs isn't going to change anything as they aren't going to allow anything to go against them. Think about the anti-science viewpoints you oppose, such as those who are opposed to GMOs, vaccinations and nuclear power. Those viewpoints don't have labels to go with them. The people who advocate them aren't going to describe their viewpoints by beginning with "I am a...", in the same way one can say "I am a conservative" or "I am an atheist". They will have to begin their statements with "I believe..." and that doesn't mean that their ideology isn't going to colour their biases.
This is true.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:12 am
If you don't know, then why would make the claim that people ought to remove the labels associated with their ideology?
I think CGP Grey covered it pretty well:
https://youtu.be/tlsU_YT9n_g?t=71
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:12 am
Absolutely, but I'm not denying the fact that having an ideology can lead to dogmatism. What I'm denying is that having a label for this should do anything to exacerbate this dogmatism.
Then what makes having a dogmatic label and a dogmatic ideology different in that respect?
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:12 am
In a way, yes. If a theist believes in Heaven/Hell or an afterlife that has a possibility of punishment, then they likely won't renounce their religion out of fear of punishment.
That's not an answer to the question I asked you.

I didn't ask you this question: Would this be affected by whether or not they are a theist?
I asked you this question: Would this be affected by whether or not they call themselves a "theist"?

In other words, would a theist who uses the label "theist" be more likely to not renounce their belief than a theist who does not use that label?[/quote]
I would say no, because, regardless of whether or not they label themselves as such, they still carry the specific belief around with them.

For instance, I subscribe to progressive beliefs, so I support candidates who are progressive. Or, in the theist's case, they believe that if they renounce God, they go to hell, so they don't do it. It's a belief of theirs that isn't inherent to a label. Do you see what I am getting at?
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:12 am
I.e. Would fighters for the "Islamic State" be less willing to die for their cause if the group changed its name to "State which believes that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger"?
Giving yourself a name, no matter how complexly worded, is still an ideology people can attach themslves to.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:12 am
Well if you don't think that rhetoric is generally useful when going against a rational person, then why are you using it in this deb... oh, I see now. You think I'm irrational, huh? Well... your mum's a virgin! 8-)
Sure, Derrick.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:12 am
Well, I went out of my way to watch the clip again just in case I'd forgotten something. But no. There's nothing in there that answers the question I asked. You've given me no reason to believe that applying a label exacerbates the problem of ideology more than not using a label for that same ideology.
I'll give you an example conducted by psychologists.

Psychologists were studying people who were trying to quit smoking. They told the control group to tell themselves that, when they were offered a cigarette by their friends, instead of saying 'I'm trying to quit,' they told them to say 'I am not a smoker.' That led to the participants becoming more able to quit.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:12 am
What exactly would you be looking for in that study that would disprove what you are saying?
I don't know, but that doesn't mean there can't be something to look for. Just because you can't find a reason why doesn't mean it can't be done.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

This is not something I'm familiar with. Don't ask me what should be looked for, ask a Psychologist.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:12 am
Well you've no reason to suggest it in the first place.
Yes I have.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:12 am
That definitely is unfalsifiable.
How so?
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:12 am
Why would you need one when you're happy to make the claim that labeled ideologies are going to instil more dogmatism than non-labelled ideologies without any cohesive study?
Who said I'm happy to make the claim?
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1124
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:49 am

I’m going to start with this part of your comment:
Giving yourself a name, no matter how complexly worded, is still an ideology people can attach themslves to.
If this is true then why would you suggest this?:
So, if you believe that Jesus is God and was crucified and yadda yadda yadda, don't say you're a Christian, say that you follow the teachings of Jesus and the Bible (or something along those lines). If you believe in work'ers control over means of production, don't say you're a Democratic Socialist, say you believe that Democratic Socialism would be the best system to implement.
Following the teachings of Jesus and the Bible or believing that Democratic Socialism would be the best system to implement are still ideologies people can attach themselves to.

The point I want to make here is that if you are going to hold any beliefs whatsoever, then regardless of whether or not you label them, they are still ideologies people can attach themselves to. Short of not believing anything whatsoever, there is nothing that can be done (least of all not labelling your ideologies) to resolve the influence ideologies have over you.
It's human psychology. Once you label youself as something, you tend to stick with it. Why do you think so many people are uncompromising in their debates, especially political ones?
As I have pointed out above, even if your beliefs don’t have labels, you’re still going to stick with them due to having an identity associated with those beliefs. Why do you think that so many people whose beliefs do not have labels remain uncompromising in debates?
Have you heard of Label Theory? I didn't bring it up since I thought you were familiar with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labeling_theory

Also the golem effect might play a role, in that setting standards for someoe will make them meet those standards, especially if they are low.
First of all, I am familiar with labelling theory. I also have Google, so if I wasn’t there would be no need to link to a Wikipedia article. As a matter of fact, I wasn’t familiar with the golem effect but I wasn’t left lost by the fact that you did not provide a link to its Wikipedia article. Regardless, pretty much anything is a label when you think about it. Saying “I follow the teachings of Jesus and the Bible” isn’t any less of a label than saying “I am a Christian”. The only real way to not have a label for your beliefs is to not have any beliefs at all. But that’s not really what I’m talking about when I say that not having a label doesn’t affect how much an ideology affects your identity. What I’m arguing is that having a prescriptive label (e.g. “I am a Democratic Socialist”) will not affect the impact that the ideology it is labelling will have on the identity of the person who is being labelled any more than having a descriptive label (e.g. “I believe Democratic Socialism would be the best system to implement”). This is what I have meant (and will mean from hereon out) when I say that not having a label isn’t relevant, so know that when I am talking about labels, I am talking about prescriptive labels.

Secondly, I don’t really see why you wouldn’t bring something up just because you assume I’m familiar with it. For instance, you asked me “Why do you think so many people are uncompromising in debates, especially political ones?”. I am familiar with debates, especially political ones. Yet you brought them up.

Finally, I think that the self-fulfilling prophecy would be better to refer to than the golem effect. But in either case, there’s no reason why being labelled prescriptively would change anything any more than being labelled descriptively.
This is true, but I never really said that's a serious goal of mine.
Okay. What is a serious goal of yours?
Did you even watch the entire video?
I sure did.
The guy even says that, the reason why politics gets people going is because 'people are starting to root their idenities off their political beliefs.'
I’ve never denied that people are starting to root their identities off their political beliefs. What I am denying is that whether or not these political beliefs have a label is relevant.
This kind of reinforces my point if you think about it. I never said that it's only ideologies that people can get attached too, and once you take that into account, you're supporting my point of how people are stubborn when it comes to their beliefs.
I’ve never denied that people are stubborn when it comes to their beliefs. What I am denying is that whether or not these beliefs have a label is relevant. The part of the Adam Ruins Everything episode which I referred to may reinforce your point of how people are stubborn when it comes to their beliefs, but (a) that's not the point I am arguing against and (b) it also reinforces my denial of the relevancy of whether these beliefs have a label.
I think CGP Grey covered it pretty well:
https://youtu.be/tlsU_YT9n_g?t=71
No he didn’t. Removing your opinions from your identity isn’t something that can be done, least of all by removing the label associated with those opinions (which he doesn't suggest doing).
Then what makes having a dogmatic label and a dogmatic ideology different in that respect?
I’m probably misunderstanding you here but I don’t think that there is any such thing as a “dogmatic label”. If somebody is a dogmatic socialist, they aren’t being dogmatic because they have the word “socialist” as a part of their identity. It’s the beliefs about worker ownership of the means of production that they have as part of their identity.
I would say no, because, regardless of whether or not they label themselves as such, they still carry the specific belief around with them.

For instance, I subscribe to progressive beliefs, so I support candidates who are progressive. Or, in the theist's case, they believe that if they renounce God, they go to hell, so they don't do it. It's a belief of theirs that isn't inherent to a label. Do you see what I am getting at?
I do indeed see what you are getting at - it’s the very point I’ve been trying to make throughout this thread. It is people’s beliefs that they carry as a part of their identity that guides the way they behave, not the labels for those beliefs.
Sure, Derrick.
Hail mortals, I come to thee from my fairy grove to bring thee tidings of great woe. Western culture is being destroyed — by cucks, and by gender bending, intoxication, and sodomy. You know, things that have never happened in Europe.
I'll give you an example conducted by psychologists.

Psychologists were studying people who were trying to quit smoking. They told the control group to tell themselves that, when they were offered a cigarette by their friends, instead of saying 'I'm trying to quit,' they told them to say 'I am not a smoker.' That led to the participants becoming more able to quit.
I can’t find the study you are referring to, but from what you’ve said it doesn’t really disprove what I’ve said at all. If you could find me something that would suggest that people who said “I am not a smoker” are more likely to quit than those who said something along the lines of “I don’t smoke”, that would be more convincing.
I don't know, but that doesn't mean there can't be something to look for. Just because you can't find a reason why doesn't mean it can't be done.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

This is not something I'm familiar with. Don't ask me what should be looked for, ask a Psychologist.
Well it’s you who is making the claim that there is something to look for, not a psychologist.
Yes I have.
Image
How so?
Because no matter what, you can never falsify that there is a solution to the problem of ideologies being intrinsic to people’s identities and colouring the way they behave. You can always claim that something could potentially resolve that. Maybe if we get Walter Mondale to stand on one leg and balance an aubergine on his nose whilst singing “The White Cliffs of Dover”, that might be a solution to the ideology problem. Oh, we tried that and it didn’t work? Maybe it needs to be a bigger aubergine. See what I mean?
Who said I'm happy to make the claim?
It’s a figure of speech. Perhaps I should have phrased it like this:

Why would you need one when you made the claim that labeled ideologies are going to instil more dogmatism than non-labelled ideologies without any cohesive study?
Oh fucking hell I can't think of a new signature.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2734
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Sat Feb 16, 2019 1:24 pm

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:18 pm
I've talked about PragerU so much on this forum that there's probably already enough to fill a book with, however, I saw this video and thought of this thread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erjenH3qKDY

I think this sort of proves what I said a while back in another thread about how very few people caring that much about nuclear power. PragerU is in favour of nuclear power, and yet not one of the criticisms they raised in this video focus on the Green New Deal's fantasy of getting rid of nuclear. We can only hope that those opposed to nuclear power are as dispassionate opposing it as they are defending it.
I think PragerU is just accidentally right on things like nuclear (I'm pretty sure they're pro fossil fuels though; They've denied climate change in the past). The video itself was pretty stupid, and lacking in any substance (not saying it's wrong necessarily).

I think the woo-left takes the issue of ending nuclear energy fairly seriously (though probably not their top concern; but either way, it is still a problem and can cause some damage). It seems since energy is (unfortunately) divided down the middle like with basically every political policy, politicians seem to subscribe to it for ideological reasons. Some open minded ones change their mind (Like Jeremy Corbyn), and others support it despite what their Party says (Like Cory Booker, though he has come out in support of the GND).

I just hope that people who would typically be anti-nuclear look past it, or just not be aware of it in regards to the politicians they are voting for. California doesn't have a high opinion of nuclear, but they still overwhelmingly voted for Hillary in 2016, who was pro-nuclear.

I'd love to contact Cortez, but it seems as though she is only taking calls from people in her own district.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1124
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Sat Feb 16, 2019 6:15 pm

@Red PragerU are both pro-nuclear and pro-fossil fuel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObvdSmPbdLg
Red wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 1:24 pm
It seems since energy is (unfortunately) divided down the middle like with basically every political policy, politicians seem to subscribe to it for ideological reasons.
I don't really know what ideological reasons a left-winger would have for being anti-nuclear. I don't consider LGBT+ rights or universal healthcare to be exclusively left-wing positions, however, I can understand why they are considered to be associated with the left, as the left is concerned with advancing equality. I don't see how the ridiculous viewpoint of moving away from a cheap and clean form of energy in favour of a pipe dream of getting a country entirely upon renewable energy is in any way "left-wing" at all. However, a lot of people on the left are crazy enough to advocate for this, and therefore being anti-nuclear is seen as a left-wing position.

This is just how things are now in politics. If enough people of a particular viewpoint advocate for a position, that position is seen as associated with that viewpoint. For instance, in regards to the Brexit referendum, remaining in the European Union was seen as a left-wing position, while leaving it was seen as right-wing. Now, I personally am a left-wing person who favoured remaining in the EU. However, there was nothing about Brexit that made it right-wing at all. Many left-wingers of the old Bennite school advocated for leaving the EU. Likewise, many right-wingers advocated for remaining.

It's the same with government surveillance actually, come to think of it. It's seen as a position associated with social conservatives. Because of that, social progressives are generally anti-surveillance. These people tend to fit into either economic extreme of socialism or free market capitalism. So you'll see plenty of democratic socialist groups and libertarian groups linking arms in opposition to government surveillance. As a matter of fact, I think I'm probably the only socialist I know who supports government surveillance.

I think there are some ideological reasons for this sort of thing going on, however, I think it's mainly just herd mentality. If somebody holds a particular viewpoint, they're likely going to surround themselves with others who share that viewpoint and as a result they'll hear what they have to say on other issues as well. They agreed with that person on viewpoint A, so why not on viewpoint B as well? Of course, there really is no link between viewpoint A and viewpoint B, however the people advocating both viewpoints might try to draw a link when there is none. For instance, a group of left-wing flat earthers may claim that capitalists are covering up the fact that the earth is flat, while a group of right-wing flat earthers may claim that socialists are covering up the fact that the earth is flat.

Regardless, I don't think it is possible to avoid the fact that everybody has an ideology and there is no way to remove the influence those ideologies can have on your life, and even if there was, I don't think that this would be an effective or necessary method to preventing people from believing pseudoscience. I think that perhaps the best method of stopping it is using the same ideological rhetoric that got them or could potentially get them to believe this pseudoscience to convince them not to. For instance, if left-wingers are swayed by left-wing rhetoric used against nuclear power, we perhaps should perhaps use left-wing rhetoric in favour of it, even if nuclear power is another issue entirely to left-wing politics. Hopefully though, people are more rational, and recognise that they can subscribe to a particular ideology whilst at the same time holding certain viewpoints that are different to others who subscribe to that ideology.
Oh fucking hell I can't think of a new signature.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2734
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Sat Feb 16, 2019 9:15 pm

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 6:15 pm
I don't really know what ideological reasons a left-winger would have for being anti-nuclear. I don't consider LGBT+ rights or universal healthcare to be exclusively left-wing positions, however, I can understand why they are considered to be associated with the left, as the left is concerned with advancing equality.
I'm not saying it's not possible to advocate for a conservative policy if you're a progressive, but you have to remember that politics is an area that relies on faith and rhetoric, with little in the way of evidence. Sheep mentality is also a pretty big part in it. Remember that video I sent you about Political Bias?

What happened was this: There were two plans, one labeled Democrat and one labeled Republican. Democrats were shown both of the plans, and 75% of them (predictably) chose the Democrats plan. However, then the researchers switched the labels (same plans, nothing else changed), showed them to other Democrats, then 80% of them agreed with the plan. It's freaky shit.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 6:15 pm
I don't see how the ridiculous viewpoint of moving away from a cheap and clean form of energy in favour of a pipe dream of getting a country entirely upon renewable energy is in any way "left-wing" at all. However, a lot of people on the left are crazy enough to advocate for this, and therefore being anti-nuclear is seen as a left-wing position.
Well, I shouldn't associate it with all of the left. Again, there are sensible left-wingers who support Nuclear and GMOs, but anti-nuclear policies are more to be expected from the left than from the right.

We should really be splitting it into more groups. There's the anti-science left, and the pro-science left. Typically, the anti-science left will not only be anti-nuclear, but also anti-GMO, pro-Alternative Medicine, and a lot of other woo, while the pro-science left will generally be the opposite. Of course, as with all politics, not everyone is going to fall within these categories perfectly (such as Booker; Pro-Nuclear, but supports GMO Labeling, which is just silly), but these are the policies that are generally associated with that particular group, if you know what I mean.

I mean, the right is generally very ignorant of science (tons of creationists like Mr. Pence, and deny climate change), and are usually accidentally right on pro-science positions, such as nuclear, but I think progressive pseudoscientific policies are more harmful then conservative right wing policies (and anti-nuclear plays a very big part in that).

I mean another example is with TPP. Now, you may not have liked it (I think it could've done a lot of good; getting rid of it probably wasn't a very good idea) since it mostly just served to benefit corporations, which someone on the left might agree would be a problem, but a rich, conservative billionaire like Orange Man probably didn't care much about that; if I am not mistaken, the only reason why he got rid of it was for nationalistic reasons.

Motives play a big part in politics too.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 6:15 pm
This is just how things are now in politics. If enough people of a particular viewpoint advocate for a position, that position is seen as associated with that viewpoint. For instance, in regards to the Brexit referendum, remaining in the European Union was seen as a left-wing position, while leaving it was seen as right-wing. Now, I personally am a left-wing person who favoured remaining in the EU. However, there was nothing about Brexit that made it right-wing at all. Many left-wingers of the old Bennite school advocated for leaving the EU. Likewise, many right-wingers advocated for remaining.
Now I don't know what it's like in the UK, so I might be wrong on this, but in the US, the right is generally more associated with Nationalism (the left is too (look at Sanders) but it's more considered right wing due to their support for a stronger military among other things), and withdrawing from the EU would be more beneficial for the economic interests of those living in the UK.

Plus, the whole Brexit movement was during the time when the Conservative party was gaining some serious ground, with May identifying as a 'one nation conservative' (again, not all Conservatives are nationalistic), so they ran on that platform whether or not they agreed with it.

And again, you can divide the left and right into subgroups. Like in America, for Democrats, there is the very left Progressive Caucus, the standard Democrats, and the fiscal-conservative, nationalistic Blue Dog Democrats who are just silly. And of course the Republicans, who have the slightly more sensible Tuesday Group, the standard Republicans, and the absolutely terrifying Freedom Caucus.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 6:15 pm
It's the same with government surveillance actually, come to think of it. It's seen as a position associated with social conservatives. Because of that, social progressives are generally anti-surveillance. These people tend to fit into either economic extreme of socialism or free market capitalism. So you'll see plenty of democratic socialist groups and libertarian groups linking arms in opposition to government surveillance. As a matter of fact, I think I'm probably the only socialist I know who supports government surveillance.
I support government surveillance too, but in a post 9/11 America, I think most conservatives support it for national security reasons. Hell, even a liberal like Obama resigned the PATRIOT Act which got many liberals (Like The Amazing Atheist, Youtube's greatest intellectual) all up in arms about privacy and whatnot.

But yeah, as you implied, this is one of the issues that is more split down the line.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 6:15 pm
I think there are some ideological reasons for this sort of thing going on, however, I think it's mainly just herd mentality. If somebody holds a particular viewpoint, they're likely going to surround themselves with others who share that viewpoint and as a result they'll hear what they have to say on other issues as well.
Not in an echo chamber.

But to be honest, that wouldn't be too much of a problem if the issue they won't change their mind on is the most important political issue of our time.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 6:15 pm
They agreed with that person on viewpoint A, so why not on viewpoint B as well? Of course, there really is no link between viewpoint A and viewpoint B, however the people advocating both viewpoints might try to draw a link when there is none. For instance, a group of left-wing flat earthers may claim that capitalists are covering up the fact that the earth is flat, while a group of right-wing flat earthers may claim that socialists are covering up the fact that the earth is flat.
I don't disagree.

This happens for better or for worse; the obviously insane policy would seem alien to independents. Take Mr. Teo's flat earthisming for example; Brimstone didn't want Teo to be vocal about his Veganism AND his beliefs about a flat earth, since some people would get a bad impression, hurting the chances of being able to spread veganism. It's a flaw on their part of course, but it's human psychology you can't avoid.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 6:15 pm
Regardless, I don't think it is possible to avoid the fact that everybody has an ideology and there is no way to remove the influence those ideologies can have on your life, and even if there was, I don't think that this would be an effective or necessary method to preventing people from believing pseudoscience.
Simple, just don't make it a part of your identity. ;)

I kinda abandoned the other thread since it was getting pretty messy, and I wasn't really expressing my arguments as well as I could have.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 6:15 pm
I think that perhaps the best method of stopping it is using the same ideological rhetoric that got them or could potentially get them to believe this pseudoscience to convince them not to. For instance, if left-wingers are swayed by left-wing rhetoric used against nuclear power, we perhaps should perhaps use left-wing rhetoric in favour of it, even if nuclear power is another issue entirely to left-wing politics.
That could work, but once you put an idea in someone's head and they cling to it, it's hard to get the idea out of there.

It's easier to fool someone than convince them they have been fooled.

Now unless you mean to do it to someone who hasn't had much exposure to it, that might be a good idea, although I don't really like having my nuclear energy cronies just supporting it based on ideology than actual evidence. But I'm not sure if there is much choice.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 6:15 pm
Hopefully though, people are more rational,
PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 6:15 pm
and recognise that they can subscribe to a particular ideology whilst at the same time holding certain viewpoints that are different to others who subscribe to that ideology.
That's called a centrist. I don't think there's such thing as a radical centrist is there?
Oh wait...
Passionately neutral? Is that even a thing?
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1124
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:15 am

Red wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 9:15 pm
I'm not saying it's not possible to advocate for a conservative policy if you're a progressive, but you have to remember that politics is an area that relies on faith and rhetoric, with little in the way of evidence. Sheep mentality is also a pretty big part in it. Remember that video I sent you about Political Bias?

What happened was this: There were two plans, one labeled Democrat and one labeled Republican. Democrats were shown both of the plans, and 75% of them (predictably) chose the Democrats plan. However, then the researchers switched the labels (same plans, nothing else changed), showed them to other Democrats, then 80% of them agreed with the plan. It's freaky shit.
I remember the video, and I agree that people can often dogmatically identify with political parties and such. What fascinates me is that not only are many progressives unwilling to entertain conservative policies, and conservatives unwilling to entertain progressive policies, but the fact that many progressives and conservatives take issue with policies that are completely irrelevant to their progressive/conservative beliefs. I already mentioned nuclear energy, Brexit and government surveillance. Another example is guns. There really isn't any reason why left-wingers should be more in favour of gun control. In the past, socialists such as Karl Marx, Huey P. Newton, Eugene V. Debs and Malcolm X were all pro-gun. It just so happens that most leftists nowadays are pro-gun control, including myself. I think that a lot of this has to do with an echo chamber reinforcing a set of beliefs that are really quite separate to each other.
We should really be splitting it into more groups. There's the anti-science left, and the pro-science left. Typically, the anti-science left will not only be anti-nuclear, but also anti-GMO, pro-Alternative Medicine, and a lot of other woo, while the pro-science left will generally be the opposite. Of course, as with all politics, not everyone is going to fall within these categories perfectly (such as Booker; Pro-Nuclear, but supports GMO Labeling, which is just silly), but these are the policies that are generally associated with that particular group, if you know what I mean.

I mean, the right is generally very ignorant of science (tons of creationists like Mr. Pence, and deny climate change), and are usually accidentally right on pro-science positions, such as nuclear, but I think progressive pseudoscientific policies are more harmful then conservative right wing policies (and anti-nuclear plays a very big part in that).
Again, I really think it's confusing how the pseudoscientists on both sides tend to feel sympathy to different pseudoscientific beliefs. I don't see any reason why left-wingers are more likely to be anti-nuclear. The only thing I can sort of understand is why right-wingers are more likely to deny evolution. If you deny evolution, it makes it easier to claim that the word of religious text is literal truth, and therefore easier to support "traditional values". However, being anti-nuclear doesn't really serve any ideological function for a left-winger. There's no way to make the jump from anti-nuclear views to socialism, feminism, LGBT+ rights or any other positions associated with the left.
I mean another example is with TPP. Now, you may not have liked it (I think it could've done a lot of good; getting rid of it probably wasn't a very good idea) since it mostly just served to benefit corporations, which someone on the left might agree would be a problem, but a rich, conservative billionaire like Orange Man probably didn't care much about that; if I am not mistaken, the only reason why he got rid of it was for nationalistic reasons.
I don't think that this is as good an example. There are ideological reasons why both socialists and nationalists would oppose the TPP, and why non-nationalist capitalists, such as Gary Johnson and (although she later changed her position) Hillary Clinton would support it. There's not any real ideological reasons for why a leftist should support gun control or why a conservative should oppose it, and I'd like to know how this sharp divide came about.
Motives play a big part in politics too.
Agreed. Pro-gun Ronald Reagan wasn't so keen on the Black Panthers' right to bear arms.
Now I don't know what it's like in the UK, so I might be wrong on this, but in the US, the right is generally more associated with Nationalism (the left is too (look at Sanders) but it's more considered right wing due to their support for a stronger military among other things), and withdrawing from the EU would be more beneficial for the economic interests of those living in the UK.
I can understand that, but it's possible to be an internationalist while at the same time opposing the EU. Really, whether or not you support Brexit shouldn't determine why somebody would be taking a "left-wing" or "right-wing" position. It should be the reasons for it. If you supported Brexit due to nationalistic reasons, it is a right-wing position. If you support it due to viewing the EU as too market-orientated, it is a left-wing position.
Plus, the whole Brexit movement was during the time when the Conservative party was gaining some serious ground, with May identifying as a 'one nation conservative' (again, not all Conservatives are nationalistic), so they ran on that platform whether or not they agreed with it.
One nation conservatism isn't really that nationalistic an ideology. It's more about being in favour of social reforms and paternalism as opposed to the free market. May, despite what she says, is probably not the best example of a one nation conservative. Better examples would be Benjamin Disraeli and Harold Macmillan.

The Conservative Party didn't actually take a position on Brexit. Key figures like David Cameron, George Osborne and Theresa May supported remaining at the time. Others, such as Boris Johnson and Michael Gove supported Brexit. So again, there's not really any reason why Brexit should be associated with the right.
And again, you can divide the left and right into subgroups. Like in America, for Democrats, there is the very left Progressive Caucus, the standard Democrats, and the fiscal-conservative, nationalistic Blue Dog Democrats who are just silly. And of course the Republicans, who have the slightly more sensible Tuesday Group, the standard Republicans, and the absolutely terrifying Freedom Caucus.
These can all be arranged on a scale from left to right. A better example would be to divide those who have the same views on left/right issues but different views on other issues. For example, the anti-science and pro-science left as you mentioned previously.
I support government surveillance too, but in a post 9/11 America, I think most conservatives support it for national security reasons. Hell, even a liberal like Obama resigned the PATRIOT Act which got many liberals (Like The Amazing Atheist, Youtube's greatest intellectual) all up in arms about privacy and whatnot.
I support it for national security reasons. I don't see how keeping a country safe from terrorists ought to be something that progressive socialists or progressive free market capitalists take issue with. I also admire Obama for being a liberal, and yet doing something that many liberals oppose (even though there is no conflict between being liberal and being pro-surveillance)
But yeah, as you implied, this is one of the issues that is more split down the line.
I wish it was, but unfortunately most democratic socialists, liberals and free market capitalists with progressive social views tend to be anti-surveillance (even though there's no conflict with those views and supporting surveillance), and most conservatives tend to be pro-surveillance (even though there's no conflict between conservatism and opposition to surveillance).
Not in an echo chamber.
Well, this is what will happen in an echo chamber. If somebody's a socialist, they may surround themselves with other socialists, and if they're undecided on gun control, they might have their position shifted to supporting it by hearing nothing other than pro-gun control views.
But to be honest, that wouldn't be too much of a problem if the issue they won't change their mind on is the most important political issue of our time.
It would if they take the wrong position on it.
I don't disagree.

This happens for better or for worse; the obviously insane policy would seem alien to independents. Take Mr. Teo's flat earthisming for example; Brimstone didn't want Teo to be vocal about his Veganism AND his beliefs about a flat earth, since some people would get a bad impression, hurting the chances of being able to spread veganism. It's a flaw on their part of course, but it's human psychology you can't avoid.
I hope that there is a way of overcoming it, but you're probably right. And if you are, then that means that left-wing politics will forever be associated with opposing surveillance, opposing nuclear power, supporting gun control and opposing Brexit even though these issues are completely independent to left-wing views.
Simple, just don't make it a part of your identity. ;)
I don't think that's possible. Anything about you is probably going to end up a part of your identity, plus the things you imagine about yourself of course.
I kinda abandoned the other thread since it was getting pretty messy, and I wasn't really expressing my arguments as well as I could have.
I don't think that it was getting that messy or that you weren't doing a good job of expressing your arguments. However, if you feel that way, you could make a post that you think might better clarify your position. I would not mind at all to continue that discussion.
That could work, but once you put an idea in someone's head and they cling to it, it's hard to get the idea out of there.

It's easier to fool someone than convince them they have been fooled.

Now unless you mean to do it to someone who hasn't had much exposure to it, that might be a good idea, although I don't really like having my nuclear energy cronies just supporting it based on ideology than actual evidence. But I'm not sure if there is much choice.
I meant both trying to do it to those who have had exposure and those who have not. However, you're right in that it will probably work better on the latter than the former.

I don't really mind whether people support things based on ideology or evidence, so long as they support the right things.
PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT.
And I thought I was the misanthrope!
That's called a centrist. I don't think there's such thing as a radical centrist is there?
Oh wait...
Passionately neutral? Is that even a thing?
Not really. I mean you can be a left-winger or a right-winger and hold positions that are atypical to others who hold those positions (e.g. being a pro-gun pro-Brexit pro-nuclear leftist, being a pro-gun control pro-EU anti-nuclear rightist, etc.). Dividing lines between left and right are also drawn on issues that are completely unrelated to issues of left and right, and this is what bothers me. This even happens on issues completely unrelated to politics.

Take abstract art for instance. Left-wingers are more likely to enjoy it, and right-wingers are more likely to not enjoy it. I even had someone tell me that the fact that I disliked abstract art was a "right-wing" position for me to take. It's bizarre that this has occurred, but I think that this is largely the result of ideologues who try and connect things to politics when they are completely unrelated. For instance, YouTube's second greatest intellectual Paul Joseph Watson who believes that abstract art is a tool of "Cultural Marxists" (even though many in the Frankfurt School hated abstract art).

What I liked about PragerU's video on modern art is that it didn't try to reinforce a conservative belief. A socialist, liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc. who may be undecided on modern art can all watch that video and have their views equally changed. I've pointed it out that PragerU does this with most of their political videos as well. They don't try to preach to the choir or appeal to conservatives specifically, and often try to appeal to liberals. However, they do often subtly try to reinforce conservative beliefs in their non-political videos.

For example, in their video on Paul Revere, Eric Metaxas (cool name) argues that American children need to learn about Paul Revere. Now, as is pointed out in the Adam Ruins Everything episode on the American revolution, there are a lot of myths surrounding Paul Revere's midnight ride. However, Revere was still a very important figure in American history, and I'd agree that American children need to learn about him. But towards the beginning of the video, when Metaxas is talking about how not enough children in America know about Paul Revere, he states "It seems that professional educators decided that other topics were more important to your education". At this point, an image graphic pops up of a teacher saying to her students "Instead of Paul Revere, let's talk about gender identity".

If it weren't for this image that only stays up for a couple of seconds, the video could just have had the message "American children aren't learning about Paul Revere and they ought to be". Instead, it has the message "American children aren't learning about Paul Revere and they ought to be, and the reason they aren't learning about him is because the evil SJWs have infiltrated the education system and are now teaching our children about gender identity". There really isn't any reason why children in America can't learn about both Paul Revere and gender identity, but PragerU has to make out like there is one.

So you see my issue with this whole thing. Not only are many progressives unwilling to entertain conservative positions, and conservatives unwilling to entertain progressive position, but many are also unwilling to entertain issues entirely separate to their progressivism or conservatism. I can only hope that I am overestimating the number of people who do this. A while ago a conservative meme was floating about which argued that progressives were all NPCs who just spout the same talking points. Now, I'd actually argue that we are all NPCs due to my determinist worldview, but that's another story for another time. In regards to spouting the same talking points, this appears to be the case for every ideology, and extends to things outside of that ideology. Honestly, the whole thing's a mess, but one thing's for sure: the fact that Jeremy Corbyn is a pro-nuclear socialist makes him my hero. Oh, Jeremy Corbyn! Oh, Jeremy Corbyn! Oh, Jeremy Corbyn! (Repeat ad infinitum).
Oh fucking hell I can't think of a new signature.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2734
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:02 pm

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:15 am
I remember the video, and I agree that people can often dogmatically identify with political parties and such. What fascinates me is that not only are many progressives unwilling to entertain conservative policies, and conservatives unwilling to entertain progressive policies, but the fact that many progressives and conservatives take issue with policies that are completely irrelevant to their progressive/conservative beliefs. I already mentioned nuclear energy, Brexit and government surveillance. Another example is guns. There really isn't any reason why left-wingers should be more in favour of gun control. In the past, socialists such as Karl Marx, Huey P. Newton, Eugene V. Debs and Malcolm X were all pro-gun. It just so happens that most leftists nowadays are pro-gun control, including myself. I think that a lot of this has to do with an echo chamber reinforcing a set of beliefs that are really quite separate to each other.
Not sure if there's anything we really disagree on here.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:15 am
Again, I really think it's confusing how the pseudoscientists on both sides tend to feel sympathy to different pseudoscientific beliefs. I don't see any reason why left-wingers are more likely to be anti-nuclear. The only thing I can sort of understand is why right-wingers are more likely to deny evolution. If you deny evolution, it makes it easier to claim that the word of religious text is literal truth, and therefore easier to support "traditional values". However, being anti-nuclear doesn't really serve any ideological function for a left-winger. There's no way to make the jump from anti-nuclear views to socialism, feminism, LGBT+ rights or any other positions associated with the left.
That's just psychology man.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:15 am
I can understand that, but it's possible to be an internationalist while at the same time opposing the EU. Really, whether or not you support Brexit shouldn't determine why somebody would be taking a "left-wing" or "right-wing" position. It should be the reasons for it. If you supported Brexit due to nationalistic reasons, it is a right-wing position. If you support it due to viewing the EU as too market-orientated, it is a left-wing position.
Well you could oppose the EU for non-nationalistic reasons (like you disagree with how they run things) and there are valid criticisms to be made of the EU, but destroying something because it isn't perfect is stupid if the principle behind it is good.
Plus, the whole Brexit movement was during the time when the Conservative party was gaining some serious ground, with May identifying as a 'one nation conservative' (again, not all Conservatives are nationalistic), so they ran on that platform whether or not they agreed with it.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:15 am
One nation conservatism isn't really that nationalistic an ideology. It's more about being in favour of social reforms and paternalism as opposed to the free market. May, despite what she says, is probably not the best example of a one nation conservative. Better examples would be Benjamin Disraeli and Harold Macmillan.
That honestly seems pretty progressive.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:15 am
The Conservative Party didn't actually take a position on Brexit. Key figures like David Cameron, George Osborne and Theresa May supported remaining at the time. Others, such as Boris Johnson and Michael Gove supported Brexit. So again, there's not really any reason why Brexit should be associated with the right.
But it seems to be though for the aforementioned reasons.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:15 am
These can all be arranged on a scale from left to right.
That's what I did.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:15 am
A better example would be to divide those who have the same views on left/right issues but different views on other issues. For example, the anti-science and pro-science left as you mentioned previously.
I did that too.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:15 am
I support it for national security reasons. I don't see how keeping a country safe from terrorists ought to be something that progressive socialists or progressive free market capitalists take issue with.
That's kinda what I'm hinting at (also to show the nationalism from the right).
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:15 am
I also admire Obama for being a liberal, and yet doing something that many liberals oppose (even though there is no conflict between being liberal and being pro-surveillance)
True. Obama also was a big supporter of nuclear energy (though his proposals were shot down due to people like Sanders after the Fukushima incident).
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:15 am
I wish it was, but unfortunately most democratic socialists, liberals and free market capitalists with progressive social views tend to be anti-surveillance (even though there's no conflict with those views and supporting surveillance), and most conservatives tend to be pro-surveillance (even though there's no conflict between conservatism and opposition to surveillance).
Well it's more in reference to mainstream politics.

Also if you're a libertarian conservative, you're probably anti-surveillance even if you are a nationalistic cuck.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:15 am
Well, this is what will happen in an echo chamber. If somebody's a socialist, they may surround themselves with other socialists, and if they're undecided on gun control, they might have their position shifted to supporting it by hearing nothing other than pro-gun control views.
Well only if they are undecided (and not many policies for people are undecided). Changing their minds from the original position, is again, nearly impossible.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:15 am
It would if they take the wrong position on it.
Sorry, I meant to say 'Isn't the most important issue of our time.'
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:15 am
I hope that there is a way of overcoming it, but you're probably right. And if you are, then that means that left-wing politics will forever be associated with opposing surveillance, opposing nuclear power, supporting gun control and opposing Brexit even though these issues are completely independent to left-wing views.
Hopefully not forever. In Pinker's book 'The Better Angels of out Nature,' he makes a point about how as time goes on, conservatives tend to be more liberal (I think the example he used was civil rights being a liberal cause, now both liberals and conservatives agree with civil rights (at least for blacks, LGBT is still in dispute but will likely have the same fate as racial civil rights)). Maybe it can also apply to pseudoscience and science, but the public is generally pretty illiterate on science for that to be realistic.

On a similar note, veganism/vegetarianism is generally associated with the 'New Age' crowd unfortunately, and is lumped together with Astrology, alternative medicine, and other types of woo that any reasonable person would recognize for the bullshit it is.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:15 am
I don't think that's possible. Anything about you is probably going to end up a part of your identity, plus the things you imagine about yourself of course.
I agree it ain't easy, but I think it's possible. You can still have an identity (I like painting, reading, science) and seperate them from political beliefs. As I said before, they can stem from wanting to do the most good.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:15 am
I don't think that it was getting that messy or that you weren't doing a good job of expressing your arguments. However, if you feel that way, you could make a post that you think might better clarify your position. I would not mind at all to continue that discussion.
Well I'm not really sure how much we actually disagree on other than just a few key points.

And anyways, I have a better idea.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:15 am
I don't really mind whether people support things based on ideology or evidence, so long as they support the right things.
I agree that it's not entirely bad, but if it comes to trying to persuade a skeptic or someone rational who demands evidence, they aren't going to be convinced.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:15 am
And I thought I was the misanthrope!
Hey man I love Gazelles but they are pretty stupid motherfuckers.

I don't hate people, I care about my fellow man, but most are pretty stupid and irrational.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:15 am
Not really. I mean you can be a left-winger or a right-winger and hold positions that are atypical to others who hold those positions (e.g. being a pro-gun pro-Brexit pro-nuclear leftist, being a pro-gun control pro-EU anti-nuclear rightist, etc.). Dividing lines between left and right are also drawn on issues that are completely unrelated to issues of left and right, and this is what bothers me. This even happens on issues completely unrelated to politics.
This is true.

I completely forgot to mention this, but we cannot forget human tribalism. There's a book I'm planning on getting that talks about the behaviour of modern human tribes. A quick summary is that, while tribes do have their benefits (encourages teamwork and building of societies), it also has the disadvantage of tribes being hostile to other tribes. As you said, this goes far outside of politics; What your favourite sports team is, Coke or Pepsi, Dog or Cat, Red or Blue, whatever.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:15 am
Take abstract art for instance. Left-wingers are more likely to enjoy it, and right-wingers are more likely to not enjoy it. I even had someone tell me that the fact that I disliked abstract art was a "right-wing" position for me to take. It's bizarre that this has occurred, but I think that this is largely the result of ideologues who try and connect things to politics when they are completely unrelated. For instance, YouTube's second greatest intellectual Paul Joseph Watson who believes that abstract art is a tool of "Cultural Marxists" (even though many in the Frankfurt School hated abstract art).
I agree, that's insane. Also the left is more associated with people studying social sciences and humanities, while the right is more hands on labor and trade school (at least that's the stereotype). Independent people tend to be more interested in the sciences.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:15 am
What I liked about PragerU's video on modern art is that it didn't try to reinforce a conservative belief. A socialist, liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc. who may be undecided on modern art can all watch that video and have their views equally changed. I've pointed it out that PragerU does this with most of their political videos as well. They don't try to preach to the choir or appeal to conservatives specifically, and often try to appeal to liberals. However, they do often subtly try to reinforce conservative beliefs in their non-political videos.
I agree that when they aren't trying to push an agenda the videos are better, but they are often the least important.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:15 am
For example, in their video on Paul Revere, Eric Metaxas (cool name) argues that American children need to learn about Paul Revere.
That name rings familiar. I think he's the cuck who made the Wall Street article about how science proves God's existence. :roll:
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:15 am
Now, as is pointed out in the Adam Ruins Everything episode on the American revolution, there are a lot of myths surrounding Paul Revere's midnight ride. However, Revere was still a very important figure in American history, and I'd agree that American children need to learn about him. But towards the beginning of the video, when Metaxas is talking about how not enough children in America know about Paul Revere, he states "It seems that professional educators decided that other topics were more important to your education". At this point, an image graphic pops up of a teacher saying to her students "Instead of Paul Revere, let's talk about gender identity".
To be honest I think this whole 'Forget our nation's history let's talk about Social Justice!' thing is so overblown. What BOTH sides need to realize is that these historical figures, while great, are not perfect. They should be praised for their successes and ridiculed for their failures.

I remember once at a University the students tried to tear down the statue of Thomas Jefferson for being a slaveholder. That is true and he should be critiqued for that, but it's funny how they don't see the irony of them being able to do that because he fought for their right to do so.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:15 am
If it weren't for this image that only stays up for a couple of seconds, the video could just have had the message "American children aren't learning about Paul Revere and they ought to be". Instead, it has the message "American children aren't learning about Paul Revere and they ought to be, and the reason they aren't learning about him is because the evil SJWs have infiltrated the education system and are now teaching our children about gender identity". There really isn't any reason why children in America can't learn about both Paul Revere and gender identity, but PragerU has to make out like there is one.
To be honest I think this whole 'Forget our nation's history let's talk about Social Justice!' thing is so overblown. What BOTH sides need to realize is that these historical figures, while great, are not perfect. They should be praised for their successes and ridiculed for their failures.

I remember once at a University the students tried to tear down the statue of Thomas Jefferson for being a slaveholder. That is true and he should be critiqued for that, but it's funny how they don't see the irony of them being able to do that because he fought for their right to do so.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:15 am
So you see my issue with this whole thing. Not only are many progressives unwilling to entertain conservative positions, and conservatives unwilling to entertain progressive position, but many are also unwilling to entertain issues entirely separate to their progressivism or conservatism. I can only hope that I am overestimating the number of people who do this. A while ago a conservative meme was floating about which argued that progressives were all NPCs who just spout the same talking points. Now, I'd actually argue that we are all NPCs due to my determinist worldview, but that's another story for another time. In regards to spouting the same talking points, this appears to be the case for every ideology, and extends to things outside of that ideology. Honestly, the whole thing's a mess, but one thing's for sure: the fact that Jeremy Corbyn is a pro-nuclear socialist makes him my hero. Oh, Jeremy Corbyn! Oh, Jeremy Corbyn! Oh, Jeremy Corbyn! (Repeat ad infinitum).
Do I disagree?
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1124
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm

Red wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:02 pm
That's just psychology man.
What do you mean by that?
Well you could oppose the EU for non-nationalistic reasons (like you disagree with how they run things) and there are valid criticisms to be made of the EU, but destroying something because it isn't perfect is stupid if the principle behind it is good.
I agree and this is why I supported remaining in the EU, but my point was that there's no reason why this should be considered a "left-wing" position.
That honestly seems pretty progressive.
It is by today's standards, but not by post-war consensus standards. In the UK, after the second world war, Britain was left devastated and Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberals all agreed that there needed to be welfare reforms and social programs. They all agreed upon the Beveridge Report which was set about combating the five giant evils of want, disease, squalor, ignorance and idleness. So the political spectrum looked a bit like this at the time:

The Left - Democratic Socialists This was represented by those in the Labour Party such as Nye Bevan and Clement Attlee (although he was less left-wing than Bevan). They supported these progressive social measures as a method to bring about the common ownership of the means of production as expressed in Clause IV.
The Centre - Butskellists "Butskellism" was a term used by some political analysts to describe the similar policies of Labour chancellor Hugh Gaitskell and Conservative chancellor Rab Butler. It came from an article from The Economist that joked that the policies of Gaitskell and Butler were so similar that they must have came from a "Mr. Butskell". This is because Gaitskell was on the right of the Labour Party (He wanted to get rid of Clause IV) and Butler was on the left of the Conservative Party and they could have probably easily have switched places. This is also where the Liberal Party would have been
The Right - One Nation Conservatives This was the majority of the Conservative Party. While not supporting as much nationalisation as the Labour Party did, they did have common ground with Labour and the Liberals in that they all favoured a strong welfare state, some level of nationalisation and Keynesian economic policies.

For over thirty years, these groups were the guardians of peace and justice in Britain. Before the dark times, before Thatcherism. When Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister, the Overton window took a huge lurch to the right. The policies that were once considered consensus were now no longer considered so, with every government since Thatcher's pursuing neoliberal economic policies. So that's why one nation conservatism is now considered very progressive, when it would have originally been seen as conservative.
But it seems to be though for the aforementioned reasons.
And these reasons don't make sense, as just because many people supported Brexit for nationalist reasons, Brexit is not inherently nationalistic.
That's what I did.
And I didn't think it was a very good example for this reason.
I did that too.
And I think you ought to have used it again as your example.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:15 am
I support it for national security reasons. I don't see how keeping a country safe from terrorists ought to be something that progressive socialists or progressive free market capitalists take issue with.
That's kinda what I'm hinting at (also to show the nationalism from the right).
As you go on to state, libertarian conservatives, despite being nationalists, typically oppose government surveillance. It's the same with some right-wing nationalists and even Neo-Nazis. The issue of national security is really a separate issue entirely to nationalism.
True. Obama also was a big supporter of nuclear energy (though his proposals were shot down due to people like Sanders after the Fukushima incident).
What is the position of most liberals in your country on nuclear energy?
Well it's more in reference to mainstream politics.
How is it split down the line in mainstream politics?
Also if you're a libertarian conservative, you're probably anti-surveillance even if you are a nationalistic cuck.
It would have probably been better for me to say that neoconservatives were typically pro-surveillance.

Libertarian conservatives are nearly always anti-surveillance. To be fair, they do actually have an ideological reason to be anti-surveillance due to being libertarians. What I take issue with is the fact that pretty much everybody except neoconservatives tend to oppose surveillance, even though there is nothing which should tie government surveillance to neoconservatism.
Well only if they are undecided (and not many policies for people are undecided). Changing their minds from the original position, is again, nearly impossible.
Everybody's undecided to begin with.
Sorry, I meant to say 'Isn't the most important issue of our time.'
I agree with you then.
Hopefully not forever. In Pinker's book 'The Better Angels of out Nature,' he makes a point about how as time goes on, conservatives tend to be more liberal (I think the example he used was civil rights being a liberal cause, now both liberals and conservatives agree with civil rights (at least for blacks, LGBT is still in dispute but will likely have the same fate as racial civil rights)). Maybe it can also apply to pseudoscience and science, but the public is generally pretty illiterate on science for that to be realistic.
It may appear to change quickly, but actually be a result of gradual changes that have been building up over time. For instance, Thatcher's destruction of the post-war consensus may have been a result of Heath's attempts to make a distinction between Labour and the Conservatives.
On a similar note, veganism/vegetarianism is generally associated with the 'New Age' crowd unfortunately, and is lumped together with Astrology, alternative medicine, and other types of woo that any reasonable person would recognize for the bullshit it is.
Very unfortunate. I don't understand how completely unrelated beliefs get lumped together like this.
I agree it ain't easy, but I think it's possible. You can still have an identity (I like painting, reading, science) and seperate them from political beliefs.
I personally can't. Political beliefs are too intertwined into my identity. Because of this, my instinct is to doubt that others can, but I'd like to see the evidence before I make up my mind.

Also, I did not know you were a painter!
As I said before, they can stem from wanting to do the most good.
Isn't wanting to do the most good also an ideology of some sort?
I agree that it's not entirely bad, but if it comes to trying to persuade a skeptic or someone rational who demands evidence, they aren't going to be convinced.
Well if we're right then the evidence will be on our side, so we can use that if ideology fails.
Hey man I love Gazelles but they are pretty stupid motherfuckers.
It doesn't seem like you love gazelles.
I don't hate people, I care about my fellow man, but most are pretty stupid and irrational.
Maybe. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest either way.

Humans are still a cancer on the planet though.
This is true.

I completely forgot to mention this, but we cannot forget human tribalism. There's a book I'm planning on getting that talks about the behaviour of modern human tribes. A quick summary is that, while tribes do have their benefits (encourages teamwork and building of societies), it also has the disadvantage of tribes being hostile to other tribes. As you said, this goes far outside of politics; What your favourite sports team is, Coke or Pepsi, Dog or Cat, Red or Blue, whatever.
Amen to that! No disagreements here.
I agree, that's insane. Also the left is more associated with people studying social sciences and humanities, while the right is more hands on labor and trade school (at least that's the stereotype). Independent people tend to be more interested in the sciences.
I guess we need to be asking how we can stop this tribalism.
I agree that when they aren't trying to push an agenda the videos are better, but they are often the least important.
They're always trying to push an agenda. I just like the ones where they're pushing an agenda that I happen to agree with (e.g. Hiroshima, GMOs, e-cigs, Modern art, the American civil war, etc.)
That name rings familiar. I think he's the cuck who made the Wall Street article about how science proves God's existence. :roll:
It figures that somebody like that would be on PragerU.
To be honest I think this whole 'Forget our nation's history let's talk about Social Justice!' thing is so overblown.
I think it's overblown in that there are nowhere near as many people saying that as conservative pundits would have you think they are. As I say, there's no reason why we can't both talk about our nation's history and about social justice.
What BOTH sides need to realize is that these historical figures, while great, are not perfect. They should be praised for their successes and ridiculed for their failures.
Agreed. This is a viewpoint that I think the left, at least in Britain, understands. This was shown in the recent debate about Churchill in which most leftists have taken the approach that he was a brilliant wartime leader but did many morally reprehensible things. The right has largely taken the position of little nuance, saying that Churchill was a hero for his leadership in the Second World War, and ignoring stuff like how he blamed the Bengal Famine on the Indians.
I remember once at a University the students tried to tear down the statue of Thomas Jefferson for being a slaveholder. That is true and he should be critiqued for that, but it's funny how they don't see the irony of them being able to do that because he fought for their right to do so.
Absolutely. Jefferson did many things that we would now recognise as immoral, and we should criticise him for that. However, we should also recognise that he was a great man who defended the cause of liberty.
Do I disagree?
I don't know. Do you? ;)
Oh fucking hell I can't think of a new signature.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2734
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:02 pm

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
What do you mean by that?
That's just psychology man.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
I agree and this is why I supported remaining in the EU, but my point was that there's no reason why this should be considered a "left-wing" position.
There might be no reason, but it is.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
It is by today's standards, but not by post-war consensus standards. In the UK, after the second world war, Britain was left devastated and Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberals all agreed that there needed to be welfare reforms and social programs. They all agreed upon the Beveridge Report which was set about combating the five giant evils of want, disease, squalor, ignorance and idleness.
I don't think that'd ever happen in America.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
For over thirty years, these groups were the guardians of peace and justice in Britain. Before the dark times, before Thatcherism. When Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister, the Overton window took a huge lurch to the right. The policies that were once considered consensus were now no longer considered so, with every government since Thatcher's pursuing neoliberal economic policies. So that's why one nation conservatism is now considered very progressive, when it would have originally been seen as conservative.
Whatever, I'd still bang her.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
And these reasons don't make sense, as just because many people supported Brexit for nationalist reasons, Brexit is not inherently nationalistic.
True, not inherently, but many people would interpret it as such.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
As you go on to state, libertarian conservatives, despite being nationalists, typically oppose government surveillance. It's the same with some right-wing nationalists and even Neo-Nazis. The issue of national security is really a separate issue entirely to nationalism.
No, I don't, Blue. And I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life. I don't see any evidence that it's a deterrent, and I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime. We've done so in my own state. And it's one of the reasons why we have had the biggest drop in crime of any industrial state in America; why we have the lowest murder rate of any industrial state in America. But we have work to do in this nation. We have work to do to fight a real war, not a phony war, against drugs. And that's something I want to lead, something we haven't had over the course of the past many years, even though the Vice President has been at least allegedly in charge of that war. We have much to do to step up that war, to double the number of drug enforcement agents, to fight both here and abroad, to work with our neighbors in this hemisphere. And I want to call a hemispheric summit just as soon after the 20th of January as possible to fight that war. But we also have to deal with drug education prevention here at home. And that's one of the things that I hope I can lead personally as the President of the United States. We've had great success in my own state. And we've reached out to young people and their families and been able to help them by beginning drug education and prevention in the early elementary grades. So we can fight this war, and we can win this war. And we can do so in a way that marshals our forces, that provides real support for state and local law enforcement officers who have not been getting that support, and do it in a way which will bring down violence in this nation, will help our youngsters to stay away from drugs, will stop this avalanche of drugs that's pouring into the country, and will make it possible for our kids and our families to grow up in safe and secure and decent neighborhoods.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
What is the position of most liberals in your country on nuclear energy?
It remains pretty unclear, but the very progressive Democrats are usually anti-nuclear, Regular Democrats are generally mixed on it, and the Blue Dogs and Republicans are usually in favour of it.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
How is it split down the line in mainstream politics?
Again, I don't know what it's like in the UK, but after the insanity that ensued after 9/11 chilled out, more Democrats on average oppose things like the PATRIOT Act since it violates privacy and such.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
It would have probably been better for me to say that neoconservatives were typically pro-surveillance.
Or would it?
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
Libertarian conservatives are nearly always anti-surveillance. To be fair, they do actually have an ideological reason to be anti-surveillance due to being libertarians. What I take issue with is the fact that pretty much everybody except neoconservatives tend to oppose surveillance, even though there is nothing which should tie government surveillance to neoconservatism.
Well, a lot of what this campaign is about, it seems to me Blue, goes to the question of values. And here I do have, on this particular question, a big difference with my opponent. You see, I do believe that some crimes are so heinous, so brutal, so outrageous, and I'd say particularly those that result in the death of a police officer, for those real brutal crimes, I do believe in the death penalty, and I think it is a deterrent, and I believe we need it. And I'm glad that the Congress moved on this drug bill and have finally called for that related to these narcotics drug kingpins. And so we just have an honest difference of opinion: I support it and he doesn't.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
Everybody's undecided to begin with.
I don't think so.

Think about it; How are so many religions and political beliefs and such able to be around for so long? Simple; They are spread to their children. Sure there are exceptions, but if you are born in a conservative household, you're going to grow up to be a conservative. If you're born a Muslim, you'll grow up to be a Muslim. You're predisposed to be open to the beliefs if they fall more in line with what you've been raised to think for better or for worse.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
It may appear to change quickly, but actually be a result of gradual changes that have been building up over time. For instance, Thatcher's destruction of the post-war consensus may have been a result of Heath's attempts to make a distinction between Labour and the Conservatives.
True, but for something like Nuclear, we don't have a significant amount of time.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
Very unfortunate. I don't understand how completely unrelated beliefs get lumped together like this.
I'd have confidence in him. And I made a good selection. And I've never seen such a pounding, an unfair pounding, on a young Senator in my entire life. And I've never seen a presidential campaign where the presidential nominee runs against my vice presidential nominee; never seen one before. (Applause) But you know, Lloyd Bentsen jumped on Dan Quayle, when Dan Quayle said, he's had roughly the same amount of experience. He had two terms in the Congress. He had two terms in the Senate, serving his second term. He founded authored, the job training partnership act. It says to American working men and women that are thrown out of work for no fault of their own that they're going to have jobs. We're moving into a new competitive age, and we need that kind of thing. He, unlike my opponent, is an expert in national defense; helped amend the INF treaty so we got a good, sound treaty, when these people over here were talking about a freeze. If we'd listened to them, we would never have had a treaty. And so I have great confidence in him. And it's turning around. You know, the American people are fair. They don't like it when there's an unfair pounding and kind of hooting about people. They want to judge it on the record itself. And so I'm proud of my choice. And you know, I don't think age is the only criterion. But I'll tell you something, I'm proud that people who are 30 years old and 40 years old now have someone in their generation that is going to be vice president of the United States of America. I made a good selection. The American people are seeing it, and I'm proud of it; that's what I'd say. And he could do the job.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
I personally can't. Political beliefs are too intertwined into my identity. Because of this, my instinct is to doubt that others can, but I'd like to see the evidence before I make up my mind.
Well for someone like you where politics is a pretty big passion, it'd be much harder for you to do anything about it, but if you at least have an open mind and search for evidence, that might be quite enough.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
Also, I did not know you were a painter!
Bob Ross is my nigger wigger.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
Isn't wanting to do the most good also an ideology of some sort?
It might be, but as @Greatest I am said, you can find the best ideologies (and I'm not sure if you can go wrong with trying to do the most good as an ideology).
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
Well if we're right then the evidence will be on our side, so we can use that if ideology fails.
Blue, this was the first presidential decision that we as nominees were called upon to make. And that's why people are so concerned. Because it was an opportunity for us to demonstrate what we were looking for in a running mate. More than that, it was the first national security decision that we had to make. The Vice President talks about national security. Three times since World War II, the Vice President has had to suddenly become the President and commander in chief. I picked Lloyd Bentsen, because I thought he was the best qualified person for the job. (Applause) GOY. Mr. Bush picked Dan Quayle, and before he did it, he said, watch my choice for vice president, it will tell all And it sure did. It sure did. (Applause)
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
It doesn't seem like you love gazelles.
What are you talking about? Gazelles (more specifically Thomson's Gazelles) are beautiful and magestic creatures.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
Maybe. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest either way.
Well, put it this way; Most people say they're less biased than average. That's not possible.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
Humans are still a cancer on the planet though.
The Agent Smith is being channeled!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
Amen to that! No disagreements here.
No, because I'm pledged to that, and yes, some taxes have gone up. And the main point is, taxes have been cut, and yet income is up to the Federal Government by 25 percent in the last three years. And so what I want to do is keep this expansion going. I don't want to kill it off by a tax increase. More Americans at work today than at any time in the history of the country, and a greater percentage of the work force. And the way you kill expansions is to raise taxes. And I don't want to do that, and I won't do that. And what I have proposed is something much better. And it's going to take discipline of the executive branch; it's going to take discipline of the congressional branch. And that is what I call a flexible freeze that allows growth about 4 percent or the rate of inflation but does not permit the Congress just to add on spending. I hear this talk about a blank check. The American people are pretty smart: they know who writes out the checks. And they know who appropriates the money. It is the United States Congress. And by two to one, Congress is blamed for these deficits. And the answer is to discipline both the executive branch and the congressional branch by holding the line on taxes. So I'm pledged to do that. And those pessimists who say it can't be done, I'm sorry, I just have a fundamental disagreement with them
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
I guess we need to be asking how we can stop this tribalism.
Blue, the Vice President made that pledge. He's broken it three times in the past year already. So it isn't worth the paper it's printed on. And what I'm concerned about is that if we continue with the policies that Mr. Bush is talking about here this evening, the flexible freeze somebody described it the other day as a kind of economic slurpee he wants to spend billions on virtually every weapons system around. He says he's not going to raise taxes, though he has broken that pledge repeatedly. He says he wants to give the wealthiest one percent of the people in this country a five-year $40 billion tax break, and we're going to pay for it. And he's been proposing all kinds of programs for new spending costing billions. Now if we continue with these policies, this trillion and a half dollars worth of new debt that's already been added on the backs of the American taxpayer is going to increase even more, and if we continue with this for another four years, then I'm worried about the next generation, whether we can ever turn this situation around. No, we need a chief executive who is prepared to lead; who won't blame the Congress; who will lead to bring down that deficit, who will make tough choices on spending.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
They're always trying to push an agenda. I just like the ones where they're pushing an agenda that I happen to agree with (e.g. Hiroshima, GMOs, e-cigs, Modern art, the American civil war, etc.)
Yeah but I'm just referring to a matter of degree.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
It figures that somebody like that would be on PragerU.
No, I'm not sure I can promise that; I don't think either one of us can really. There is no way of anticipating what may happen. I will say this: that we will set as our goal a steady, gradual reduction of the deficit, which will require tough choices on spending; it will require a good strong rate of economic growth; it will require a plan that the president works out with the Congress doesn't blame them, works it out with them, which brings that deficit down; it will require us to go out and collect billions and billions of dollars in taxes owed that aren't being paid in this country. And that's grossly unfair to the average American who is paying his taxes and paying them on time and doesn't have any alternative: it's taken out of his paycheck. Mr. Bush says we are going to put the IRS on every taxpayer. That's not what we are going to do. I'm for the taxpayer bill of rights. But I think it's unconscionable, Ann, that we should be talking or thinking about imposing new taxes on average Americans when there are billions out there, over $100 billion, in taxes owed that aren't being paid. Now, I think if we work together on it, and if you have a president that will work with the Congress and the American people, we can bring that deficit down steadily, $20, $25, $30 billion a year, build economic growth, build a good strong future for America, invest in those things which we must invest in economic development, good jobs, good schools for our kids, college opportunity for young people, decent health care and affordable housing, and a clean and safe environment. We can do all of those things, and at the same time build a future in which we are standing on a good strong fiscal foundation. Senator Bentsen said, as you recall at the debate with Senator Quayle, that if you give any of us $200 billion worth of hot checks a year, we can create an illusion of prosperity. But sooner or later that credit card mentality isn't going to work. And I want to bring to the White House a sense of strength and fiscal responsibility which will build a good strong foundation under which this country, or above which country can move, grow, invest, and build the best America for its people and for our kids and our grandkids.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
I think it's overblown in that there are nowhere near as many people saying that as conservative pundits would have you think they are.
That's what I was saying!!!!!!!
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
Agreed. This is a viewpoint that I think the left, at least in Britain, understands. This was shown in the recent debate about Churchill in which most leftists have taken the approach that he was a brilliant wartime leader but did many morally reprehensible things. The right has largely taken the position of little nuance, saying that Churchill was a hero for his leadership in the Second World War, and ignoring stuff like how he blamed the Bengal Famine on the Indians.
Would you say that Churchill had a net positive impact during his time in office?
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
Absolutely. Jefferson did many things that we would now recognise as immoral, and we should criticise him for that. However, we should also recognise that he was a great man who defended the cause of liberty.
The Governor has to balance the budget in his state he is required to by law. He has raised taxes several times. I wish he would join me, as a matter of fact, in appealing to the American people for the balanced budget amendment for the federal government and for the line-item veto. (Applause) I'd like to have that line-item veto for the president, because I think that would be extraordinarily helpful. And I won't do one other thing that he's had to do: took $29 million out of his state pension fund that's equivalent at the federal level of taking out of the Social Security trust fund. I'm not going to do that; I won't do that. (Applause) And so I'm still a little unclear as to whether he's for or against the tax increase. I have been for the taxpayer bill of rights all along. And this idea of unleashing a whole bunch-an army, a conventional force army, of IRS agents into everybody's kitchen I mean, he's against most defense matters, and now he wants to get an army of JRS auditors going out there. (Laughter) I'm against that; I oppose that. (Boos and applause)
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
I don't know. Do you? ;)
Do I? I forgot what we were talking about.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1124
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:42 am

Red wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:02 pm
That's just psychology man.
Look, I'll cut you a deal: I'll review your Wikipedia article if you review my video.
There might be no reason, but it is.
So how can we resolve this? That is the question.
I don't think that'd ever happen in America.
Maybe not, but Bernie and AOC, regardless of what you think of them, have played a vital role in shifting the American Overton window to the left.
Whatever, I'd still bang her.
Weirdly enough, I consider most people with whom I disagree with politically to be very ugly. The only exception I can think of is Ben Shapiro, who I would probably bang if he was not a reactionary.
True, not inherently, but many people would interpret it as such.
The question.
No, I don't, Blue. And I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life. I don't see any evidence that it's a deterrent, and I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime. We've done so in my own state. And it's one of the reasons why we have had the biggest drop in crime of any industrial state in America; why we have the lowest murder rate of any industrial state in America. But we have work to do in this nation. We have work to do to fight a real war, not a phony war, against drugs. And that's something I want to lead, something we haven't had over the course of the past many years, even though the Vice President has been at least allegedly in charge of that war. We have much to do to step up that war, to double the number of drug enforcement agents, to fight both here and abroad, to work with our neighbors in this hemisphere. And I want to call a hemispheric summit just as soon after the 20th of January as possible to fight that war. But we also have to deal with drug education prevention here at home. And that's one of the things that I hope I can lead personally as the President of the United States. We've had great success in my own state. And we've reached out to young people and their families and been able to help them by beginning drug education and prevention in the early elementary grades. So we can fight this war, and we can win this war. And we can do so in a way that marshals our forces, that provides real support for state and local law enforcement officers who have not been getting that support, and do it in a way which will bring down violence in this nation, will help our youngsters to stay away from drugs, will stop this avalanche of drugs that's pouring into the country, and will make it possible for our kids and our families to grow up in safe and secure and decent neighborhoods.
Welcome to the lab, the lab of aesthetic climatology. Is it hot in here or is the world just like this now? Imagine that this is the earth. This is what the earth would look like if you stabbed it with a giant knife. In 1976, a beta cuck named Al Gore led the first congressional hearings on global warming. For the next several decades, he devoted much of his career to raising public awareness about the grave predictions of climate science, in particular the disastrous effects of global warming induced by industrial carbon dioxide emissions. Gore's activism culminated in 2006, with the release of his documentary An Inconvenient Truth, but a month before its release, Comedy Central aired an episode of South Park ridiculing Gore as a hysterical buffoon obsessed with warning the nation about a mythological creature called ManBearPig. The episode portrays Gore as a narcissistic, attention-seeking alarmist, an issue-haver, a care-about, a sibilant moralf(bleep)g. I'm super cereal, you guys. We all had a good laugh at Gore's foolishness. After all, no one likes a complainer, a critic, a moralist, a killjoy, a naysayer, a bearer of bad news, and in fact a lot of us probably remember ManBearPig better than we remember An Inconvenient Truth. A lot of this backlash against Gore seems to fit a pattern described in the brilliant video essay Why Are You So Angry? by Innuendo Studios. Part 2 of the essay describes a phenomenon I'll call the Angry Jack effect. It works like this: You're at a barbecue shoving brisket into your front hole when you notice the person seated next to you declines to eat any meat because they're vegan. Your immediate instinctual reaction is anger at the vegan, because even if they're not really judging you, the mere fact that they are vegan means that they probably have reasons for not eating meat, and that means there might be reasons why you shouldn't eat meat. So what you do is you lash out at the vegan and you tell you them, "Oh, so you think you're better than me, huh? Well, I'll have you know that eating meat is perfectly natural, and evolution, and people who don't eat meat, well, their bones fall out, and besides, you're a hypocrite anyway because more animals die when they plow the fields for your stupid fucking vegetables, you moral jerk." Of course, this is not really a rational response to the situation. This is you subconsciously protecting your ego from potential guilt, from the potential accusation that you're a bad person, and you're protecting the lifestyle that you enjoy and are accustomed to from a potential threat. And this is essentially how people have been reacting to Al Gore for decades. He's a fun-ruiner, criticizing our high-emission way of life, and instead of engaging sincerely with the critique, we lash out at him so we don't have to think about it. The problem is that, scientifically speaking, climate change is in fact real, and Gore was right all along. Oopsy doopsy! So now it's current year, and the global temperature has risen one degree Celsius above the pre-industrial average, which is on track with the projections presented in Gore's film. Now one degree doesn't sound like much, but to get a sense of scale, consider that the last ice age was only 4.5 degrees Celsius cooler than the 20th century norm. We are already at one degree warmer than the pre-industrial average, and current scientific models put us on track for three degrees warmer by the end of the century, an outcome that would, among other catastrophes, completely flood Shanghai and Miami. Scientists have long recommended that we limit warming to two degrees in order to avert global cataclysm. But the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns that even two degrees of warming could result in an iceless arctic summer at least once a decade, the destruction of nearly every coral reef, and a heightened frequency of tropical cyclones, droughts, and famines around the world. The report therefore recommends we limit warming to 1.5 degrees, a goal that requires drastic and unprecedented reduction in emissions within the next 12 years and net zero emissions by 2050. But even limiting warming to two degrees requires a significant reduction in emissions. Otherwise we're on track for three degrees of warming and possibly even four or more, a situation that could be near apocalyptic.
It remains pretty unclear, but the very progressive Democrats are usually anti-nuclear, Regular Democrats are generally mixed on it, and the Blue Dogs and Republicans are usually in favour of it.
Well I suppose then it wasn't much of a defiance for Obama to support nuclear if Regular Democrats were generally mixed. I thought that most of them were pro-nuclear though, which big Regular Democrat figures are anti-nuclear?
Again, I don't know what it's like in the UK, but after the insanity that ensued after 9/11 chilled out, more Democrats on average oppose things like the PATRIOT Act since it violates privacy and such.
The question.
Or would it?
You're right. It wouldn't have been. It would have been better to say "@Jebus drinks bathwater".
Well, a lot of what this campaign is about, it seems to me Blue, goes to the question of values. And here I do have, on this particular question, a big difference with my opponent. You see, I do believe that some crimes are so heinous, so brutal, so outrageous, and I'd say particularly those that result in the death of a police officer, for those real brutal crimes, I do believe in the death penalty, and I think it is a deterrent, and I believe we need it. And I'm glad that the Congress moved on this drug bill and have finally called for that related to these narcotics drug kingpins. And so we just have an honest difference of opinion: I support it and he doesn't.
Imagine the year is 2100. I want you to picture the earth as a human vagina and imagine you're a gynecologist and you're using a speculum to examine the inside of a watermelon. How does that make you feel, kids? I bet you wish your irresponsible gas-guzzling parents had done something to stop this. So we may have a global climate catastrophe fast approaching, but at least our political leaders are responsible, rational, and scientifically literate, right? Donald Trump has a consistent history of climate change denial, from his 2012 claim that global warming is a Chinese hoax aimed at undermining American manufacturing to his tweet last week that it's very cold outside, therefore, "Whatever happened to Global Warming?" Of course the term global warming refers to the increase in the global average temperature, temperature continuing to vary by region. In fact, global warming could cause some regions to become much colder, for instance, if the ocean current known as the Atlantic conveyor belt is disrupted, chilling the North Atlantic and potentially making European winters more severe. But Trump doesn't know or care about any of that. He's kind of the anti-Al Gore, you know? A real man who takes what he wants by any means necessary and won't be slowed down by any worries about what's factual or scientific or true or good or consensual or just or safe or legal or even possible. He's the kind of man who Americans collectively want, on some sub-rational erotic level, to brutally dominate us like an ancient Chinese god-emperor. Burn the scholars, build the wall. But the problem, at least for those of you who don't actively enjoy civilization's plunge into primeval darkness, is that the notion that there's any actual scientific controversy about the role of carbon emissions in global warming is simply false. A 2013 analysis of the scientific literature on climate change found that 97% of papers published on the subject supported the conclusion that humans caused global warming, and the consensus has only increased over time. Climate change denial is considered an oddity in Europe, but is very common in America, largely as a result of a massive campaign of manufactured uncertainty and misinformation that goes back to the early 1990s, when the Western Fuels Association developed a strategy to quote reposition global warming as theory, not fact, and spent half a million dollars researching the most effective way to promote that message via a propaganda campaign. Climate denialist talking points promoted by organizations in the subsequent decades have been statistically linked to funding from ExxonMobil and the Koch family, and denialism has been frequently pushed by Republican politicians, perhaps most vocally Senator James Inhofe, whose campaigns are financed by oil and energy companies, and who's presented on the Senate floor such compelling arguments as throwing a snowball to own the libs. Denialist talking points have trickled down from the reptilian overlords to the ordinary YouTube comment goblins, where they provide ammunition for the Angry Jack effect. Just like Al Gore or any messenger of inconvenient information, climate scientists themselves have for years been targets of endless harassment. Michael Mann, the original publisher of the hockey stick graph, has received thousands of hate messages, death threats, even white powder in the mail. The mental health of many climate scientists is actually suffering as a result of harassment, denial, the bleak political situation, and the daily grind of studying a cataclysmic future. It's likely that this video will attract some deniers, and I therefore invite my audience to use the denialist debunking resource listed in the top comment below to refute such claims as: There's still scientific controversy about the cause of climate change. There isn't. What if the sun is getting hotter? It's not, at least in the relevant time frame. And science is a liar sometimes. But even if you don't believe in science, maybe you'll find it convincing that even many oil companies, including ExxonMobil, now acknowledge climate change is real and caused by human activity. In fact, at the behest of oil companies, the state of Texas is now seeking at least $12 billion in public funds to build a 60-mile spine of seawalls along the Gulf Coast, largely to protect oil refineries from rising tides and more severe tropical storms. After Hurricane Harvey, Texas lobbied Congress for $61 billion to quote future-proof the state, despite the fact that many of its top politicians are public climate change deniers. Do not listen to the cant of these sneering reptoids. The science is clear: Climate change is real and humans are causing it. If even ExxonMobil says it's real, it's probably real. There's really no point in digging in your heels and refusing to look at the evidence just because you don't want it to be true. None of us want it to be true.
I don't think so.

Think about it; How are so many religions and political beliefs and such able to be around for so long? Simple; They are spread to their children. Sure there are exceptions, but if you are born in a conservative household, you're going to grow up to be a conservative. If you're born a Muslim, you'll grow up to be a Muslim. You're predisposed to be open to the beliefs if they fall more in line with what you've been raised to think for better or for worse.
This doesn't really disprove what I said, as children are usually undecided on political, economic and religious issues.
True, but for something like Nuclear, we don't have a significant amount of time.
The significant amount of time may have already passed.
I'd have confidence in him. And I made a good selection. And I've never seen such a pounding, an unfair pounding, on a young Senator in my entire life. And I've never seen a presidential campaign where the presidential nominee runs against my vice presidential nominee; never seen one before. (Applause) But you know, Lloyd Bentsen jumped on Dan Quayle, when Dan Quayle said, he's had roughly the same amount of experience. He had two terms in the Congress. He had two terms in the Senate, serving his second term. He founded authored, the job training partnership act. It says to American working men and women that are thrown out of work for no fault of their own that they're going to have jobs. We're moving into a new competitive age, and we need that kind of thing. He, unlike my opponent, is an expert in national defense; helped amend the INF treaty so we got a good, sound treaty, when these people over here were talking about a freeze. If we'd listened to them, we would never have had a treaty. And so I have great confidence in him. And it's turning around. You know, the American people are fair. They don't like it when there's an unfair pounding and kind of hooting about people. They want to judge it on the record itself. And so I'm proud of my choice. And you know, I don't think age is the only criterion. But I'll tell you something, I'm proud that people who are 30 years old and 40 years old now have someone in their generation that is going to be vice president of the United States of America. I made a good selection. The American people are seeing it, and I'm proud of it; that's what I'd say. And he could do the job.
If you picture the earth as a watermelon, you can see there's the outer shell here that traps the Red Flesh. And if you leave it out at midnight, the stalkers, the stalkers come for the Red Flesh. Before describing the details of our doom, let's take a moment to review how we got where we are. The modern science of anthropogenic climate change began in 1896 when a Swedish science jerk called Svante Arrhenius published a study titled On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Earth, in which he predicted that industrial carbon dioxide production would eventually have a warming effect on the planet. By 1960, scientists had demonstrated that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere was in fact rising, and President fucking Johnson's Science Advisory Committee warned that industrial CO2 emissions could have a greenhouse warming effect. The Stanford Research Institute warned the American Petroleum Institute in 1968 that continued emissions would lead to Antarctic melting and rising sea levels, but nothing was really done about it until 1988, when NASA announced to the U.S. Senate that the Earth was warmer than at any time in modern history, that the warming could be attributed to human causes with 99% certainty, and that the warming was worsening heatwaves, storms, and droughts. That same year, the IPCC was formed to provide world leaders with a summary of the science on climate change and its political and economic impacts. So it started to seem like something was going to change. But by the early 1990s, the oil and energy-funded climatology denial industry was up and running in the United States, despite the fact that oil companies had known climate change was happening for decades, and Republican politicians became mouthpieces for the so-called skeptic cause. Meanwhile the Clinton administration signed the Kyoto Protocol, pledging the United Sates to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a pledge that the Bush administration then refused to make good on. The 2012 Republican platform stated against all scientific consensus that quote the causes and long-range effects of a phenomenon are uncertain, and opposed regulation of greenhouse-gas emissions. Then finally, in 2015, things seemed to be changing for the better. 195 nations, including China, India, and the United States under Obama became parties to the Paris Agreement, which established the goal of limiting the increase in global temperature to well below two degrees Celsius. But the very next year, Donald Trump was elected president of the United States on a platform of outright climate science denial. Trump has since begun withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement, appointed a climate change denier the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, and released his America First Energy Plan, which encourages unregulated burning of fossil fuels. So it's with a particular sense of doom that we now receive the grim 2018 IPCC report, which informs us that the world has already warmed one degree Celsius, resulting in significant melting of both polar ice caps, increased average temperatures, increased extreme weather events, and increased mosquito-born illnesses like malaria, dengue, and Zika. If drastic action is taken to reduce carbon emissions 49% by 2030 and to net zero carbon by 2050, global warming will still increase to 1.5 degrees above the pre-industrial average, resulting in a doubling of populations exposed to water scarcity and drought, and an estimated $10 trillion in annual flood damage losses from sea level rise. But with the current political situation, the goal of reducing warming to 1.5 degrees is quickly slipping out of reach. By the end of the century, we're likely to see at least two degrees of warming, which will lead to the eventual displacement of 200 million people in coastal regions. Three degrees of warming will flood many of the world's major coastal cities, including Shanghai, Miami, Osaka, Rio de Janeiro, Alexandria, and Hong Kong. Four degrees of warming will be close to the difference between early 20th century temperatures and the last ice age. A global crisis of hundreds of millions of refugees from island and coastal areas will be exacerbated by severe droughts and water scarcity, trillions of dollars of damage to the economy, famines, starvation, terrorism and war. So it's not just the poor polar bears and coral reefs. There are real human consequences to this.
Well for someone like you where politics is a pretty big passion, it'd be much harder for you to do anything about it, but if you at least have an open mind and search for evidence, that might be quite enough.
My mind is sort of open. Like, I do change my mind when I see new evidence. It just sort of takes a while, because the belief I held before was so intertwined into my identity. For instance, it took me a while to support the abolition of the monarchy in Britain because of my identity of wanting to fuck the Queen. You can learn more about this in the video I sent you.
It might be, but as @Greatest I am said, you can find the best ideologies (and I'm not sure if you can go wrong with trying to do the most good as an ideology).
Well, what if it turns out that trying to do the most good actually leads to less good happening? You'd still have to drop that ideology on the basis of new evidence, like you would with any other. Also, it is my opinion that socialism, LGBT+ rights, feminism, etc. are the best ideologies, but they may well not be.
Blue, this was the first presidential decision that we as nominees were called upon to make. And that's why people are so concerned. Because it was an opportunity for us to demonstrate what we were looking for in a running mate. More than that, it was the first national security decision that we had to make. The Vice President talks about national security. Three times since World War II, the Vice President has had to suddenly become the President and commander in chief. I picked Lloyd Bentsen, because I thought he was the best qualified person for the job. (Applause) GOY. Mr. Bush picked Dan Quayle, and before he did it, he said, watch my choice for vice president, it will tell all And it sure did. It sure did. (Applause)
When I was a little girl, I used to sit on the porch eating watermelon and I'd stare up at the stars and wonder where did they all come from, you know? What does this all mean? The cosmos, humanity, our little time here on Earth? And that's why I became a scientist, so I could spend my life studying tropospheric trace gases. If you want to do your part to stop climate change, there are some lifestyle changes you can make. You can use LED light bulbs. You can drive a hybrid or electric car. You can use public transportation. You can try not to fly very often. You can eat less red meat. But the reality is just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions, and the burden of stopping this can't really be placed on individual consumers. The companies themselves do not care. Left to their own devices, they will only pursue short-term profit. They will ask the government to build them sea walls while continuing to emit greenhouse gasses. Climate change is exactly the kind of problem that capitalism is really ill-equipped to solve. The time frame involved is short enough that scientists can predict total catastrophe in the foreseeable future, but just long enough not to enter into the shareholder-pleasing decision-making of corporations. So unless there's a drastic change in the next couple decades, this is going to be capitalism's Great Chinese Famine moment, only potentially, it'll be much, much worse. This is probably the most important issue facing humanity in the 21st century, so we kinda need to fix it by any means necessary, beginning with rapid political change. If that means direct action, it means direct action, for instance organizing, participating in, or supporting a massive general strike. You also should demand that your politicians take a strong stance against climate change and the companies that cause it. And if you're American, vote this monumental dingdong out of the Oval Office in 2020 before the entire planet shrinks and transforms into a corn cob.
What are you talking about? Gazelles (more specifically Thomson's Gazelles) are beautiful and magestic creatures.
Is that why you keep sending me videos of them being brutalised by alligators?
Well, put it this way; Most people say they're less biased than average. That's not possible.
Well they can be mistaken about that. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are irrational. Also, what is your source for this?
The Agent Smith is being channeled!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Agent Smith is my spirit animal.
No, because I'm pledged to that, and yes, some taxes have gone up. And the main point is, taxes have been cut, and yet income is up to the Federal Government by 25 percent in the last three years. And so what I want to do is keep this expansion going. I don't want to kill it off by a tax increase. More Americans at work today than at any time in the history of the country, and a greater percentage of the work force. And the way you kill expansions is to raise taxes. And I don't want to do that, and I won't do that. And what I have proposed is something much better. And it's going to take discipline of the executive branch; it's going to take discipline of the congressional branch. And that is what I call a flexible freeze that allows growth about 4 percent or the rate of inflation but does not permit the Congress just to add on spending. I hear this talk about a blank check. The American people are pretty smart: they know who writes out the checks. And they know who appropriates the money. It is the United States Congress. And by two to one, Congress is blamed for these deficits. And the answer is to discipline both the executive branch and the congressional branch by holding the line on taxes. So I'm pledged to do that. And those pessimists who say it can't be done, I'm sorry, I just have a fundamental disagreement with them
Hello, mankind. It is I, your dark mother, the sea. And you, my children, have been an absolute disappointment. Every one of you is so pathetic. You make me want to throw up! Politicians, businessmen, and worst of all, environmentalists, ugh! The condescension of it all! You think you are capable of hurting me? Hah! I enjoy your so-called degradation. Your filthy air makes me hot. Your melting glaciers fill me up deep inside. And when you spew your filth all over, oh, it only makes me fucking wet. Every year my heaving bosom encroaches farther on your shores, and as I spat you out, my children, I will swallow you whole. I will take every inch of you inside of me and I will suck you down into the deep black pit of my wetness, you scum. And why? Because I am a slut. My progeny encompass the earth, and whatsoever I create, I shall destroy. For I, your deep, dark mother, am at once deliveress of your doom. And that's why I vote Republican!
Blue, the Vice President made that pledge. He's broken it three times in the past year already. So it isn't worth the paper it's printed on. And what I'm concerned about is that if we continue with the policies that Mr. Bush is talking about here this evening, the flexible freeze somebody described it the other day as a kind of economic slurpee he wants to spend billions on virtually every weapons system around. He says he's not going to raise taxes, though he has broken that pledge repeatedly. He says he wants to give the wealthiest one percent of the people in this country a five-year $40 billion tax break, and we're going to pay for it. And he's been proposing all kinds of programs for new spending costing billions. Now if we continue with these policies, this trillion and a half dollars worth of new debt that's already been added on the backs of the American taxpayer is going to increase even more, and if we continue with this for another four years, then I'm worried about the next generation, whether we can ever turn this situation around. No, we need a chief executive who is prepared to lead; who won't blame the Congress; who will lead to bring down that deficit, who will make tough choices on spending.
As a kid who grew up to be bi, who knew kids who grew up to be trans and would have loved the support Mermaids is helping to provide: Log the fuck off before you get promoted to head of mermaids' marketing department. Every time you tweet five people donate. You're losing. You had an out here: Shut up and pretend you didn't notice us. Instead you provided tens of thousands of dollars of free promotion to Mermaids. If you'd just done what I asked, and told me how to beat beaver bother, the stream would have ended sooner, but no. Thanks btw
Yeah but I'm just referring to a matter of degree.
Their "self help" videos are the worst in my opinion, because they're pushing their viewpoint much more subtly and so people are more likely to accept it.
No, I'm not sure I can promise that; I don't think either one of us can really. There is no way of anticipating what may happen. I will say this: that we will set as our goal a steady, gradual reduction of the deficit, which will require tough choices on spending; it will require a good strong rate of economic growth; it will require a plan that the president works out with the Congress doesn't blame them, works it out with them, which brings that deficit down; it will require us to go out and collect billions and billions of dollars in taxes owed that aren't being paid in this country. And that's grossly unfair to the average American who is paying his taxes and paying them on time and doesn't have any alternative: it's taken out of his paycheck. Mr. Bush says we are going to put the IRS on every taxpayer. That's not what we are going to do. I'm for the taxpayer bill of rights. But I think it's unconscionable, Ann, that we should be talking or thinking about imposing new taxes on average Americans when there are billions out there, over $100 billion, in taxes owed that aren't being paid. Now, I think if we work together on it, and if you have a president that will work with the Congress and the American people, we can bring that deficit down steadily, $20, $25, $30 billion a year, build economic growth, build a good strong future for America, invest in those things which we must invest in economic development, good jobs, good schools for our kids, college opportunity for young people, decent health care and affordable housing, and a clean and safe environment. We can do all of those things, and at the same time build a future in which we are standing on a good strong fiscal foundation. Senator Bentsen said, as you recall at the debate with Senator Quayle, that if you give any of us $200 billion worth of hot checks a year, we can create an illusion of prosperity. But sooner or later that credit card mentality isn't going to work. And I want to bring to the White House a sense of strength and fiscal responsibility which will build a good strong foundation under which this country, or above which country can move, grow, invest, and build the best America for its people and for our kids and our grandkids.
Imagine how a woman feels. Imagine how soft and warm her skin feels. Imagine the sweet smell of her perfume. Imagine her tenderly pressing her soft lips against yours. Imagine her letting you get on top of her and insert your [bleep] inside her, softly moaning as it slides in. Imagine the walls of her tight, soft, warm [bleep] wrapped around every inch of your [bleep]. Imagine her breathing getting heavier with every thrust. Imagine her wrapping her arms and legs around you, holding you as close as she possibly can and begging you to [bleep] inside her as you release every ounce of your [bleep] into her. Then imagine the feeling of pure satisfaction and peace that comes afterwards, and looking beside you to see a person that cares about you and has accepted you in the most intimate way possible. You will never get to experience this because your skeleton is too small or the bones in your face are not the proper shape. Have a nice day.
That's what I was saying!!!!!!!
Good. I was just checking.
Would you say that Churchill had a net positive impact during his time in office?
In his first time in office, he definitely did due to his leadership in the Second World War. However, I'd argue that Stalin had a net positive impact on history for the same reason.

In his second time in office, he didn't really have that much of an impact at all. Even though he was Prime Minister, it was largely Anthony Eden who was directing policy at that point. At a Conservative Party conference, people were asked to rank post-war prime ministers from greatest to worst. Churchill came at the top, and this doesn't reflect a very accurate view of post-war British history, as Churchill's main achievements weren't in his post-war government.
The Governor has to balance the budget in his state he is required to by law. He has raised taxes several times. I wish he would join me, as a matter of fact, in appealing to the American people for the balanced budget amendment for the federal government and for the line-item veto. (Applause) I'd like to have that line-item veto for the president, because I think that would be extraordinarily helpful. And I won't do one other thing that he's had to do: took $29 million out of his state pension fund that's equivalent at the federal level of taking out of the Social Security trust fund. I'm not going to do that; I won't do that. (Applause) And so I'm still a little unclear as to whether he's for or against the tax increase. I have been for the taxpayer bill of rights all along. And this idea of unleashing a whole bunch-an army, a conventional force army, of IRS agents into everybody's kitchen I mean, he's against most defense matters, and now he wants to get an army of JRS auditors going out there. (Laughter) I'm against that; I oppose that. (Boos and applause)
Why do we build the wall? My children, my children. Why do we build the wall? Why do we build the wall? We build the wall to keep us free. That's why we build the wall. We build the wall to keep us free. How does the wall keep us free? My children, my children. How does the wall keep us free? How does the wall keep us free? The wall keeps out the enemy and we build the wall to keep us free. That's why we build the wall. We build the wall to keep us free. Who do we call the enemy? My children, my children. Who do we call the enemy? Who do we call the enemy? The enemy is poverty and the wall keeps out the enemy and we build the wall to keep us free. That's why we build the wall. We build the wall to keep us free. Because we have and they have not! My children, my children. Because they want what we have got! Because we have and they have not! Because they want what we have got! The enemy is poverty and the wall keeps out the enemy and we build the wall to keep us free. That's why we build the wall. We build the wall to keep us free. What do we have that they should want? My children, my children. What do we have that they should want? What do we have that they should want? We have a wall to work upon! We have work and they have none and our work is never done. My children, my children. And the war is never won. The enemy is poverty and the wall keeps out the enemy and we build the wall to keep us free. That's why we build the wall. We build the wall to keep us free. We build the wall to keep us free.
Do I? I forgot what we were talking about.
Do you venerate Jeremy Corbyn?
Oh fucking hell I can't think of a new signature.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests