(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @10:42AM
(168 children)
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday June 25 2020, @10:42AM (#1012349)
I have a suspicion I know what the issue is, and it's not Soylent News per se. Instead it's about 3 'uniquely active' users. In a way though it's kind of ironic. I do think these handful of users will gradually kill the site (and I agree it already is feeling like they've succeeded), and nothing will be done about it due to ideology of the site. Freedom tends to be self destructive when a minority of people abuse that freedom but stay just within the cusp of the law. Interesting that this issue is identical to what's happening in real life. Makes me wonder what systems will ultimately prove sustainable in our modern age.
Freedom tends to be self destructive when a minority of people abuse that freedom but stay just within the cusp of the law.
Which laws are they staying just within a cusp of?
I'll note here the only uniquely active user exaeta was responding to was Anonymous Coward (who in turn called exaeta bi-polar, racist bigot, and a POS among many other things). Who knows how many real users that corresponds to - could be one (yes, all that crap could be coming from a single user), could be many. Three is plausible. Didn't sound like any laws were close to being broken though.
Guess we'll need to peel away a few more layers of your onion to see what you really are talking about.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @05:14PM
(30 children)
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday June 25 2020, @05:14PM (#1012486)
Ari is just a right-wing nut who pretends to be the most insane leftist he can to drive people to the right. Barb is some mentally ill person who rants and raves and wants to be cool and hip like Saint MDC. Azuma is a bitter old cat lady who hates everyone because she has been mean and crazy to everyone in her life until she drove them away, then claims victim status. All in all, annoying but not worth leaving the site over. Sometimes Ari and Azuma even make good points. The bigger issue here is people like deathmonkey who are clearly on the take from the DNC and whenever an event happens only posts after the response talking points are published.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @10:20PM
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday June 25 2020, @10:20PM (#1012670)
I'm pretty sure most the hired trolls are outsourced. He'd have to compete with pretty much anyone with an internet connection who can generate semi-coherent English.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @05:33PM
(7 children)
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday June 25 2020, @05:33PM (#1012498)
DM, and the other three like to bitch slap people with moderation, but I don't believe he's doing the silly AC posts. Barb and 'Uzi', on the other hand, most definitely, and Ari too, but some are imitating him to throw the dogs off the scent. A whole bunch of people could be doing it, just to fuck all y'all up. People should just learn to roll with it.
I may be mean and bitter, but I'm actually not all that unhappy right now. And only 31, 32 this August. No cats yet though :(
Here's a free hint: the people I'm mean to generally deserve it, and I'm mean in ways they hate because I keep ripping holes in their worldview. Good isn't necessarily nice or soft. I tried that for far too long and just ended up suffering for it.
-- I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
Yeah, you're obviously suffering the same incorrect assumption that most rotten bitches suffer from. Bitch is not how do Strong Woman. It shows weakness rather than strength that you let anyone have that much control over your mood or emotions.
You couldn't stop yourself if your life depended on it. You claim you don't care, but you obviously do. Who do you think you're fooling? Do you truly think the entire site hasn't got your number by now?
-- I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
Unkind, yes. Incorrect? No, and you stand condemned by your own words.
You'll live with yourself the way you always have: by being an antisocial piece of shit who leeches off the commons without paying it back, forward, or sideways.
-- I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
And you'll keep building strawmen that you know to be completely wrong. It's what you do when you can't win an argument. That and tell someone they're going to hell.
That was a joke, right? I mean, if I'm insulting her anyway, the only thing using a gendered noun as opposed to a neuter one accomplishes is greater precision.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @04:14PM
(64 children)
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday June 25 2020, @04:14PM (#1012461)
I think that's a expected reaction from you because you are a key part of the site. And so you feel obligated and responsible to tolerate things and try to remain objective in site related behavior. And you've done a great job in that. It's likely a big part of the reason why the site didn't deteriorate into the echo chamber drivel that is typical of most sites, regardless of ideology.
Yet when you reach a point where you have a hyper-radicalized tiny minority chase away users, you will find that tiny minority becomes a larger and larger voice. Not because they're persuading anybody, much to their chagrin, but simply because others start leaving or no longer participating as discussion becomes about as sophisticated or interesting, or insightful, as a Yankees vs Red Sox discussion.
Makes me laugh. Not because I hate Jews but because he'd blame it raining on his day off on them just as emphatically as he would the slightly less insane rants.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @07:02PM
(50 children)
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday June 25 2020, @07:02PM (#1012556)
One of the biggest problems we have in the US is a bunch of centrists sorta like yourself who blow off the bigotry of assholes like EF as if they are simply trolling. That is one of the tactics for radicalization, normalize bad behavior by rationalizing it with "just the facts" or "just a joke." Next thing you know you've got angry young men marching with Nazi flags screaming about their non-existant persecution and running people over because they got scared.
A) Not a centrist. Libertarians do not fit on the left-right axis. B) I'd much rather tar and feather folks for trying to silence assholes than for being assholes, yes. The latter are easy to ignore but you ignore fascist fuckwads at your own peril.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @05:14AM
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday June 26 2020, @05:14AM (#1012786)
Good ideals don't excuse bad behavior. Speaking of fascists, you might want to read the Fascist Manifesto. [wikipedia.org] It was the document which defined the original literal Fascist Party's ideals and values. You might find you agree with most, if not all, of it. That's not a problem - I do too. But do you know what history now just remembers them as Fascists? Because ideals don't matter - behavior does. And their ideals were noble, but their methods were fascist.
Tearing down statues, forming digital mobs (alongside real life ones now), extreme racism while claiming it's not racism, and having 0 hesitancy to engage in every possible Machiavellian scheme if they think it will further their ends, and of course an absolute and extreme intolerance for any other worldview is what is increasingly defining the democratic party today. And I suspect that is what they will be remembered for, especially should they continue further down the dangerous path they're already on.
Nah, I notice you guys just fine. Oh, were you talking about Cheeto Jesus? He's just a narcissistic asshat, you're the fascists that want to make everything you don't completely approve of illegal.
I reject politicalcompas's dual axis way of looking at things as well. There is only liberal or authoritarian, the rest is nothing but trivial details.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @10:23AM
(11 children)
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday June 26 2020, @10:23AM (#1012810)
There should be more than one axis, but all of the axes are wider than we often consider, essentially ranging from anarchist (0) to totalitarian (1), or from no government (0) to absolute government control (1). I'd say three axes are appropriate, though it might be more complex than that:
1) Social issues, ranging from no government restrictions (0) all the way to the most repressive regimes you can think of (1). 2) Economic issues, ranging from zero government regulations (0) all the way to an absolute planned economy (1). 3) Foreign policy, ranging from complete isolationism (0) all the way to total interventionism (1).
The first two axes are fairly common, but I don't think foreign policy fits nicely on those two axes. It can also be even more complex than this. Both Libertarians and Republicans would be quite a bit closer to 0 than 1 on economic issues, but there are differences. Republicans support free movement of goods but support restrictions on the movement of labor. If there's a party that truly supports open borders, it's the Libertarian Party. Economists often view labor as being subject to the same forces of supply and demand that apply to goods. Republicans and Libertarians agree on economic policy toward goods but not on labor. So it's more complicated than the three axes, but I think it's a good start. The third axis also is useful in distinguishing the USSR from the DPRK, for example. The USSR would be pretty close to 1 on all three axes. The DPRK would be similar on social and economic issues, but are very close to 0 on foreign policy.
Libertarians are much closer to 0 than to 1 on all three axes. I think there are a lot of Americans who would agree with Libertarians on social issues and foreign policy, but want more government involvement on economic issues. The problem is that the US doesn't have a party fitting that description, so a lot of those people end up voting for Democrats. There's quite a bit of common ground with Libertarians on social issues and foreign policy, but a lot of divergence on economic issues.
I agree it's fundamentally about more or less government, but it's helpful to divide this across multiple issues.
Sounds reasonable but only sounds that way. No other axis even makes sense unless you're way off into authoritarian-land to begin with. A government that isn't trying to control its citizens doesn't have the power to do anything to put themselves on any other axis.
I think you've independently rediscovered the effect where the far ends of each axis curve towards one another as their governments become similar. Your own personal compass is skewed so far to libertarian / anarchy that left / right have very little meaning to you. It's fine to redefine the compass in your own head, but try to recognize the fact that the other positions are important to other people. The whole model is built around graphing what is and isn't important to different people across the whole population and across history as well. If you just want to throw the compass in the trash and say "NO, mine is the one true way!", I wish you luck in that.
-- Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
You're trying to promote criteria of secondary importance to equal primary importance when they're predicated on the criteria of primary importance having a minimum value in the first place. This is not logically sound.
It wouldn't be logically sound if you were correct about the left / right criteria being predicated on liberty (the libertarian / authoritarian metric) having a minimum value (IIUC). You're not correct about that.
The existence of economic policies that can be positioned on the left / right axis does not imply minimum liberty. For sure the state will be imposing a hell of a lot of restrictions on liberty to implement such a system, but it can still be parsecs away from the theoretical minimum.
Minimum liberty / maximum authority would make 1984 and most other fictional dystopias look like a party in international waters. We'd be talking brain implants that correct, punish or outright prevent all thoughtcrime instantaneously and everyone living in communal camps with no concept of privacy, ownership or leisure at all. Or did I misunderstand when you were talking about a "minimum value"?
It's worth mentioning yet again as well that if you cut back state intervention too much, to the point of approaching anarchy, it absolutely does not maximize liberty, because other entities (individuals or mobs) will keep popping up to control / attack / steal from other individuals. In a sense, you could say, that's how we eventually got the systems we have today.
-- Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
You're reading me wrong. I meant that there is a certain level of (not maximum) authoritarianism necessary to either modern definition left or modern definition right policies. There is a specific (and entirely unacceptable to me) amount of liberty that must be taken away before either can put enough policies in place to warrant considering as a secondary characteristic.
Ah yeah I see where you're coming from. It's a coherent if perhaps unusual position to believe that the whole left / right spectrum is founded on an unacceptable violation of human rights.
-- Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2020, @10:17AM
(1 child)
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday July 01 2020, @10:17AM (#1014926)
I actually agree that the best approach to classification is one's views on the size and role of government. This means that the scale is between absolute libertarian (anarchist?) and absolute authoritarian (totalitarian?) governments. This is effectively quantifying one's position on the size of government. However, the role of government is also important. One could support libertarian views on social issues but more authoritarian views on economic issues. It's basically taking your scale of libertarian and authoritarian views and splitting that across multiple issues.
I agree that classifying left vs. right isn't a good way to do it. A libertarian favors small government across for all issues, not just certain ones. But for other political positions, it's not just about the size of government, but about the role of government.
See, I see that as just deciding what flavor of authoritarian you are and that doesn't really matter to me. I'm not a full on anarchist because anarchy is only stable until you get human beings involved. What I am is a minimalist who believes government should have no power except what is absolutely necessary. Not that there should only be laws to cover what is absolutely necessary but that the government should be explicitly forbidden from from creating any others.
I don't have a problem debating what constitutes "absolutely necessary" on any given specific issue but anyone looking to a categorization for what they should believe has turned their brain off and isn't worth debating; they've outsourced their ability to think, so why should I listen to opinions with no thought behind them?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @03:08PM
(1 child)
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday June 26 2020, @03:08PM (#1012876)
Proportional representation would solve this dilemma in a heartbeat, which is why it will never, in a million years, ever be allowed by the current political establishment.
Imagine a government with let's say something like 30% republican, 30% democrat, 15% libertarian, 15% green, 10% rando stuff (independents, commies, socialists, nationalists, etc). It'd suddenly mean those corporate handouts and pork might face real opposition, and you'd have folks more interested in pursuing agendas focused on bettering society from a wide array of different perspectives. More importantly, I think that distribution is likely far more realistic than the current bullshit 50/50 democrat/republican nonsense which is driven only by our district based first past the post systems which, at best, are angling towards some sort of instant runoff system which won't change anything.
Instant runoff isn't proportional representation. However, it does make small parties more viable, in that voting for one as first choice doesn't have the effect of wasting your vote. It's a step in the right direction.
Is charity authoritarian? It can transform someone's life for the better (clearly not trivial) and it needn't impose on anyone who wants to ignore it. It's neither liberal nor authoritarian, but charitable actions--i.e. assistance, could be part of government policy. What axis should that be represented on, then?
-- Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
I was trying to think of an economic policy that you wouldn't immediately dismiss as illegitimate, and that is obviously not trivial in terms of the positive difference it can make to some people's lives. By that reasoning, such things should go on their own axis.
-- Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
Nah, I don't care what they're for. Unless they're absolutely necessary (for our continued existence, not to make someone feel better about themselves because they voted for it) and can not be done by the private sector, they should not be done by the state. I just can't back an "what should we use stolen money/liberty from our citizens for" axis, because it's predicated on stealing money/liberty from citizens.
Here are my results [politicalcompass.org]. Left of Sanders without approaching the extreme, but far more libertarian than any mainstream western politician.
I think the site would put me even further onto libertarian except I suspect my strong desire for regulation to protect the environment may be marked as authoritarian. To me, it's libertarian, because I consider the liberty and rights of other species to be of greater significance than freedom for large corporations (which are not people).
-- Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @04:16AM
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday June 26 2020, @04:16AM (#1012782)
Oh, yeah? Well, you arrogant shits are so full of fuck! Like fucking shit fucks, given, not received! Death to all conservatives! Burn Atlanta again! Milo for Gay President! Q is a lie! The Pudding is in the proof! So, there.
He's gone into extreme detail as to what he believes, which exposed at least three major noetic attack surfaces, and of course I took the opportunity gladly. How about you shut up about things you don't know from a hole in the ground?
-- I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
He went into his personal life, geographical history, and religious beliefs both on the level of dogma/theology and on how he applies them practically in day to day life. That's pretty damn detailed. You apparently didn't see this conversation so what the fuck are you spouting off about?
And actually, as it so happens I do retro-phrenology. That is, since the theory holds that the shape of one's skull is indicative of one's personality, it follows that by remodeling your skull I can change it. In your case, I'd recommend complete deconstruction, as there very obviously isn't anything in there to begin with.
-- I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 28 2020, @05:40PM
(1 child)
by Anonymous Coward
on Sunday June 28 2020, @05:40PM (#1013739)
Ah, now I see why you're so peeved about the claim you exist to encourage people to suicide rather than go on sharing a planet with you. You don't want people you disagree with dead, you want to kill them. And suicide represents them cheating you out of your righteous vengeance.
Oh no, no, no, you've got me all wrong. I want to do something much, much, MUCH worse than kill those people.
Know what it is? Are ya ready? Here's that much^3 worse thing I want to do to them: I want to leave them to their own devices in a world that has left their worthless, divisive ideology in the trash heap, living surrounded by the broken wreckage of their destructive worldview, epistemological shipwrecks along the reefs of reality.
Because I learned something a good long time ago about that sort: they don't fear violence, and indeed take it as a badge of honor. They welcome death, because like the cultural suicide bombers they are, they believe it will make them martyrs for the cause. What they absolutely cannot stand is mockery, and the one thing they can't stand worse than mockery? *Irrelevance.* So no, I don't want them to die. I want them to live, and to chew their sclerotic, hateful old livers like stale beef jerky until they drop dead of their own accord.
-- I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 28 2020, @11:40PM
by Anonymous Coward
on Sunday June 28 2020, @11:40PM (#1013889)
You are hilariously dumb! Taking yourself so seriously like that... He writes what he wants you to see, pretty well, I might add. None of that silly voodoo you preach all the time. Only you see what YOU want to see! Yep, definitely a goof...
I also blame all the bad things on the world on the Chinese and Mexicans, but of course with the Jews it's about about "me, me, ME! Muh Holocaust! Never Forget! All animals are equal but some are more equal than others!"
No problem with the Blacks though -- just wish they would wake up to just how much they're being manipulated and exploited by the Jews.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @06:08PM
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday June 25 2020, @06:08PM (#1012520)
Yet when you reach a point where you have a hyper-radicalized tiny minority chase away users, you will find that tiny minority becomes a larger and larger voice. Not because they're persuading anybody, much to their chagrin, but simply because others start leaving or no longer participating as discussion becomes about as sophisticated or interesting, or insightful, as a Yankees vs Red Sox discussion.
Again, that's a failure in those surrendering the debate not in the policy. If you don't want radical nutters to win the site, you have to fight them. TANSTAAFL.
Fighting noise with signal is what I meant. Yes, they're exactly why God created the mouse wheel but if you're letting them keep you from posting something worth reading, you're being part of the problem not part of the solution.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @05:45AM
(3 children)
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday June 26 2020, @05:45AM (#1012795)
"Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it."
To see what things trend towards, look at Wikipedia. There are people on that site voluntarily putting in 80 hour weeks just to shit post/edit political diatribes. They undoubtedly delude themselves into thinking they're changing the world, but it's likely had a zero if not negative effect. The negative deriving from the fact that political stuff tends to backfire once you go overtly partisan. See: Trump being elected likely not in spite of the nonstop negative media coverage of his campaign, but because of it.
When people of any ideology become sufficiently radicalized, they will out-radical you, by definition.
Well, yeah. If you don't care about and believe in your position as much as they do, they're going to put more effort in. So either care about it enough to put the work in or stop caring about it enough that it makes you unhappy. Moderation is not always a good thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @06:55PM
(1 child)
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday June 26 2020, @06:55PM (#1012944)
I'd obviously agree moderation is not always a good thing. Problem is it seems that view is not especially consistent when paired with forums where moderation, above and beyond the removal of spam, is implemented as playing an integral role. If exaeta had gotten the memo and just modded everybody as 'troll' - the hip new thing to do, he'd have been all clear. You don't find this system kind of 'touched'?
Nope. We have way more good moderators than bad moderators, though who's good and who's bad on any given day is not a static list. There are plenty of points out there available to correct any moderation worth correcting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @03:51PM
(6 children)
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday June 25 2020, @03:51PM (#1012452)
So we must beware of a tyranny of opinion which tries to make only one side of a question the one which may be heard. Everyone is in favour of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage. -- Winston Churchill
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @06:10PM
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday June 25 2020, @06:10PM (#1012521)
It's just that he does have better stuff to do than get into political arguments.
It's good to have hobbies. I wish exaeta all the luck in the world. Although I'd caution him against committing violent acts against judges (well, everyone, but exaeta seems to have a special bug up his ass about judges). To paraphrase Heinlein, "Cutting [their[ throats is a momentary pleasure and is bound to get you talked about."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @07:08PM
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday June 25 2020, @07:08PM (#1012562)
I seriously doubt this. Politics is what brought exaeta, that and bitching about his appeal to a court being dismissed for, um, insanity. If it is politics that made him leave (and remains to be seen if this is a feint), he is only again being hoist by his own petard.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @08:42PM
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday June 25 2020, @08:42PM (#1012616)
That is all he did. Well, that and complain about sovereign immunity and getting access to drugs and precursor chemicals. However, those two can also be considered political as well, depending on your perspective.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @04:49PM
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday June 25 2020, @04:49PM (#1012477)
There's like 3 'uniquely active' freethinking users on the site matched for 3 'uniquely active' democrat party shills here. The latter may modbomb posts they don't agree with, but this site is not big enough to not be able to read at -1.
Exaeta leaving is thus, as TMB said, a failure to have sufficient skin thickness.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @06:27PM
(48 children)
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday June 25 2020, @06:27PM (#1012530)
I have a suspicion I know what the issue is, and it's not Soylent News per se. Instead it's about 3 'uniquely active' users. In a way though it's kind of ironic. I do think these handful of users will gradually kill the site (and I agree it already is feeling like they've succeeded), and nothing will be done about it due to ideology of the site. Freedom tends to be self destructive when a minority of people abuse that freedom but stay just within the cusp of the law. Interesting that this issue is identical to what's happening in real life. Makes me wonder what systems will ultimately prove sustainable in our modern age.
Yep..But there are more than three. Yourself included, even though you generally post AC.
Your racist/authoritarian shitposting as walls of text don't help.
Fusty's shill posts and AC sockpuppeting gets pretty tired.
And while Runaway1956 has moments of clarity, he generally spews false information, from ignorance and malice.
It's good to talk about this stuff, because it's clear that there is disagreement among users here. That's a GOOD THING™, as it promotes discussion and debate. Who wants to live in an echo chamber? Exaeta, apparently. Facebook is good for that.
The tenor of comments on this site is generally pretty right-leaning. There are a bunch of centrists here who generally take that as a call to duty [xkcd.com], but they are often shouted down with bullshit arguments and attempts to discredit the data linked by them.
Sure, some folks can be pretty shrill, but there are those of us who prefer facts and evidence to broad brush pronouncements that don't comport with objective reality.
Funny, I see about half a dozen tops right-leaning folks, at least three times as many seriously-to-radically progressives types, even more moderates, and a few weirdo libertarians who do not fit on that axis at all.
On the contrary, outside of the left-right axis is the best place to view it from. You don't get a false horizon from being way the hell off to one side. And the left-right axis has nothing to do with how liberal (which is what libertarians are and progressives aren't) someone is in the US nowadays, it's about which flavor of authoritarianism you prefer.
I'm not remotely a moderate. I'm quite uncompromising in my ideals compared to the general public. Like I said, libertarians do not fit on your left-right scale. We don't want either of your flavors of big government authoritarianism, thanks.
Yet, you come across as pretty right wing in the traditional sense. Unluckily you're so invested in your view of yourself that discussion becomes like talking to a wall, and who wants to waste too much time talking to a wall?
TMB: Chickasaw/Cherokee Nazi, not doubt with a good amount of white blood. Never made sense to me, until I say "Under the Volcano" [imdb.com] with Albert Finney, with the one scene where the Metis wearing a Nazi lapel button, beats down on a pure blood Mayan. That explains TMB. But, he is no Mayan.
Dude, if you think I'm right-wing, you're so far out in the progressive fringes that you think anyone less progressive than you is right-wing. I'm what liberal actually means even if it has been badly misused in the US for quite some time: championing the liberties of the people.
I'm idly curious where on the graph politicalcompass.org would put you [politicalcompass.org], Buzzard.
I'm sure the test isn't perfect but it seems to do a good job of scattering people across the axes according to their political views. I don't disagree with where it aligned me.
-- Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
I'll give it a go for the lulz but I can tell from the first few questions that it's a colossally shitty test. Most of the questions require presuppositions that are themselves wrong. Take "Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.", for instance. That's like asking if oxygen or water are more important to your health. It's not an either/or and there's not a scale of agreement, both are completely, factually crucial but there's no option for that and they lump the folks who understand that in with the folks who have rabid beliefs that unemployment control is more important by how they ask the question.
Joke Test Results: Economic Left/Right: 4.5 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.9
You do come out with right wing believes regularly, one I remember was that you considered the value of someone was accurately reflected in their wages, implying that someone getting low wages was worthless. This in a country where the leading predictor of your income is your parents income.
It is a relatively accurate reflection. Unfortunately all of society gets a vote not just you and those who agree with you but also people who vehemently disagree with you and complete morons who watch reality TV. They vote with their wallets every day and you can see the results easily.
Dude, you think that's a rebuttal? Both can be true at the same time. If your parents had or at least knew the value of possessing valuable skills, they're capable of passing that on to you. If they didn't, they aren't.
Just keep in mind, what most Americans refer to as left-wing or leftist is *centrist* (and boring as hell) in the civilized world. People like Sanders are boring, run of the mill centrists in places like Norway.
-- I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
Civilized? Bitch, please. Allowing the government control over every aspect of your life is not civilization, it's just sheep trying to make themselves feel better about being sheep.
Well put, and, as I keep saying, you can't have small government unless you keep the corporations small as well, otherwise they'll control people (eat the sheep) instead.
-- Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
Truth. We're a hell of a long way past what's actually necessary though. And most of that shit is just to cover up that you're being sold to wolves daily anyway.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @05:56AM
(21 children)
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday June 26 2020, @05:56AM (#1012796)
I think the best refutation to this frequently stated claim comes from Norway itself: Hjernevask [wikipedia.org].
Hjernevask was a series run on Norway public television about gender politics. And so you can only imagine what it's about. Except you can't. Hjernevask means to brainwash, and it was deeply critical of gender politics and the radicalized path they had taken. And the film received an exceptionally positive reputation. But not only this, it ultimately led to the termination of public funding for gender studies programs in Norway. If that was run in America he would have been labeled a Nazi or misogynist at the minimum with the video being no doubt labeled hate speech. The author would have faced never-ending digital hate mobs and calls for his head on a spike. American democratic social views and values have become deeply radicalized relative to just about anywhere in the world. The scariest thing is that people don't even realize how radicalized they're becoming. This is how you get those groups we now look back in history wondering 'how did things ever get to this point?'
As an aside, it's an absolutely awesome series. The Wiki page has links to all of the videos, and the English subtitles are excellent. Amusingly though, YouTube has chosen to declare that they have "inappropriate content" and so the videos are marked as adult only. That's also a new thing. New America, eh?
So I'm a radical for supporting human rights then? Even as an outsider to this particular subset of humanity? Jesus. This may come as a very large shock to you, so I want you to sit down and take a breath, maybe have a few sips of water before I hit you with this. Okay? You ready? *deep breath*
NOT EVERYONE YOU DISAGREE WITH HAS THE EXACT SAME SET OF BELIEFS AND NOT EVERYONE YOU DISAGREE WITH IS ALL THE WAY ON THE FAR EXTREME OF THOSE BELIEFS!
I'm sure you're mentally segfaulting right about now, but there are such things as leftist gun owners (hi!) and people who are able to recognize irrational excesses from exponents of the causes they support. Huge revelation, right? What a shock, right? And, oh pooballs, it looks like now you're going to have to actually do some mental legwork instead of just assuming everyone you disagree with is some unthinking tentacle extruded from a writhing, self-propelled mass of slogans.
-- I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
"So I'm a radical for supporting human rights then?"
It's a very radical idea still, almost 200 years after Thomas Jefferson died.
"NOT EVERYONE YOU DISAGREE WITH HAS THE EXACT SAME SET OF BELIEFS AND NOT EVERYONE YOU DISAGREE WITH IS ALL THE WAY ON THE FAR EXTREME OF THOSE BELIEFS!"
Very well said.
-- If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2020, @05:52PM
(14 children)
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday June 27 2020, @05:52PM (#1013318)
Do you even realize how hard you just shifted the goalposts? Your original post was, "Just keep in mind, what most Americans refer to as left-wing or leftist is *centrist* (and boring as hell) in the civilized world." Without missing a breath you now happily transition to your views and behaviors instead of what you literally said "what most Americans refer to as left-wing or leftist".
When "most Americans" speak of a leftist, how often do you think they are referring to whatever you're describing? By contrast how often do you think they're referencing things such as this [youtube.com]. That is US Democratic Representative Maxine Walters encouraging people to form mobs and try to harass (if not worse) any representative from the opposite political party. How often do you think they're referencing the groups that will increasingly aggressively try to destroy the life of anybody who does something they politically disagree with? How often do you think they're referring to the brownshirtsblackshirts that appear in an effort to intimidate, assault, and disrupt any and everybody that disagrees with their ideology?
The problem you're facing is what happens when people choose not to actively reject these radicals that are perceived to be, at least compared to the alternative, ideologically aligned with them. Those radicals behavior becomes normalized and gradually trends towards becoming a part of the group as a whole. Here's a hint for you: you're likely simply not an *American* leftist anymore. You may be a leftist and liberal, but American leftism and liberalism is characterized by the democratic party. And that party has become deeply radicalized and going down a dark path that many other nations have gone in the past - invariably with nothing but regret to show for it.
An increasingly large number of the ideals and behaviors that characterize what most people mean they refer to a 'leftist American' would be unwelcome in nearly any other nation.
If you think the Democratic party machine is leftist, or indeed has been since about the early 70s, you're so delusional that nothing I say or do is going to reach you. Ever since Nixon kicked McGovern's ass all over the electoral map they've been, slowly at first and since about the mid-90s at almost supersonic speed, shifting rightward and authoritarian. Bill Clinton was a moderate Republican by the standards of merely 25 years before, Obama was barely any better than Reagan and substantially worse on civil rights (spying, dronebombing a US citizen), and the beat goes on.
Your characterization of anyone mobbing as leftist is worse than delusional: it's intentional gaslighting. Were all those neo-Nazi fucks flying the literal Nazi flag demanding the governor of Michigan reopen in any sense leftists? You don't know what words mean and until you do I will thank you to shut up. You're talking out your ass at great length and it smells like it, too.
-- I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2020, @06:51AM
(12 children)
by Anonymous Coward
on Monday June 29 2020, @06:51AM (#1013992)
Once again, please look at your own words. You said, specifically: "what most Americans refer to as left-wing or leftist is *centrist*"
Now you're instead engaging in some sort of weird nonsequitur about whatever you personally happen to define as leftist, and then just throwing out politically charged words in a mostly incoherent fashion. Calm down and think rationally.
You intentionally snipped off the context of her post:
Just keep in mind, what most Americans refer to as left-wing or leftist is *centrist* (and boring as hell) in the civilized world. People like Sanders are boring, run of the mill centrists in places like Norway.
Your comment isn't rational. You're arguing in bad faith.
-- Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2020, @04:23PM
(5 children)
by Anonymous Coward
on Monday June 29 2020, @04:23PM (#1014143)
She obviously knows what she said. I assumed nobody else was reading this. It's buried in the middle of a dead thread.
Read above since you seem to have skipped to the bottom or something. And no, the views most Americans are referring to when they speak of "leftists" would most certainly not be centrist in a place like Norway. These things like cancel culture, statue toppling, digital hate trying to get people fired for holding different opinions, taking offense at everything by actively working to interpret things in the worst possible way, etc, etc would generally be seen as deeply radicalized in nearly everywhere else in the world. The American left has become deeply and dangerously radicalized.
Sounds to me more like they've successfully adopted the tactics and strategies of the American "right," who are now collectively shitting their Depends.
-- I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2020, @09:15AM
(3 children)
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday June 30 2020, @09:15AM (#1014434)
I'm not sure I agree unless you go back some number of centuries, at which point the modern notions of liberal and conservative lose all meaning. I mean obviously the conservatives had their brand of ignorant and bigoted self righteous hypocrisy with the Moral Majority, Focus on the Family, and so on. I can still remember people trying to ban Dungeons and Dragons because it was 'Satanic'.
But what we're seeing today is similar to the bigotry (and hypocrisy) of times *far* past. Digital mobs in particular are becoming increasingly reminiscent of lynch mobs. While that has a racial connotation today, people of all sorts were lynched for falling short of what the masses perceived as their social norms of the time. The largest lynching in the US was the Great Hanging at Gainsville. [wikipedia.org] 41 men were lynched for being 'suspected unionists.' The digital mobs of today are actively and purposefully doing all they can to try to destroy people's lives: getting them fired and even actively driving people to suicide. And the digital world is increasingly starting to blend with the real world where that 'digital violence' is becoming physical violence.
This is rather unprecedented at such scales. I mean can't try to step outside of this all and look back at how people are going to see all of this? For that matter, step outside of it and imagine how people in much of the rest of the world *already* see it! This is a serious problem, but people are just kind of shrugging it off, or creating incredibly spurious rationalizations for it. Mobs are stupid and dangerous. Self righteous mobs are the same only many magnitudes worse. Events of this sort are relatively new in modern times, but it's not a new story: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I've always been a shy sort myself, and all this stuff is telling me boils down to "hole up, hunker down, keep your nose clean, and wait for it blow over. Oh, and get across the Canadian border ASAP."
-- I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2020, @03:13PM
(1 child)
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday July 01 2020, @03:13PM (#1015024)
Wouldn't disagree, though I chose a bit further than Canada - whom I suspect this nonsense will also come to in relatively short order.
The one thing that confuses me about society at large is that I think if you ask people about the trajectory of the country most people can see the directionality/momentum of where things are headed. But they kind of just blank on what the destination is. It's kind of a fun thing about reading very old newspapers around the time of various historical events. They rarely if ever come from nothing. It's all just a gradual stairstepping towards the final show. So recurrent is this that on occasion get this sort of deja vu type feeling when reading of modern events. It just feels I'm just reading more of those old headlines leading up to a historic event you already know.
I'm poor, traumatized, and all alone in the world save for my SO. We have very very limited options. I plan if at all possible to end up in Halifax or thereabouts within 5 years or fewer and basically just disappear off the face of the earth waiting for all this shit to blow over. I know I won't live to see a positive resolution, and I know I'm about to witness geopolitical seismic shockwaves the likes of which have not been seen since world war II. I just don't want to be in the epicenter when the shaking starts.
-- I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
It's like arguing with a fart - a bunch of stinky hot air that only provides relief to the garter at the expense of others.
Not worth it. I've been so busy this last few months that I decided on this Canada Day holiday to see if anything has changed. it hasn't. Too bad the world has.
It's fun to tease the unevolved, but it got boring, and I don't have the spare time to look for any alternative (and don't really need one, so wtf). Bad enough that months after giving all the clients notice that they need to wear masks and they can't enter the building, half still show up unmasked. I discussed it with the younger workers and they aren't confident enough to enforce the rules, so I told them I'd be the mean cunt who enforced it. Half say "I forgot it in the car". One said "I can't wear a mask because I have a cough." Seriously, we're doomed.
But seeing all the Trumpers refusing to wear masks is great - get the libertarians out of the gene pool sooner rather than later. Will also raise the average IQ, so what's not to like?
-- SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 02 2020, @07:08AM
(2 children)
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday July 02 2020, @07:08AM (#1015299)
You may be disappointed to discover that both conscientiousness and a favorable attitude towards regulation have both been correlated quite strongly with lower IQs. Though you may be happy to discover that favorable attitudes towards social liberalism are also strongly correlated with higher IQs.
These are all fairly recent discoveries which confound previously works on 'conservative' vs 'liberal' studies. The reason being that contemporary liberal ideology tends to encompass social liberalism = high IQ as well as well as greater regulation = low IQ. And obviously vice versa for contemporary conservatism. This is likely a part of the reason that the results were so inconsistent. Incidentally libertarianism encompasses the values of social liberalism = high IQ, minimal regulation = high IQ, and freedom over conscientiousness = high IQ.
There's also an issue of age bias in older studies. In my life I've found one old saying to be unfortunately true: "If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at 40, you have no brain." I expect you'd find a rather different distributions of cognitive abilities in looking at older vs younger conservatives and liberals. Views change over time - yet many studies are carried out primarily on college age volunteers in psychology departments.
IQ measures very little aside from how well you do on IQ tests. I've consistently placed from the low 140s to the low 150s...and so fucking what?
EQ and CQ, emotional and cultural intelligence, are at least as important. INT and WIS are separate dice in DnD for a reason. And someone with high IQ, low emotional intelligence, and low cultural competence is extremely dangerous to themselves and other people, because they lack a certain amount of what you may term "memetic immune response" *and* are super, super-good at fooling themselves, justifying their bad takes, and reinforcing them internally. After all, if all those chimp-brained commoners can't argue you out of X, X *must* be correct, riiiiiiiight? And there's no difference, as we know, between theory and practice. A-yup.
-- I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03 2020, @06:19AM
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday July 03 2020, @06:19AM (#1015686)
I think this argument can be strongly challenged with a simple question. Why would somebody *want* to fool themselves? The answer is easy: because they have an *emotional* desire to reach some outcome that contradicts what logic tells them. If you do not let yourself be controlled by emotion you have no necessity to fool yourself. And while I think I can see the argument you're alluding to, I do not agree that that this is dangerous in the least.
Your argument I suspect is that if people consider, without compassion, that e.g. '6% of people commit 50% of violent crime' then that naturally trends towards 'okay get rid of the 6%, get rid of 50% of violent crime.' But I think that is both an emotional idea and an emotional conclusion. The idea itself is emotional since it makes no sense. Purge millions, many who have done nothing, for the sake of some percent that have? Would you yourself then not be guilty of far worse? And the conclusion itself is emotional since even if you want to achieve this end there are vastly better ways to do so. At the age of 18 each male is offered $10,000 to engage in an irreversible vasectomy. For the sake of gender equality we might extend the offer to females as well though that's probably unnecessary. There'd be absolutely no restrictions on angle shooting the law such as by freezing your sperm. The bias in who would opt in to such a procedure means you've effectively achieved your end while not only never engaging in one non-consensual action, but actually actively improving the lives of many millions of people. Same desired outcome but a vastly better path there. Emotion vs logic.
In many ways I think this is the difference between Jefferson and Lincoln. Jefferson in 1808, the first year it was constitutionally possible, ended the transatlantic slave trade. No new slaves were coming in and the system was only being perpetuated by the fact that children of slaves were also born into slavery. Jefferson wanted to phase out slavery in a peaceful and productive way. His idea was to take the children of existing slaves while providing compensation to their 'owners', train them up, and send them abroad to make a living as skilled freemen. He felt that freeing the slaves en mass in the US would cause issues due to discrimination and the inability of slaves lacking any meaningful skills trying to make their way in a deeply merit based society. Lincoln instead just went for an emotional solution. He forced the matter, started a war resulting in about 2% of Americans being killed (seriously imagine 1 in every 50 people you ever knew or saw suddenly being violently killed!), nearly destroyed the country and certainly did destroy its unity. And the freed slaves were left in exactly the situation Jefferson predicted. They faced immense discrimination and had difficulty making anything of their lives. Their descendants continue to argue, with some degree of merit, that these issues -now approaching 200 years ago- continue to affect them to this day. Jefferson was intelligent, Lincoln was emotional. And today we, as an entire society, continue to pay the price for such emotion. And indeed today we continue along an emotional trajectory.
It's only through consideration of things such as this that I'd ever frame conscientiousness in a negative way. Slavery was of course an absolutely awful institution that was inherently wrong and needed to be abolished. But solutions to problems must always be driven by logic. A man driven by emotion is like an animal on a leash led wherever its master fancies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2020, @09:42PM
(2 children)
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday July 01 2020, @09:42PM (#1015163)
Then go live in the civilized world then. If you are a libertarian on either side of the spectrum you only have one option right now, and thats America. After that everything is varying degrees of less liberty. For those who are libertarian minded they have nowhere else to go, they are a bear backed into a cave, and you are the guy with a stick poking it for fun because you can't handle only having 90% of the world being significantly more authoritarian.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 02 2020, @03:00PM
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday July 02 2020, @03:00PM (#1015414)
I definitely do not agree with this notion. In my opinion libertarianism is particularly under assault in the United States, and to a lesser degree in Western/Central Europe.
The other 90% of the world nobody ever talks about lacks certain niceties, but I find them to be vastly more free places *in general*. One major difference are the liberties you gain and lose. In America you're free to call the government and other people all sorts of nasty things. But that's pretty much the main liberty you have. And it's increasingly becoming a facade. Say the wrong thing and you can find a hate mob going out of their way to ruin your life and meet words with violence. Similarly, the pseudo-governmental companies companies which are increasingly gatekeeper's can erase you without any recompense whatsoever.
But in much of the rest of the world by contrast you have vastly more freedom of action. Want to sell stuff outside your home? You can. Want to turn your home into a restaurant? Can do. Want to have overgrown trees in your front yard because you think they look beautiful? Can do. In general people and the government leave you alone unless you start actively screwing up society. And that is the way things should be. The downside is you often end up sacrificing freedom of speech. And in times of tyranny that would be abysmal. Yet in America today we already see that our freedom of speech is a facade. If the government wants to ban some topic or prevent some person from speaking - they can do so trivially, without ever having to pass a single law. In some ways it's much worse, because there's no accountability. Oh every single American card and financial processing institution decided to start rejecting donations to Wikileaks? Don't worry - they're just private institutions doing whatever they want. I mean don't you now, massive multinational financial organizations just love engaging in actions that do nothing but make them lose money. No governmental action there, nope - none at all.
So while I think freedom of action and freedom of speech are both critical, if I'm left to choose one over the other it would be the one that actually involves doing things.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @10:08AM
nO!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @10:42AM (168 children)
I have a suspicion I know what the issue is, and it's not Soylent News per se. Instead it's about 3 'uniquely active' users. In a way though it's kind of ironic. I do think these handful of users will gradually kill the site (and I agree it already is feeling like they've succeeded), and nothing will be done about it due to ideology of the site. Freedom tends to be self destructive when a minority of people abuse that freedom but stay just within the cusp of the law. Interesting that this issue is identical to what's happening in real life. Makes me wonder what systems will ultimately prove sustainable in our modern age.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 25 2020, @01:06PM (33 children)
Do tell. Who are they?
Which laws are they staying just within a cusp of?
I'll note here the only uniquely active user exaeta was responding to was Anonymous Coward (who in turn called exaeta bi-polar, racist bigot, and a POS among many other things). Who knows how many real users that corresponds to - could be one (yes, all that crap could be coming from a single user), could be many. Three is plausible. Didn't sound like any laws were close to being broken though.
Guess we'll need to peel away a few more layers of your onion to see what you really are talking about.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @04:52PM (32 children)
Who are they?
Ari, Barb, and 'Zumi"...
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @05:14PM (30 children)
Ari is just a right-wing nut who pretends to be the most insane leftist he can to drive people to the right. Barb is some mentally ill person who rants and raves and wants to be cool and hip like Saint MDC. Azuma is a bitter old cat lady who hates everyone because she has been mean and crazy to everyone in her life until she drove them away, then claims victim status. All in all, annoying but not worth leaving the site over. Sometimes Ari and Azuma even make good points. The bigger issue here is people like deathmonkey who are clearly on the take from the DNC and whenever an event happens only posts after the response talking points are published.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 25 2020, @05:18PM (3 children)
Yes, everyone you disagree with is paid by the DNC....
Back on topic, I find it's better to engage people in a discussion about my beliefs than to flee the site like a whiny little bitch.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday June 25 2020, @09:40PM (2 children)
Seconded on your latter point but if you're not being paid to have those opinions professionally, you're missing out on a golden opportunity.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @10:20PM
I'm pretty sure most the hired trolls are outsourced. He'd have to compete with pretty much anyone with an internet connection who can generate semi-coherent English.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Friday June 26 2020, @05:24AM
Yep, I'm sure my misogynistic insults will be a big hit over at DNC headquarters!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @05:33PM (7 children)
DM, and the other three like to bitch slap people with moderation, but I don't believe he's doing the silly AC posts. Barb and 'Uzi', on the other hand, most definitely, and Ari too, but some are imitating him to throw the dogs off the scent. A whole bunch of people could be doing it, just to fuck all y'all up. People should just learn to roll with it.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 25 2020, @06:10PM (4 children)
hahah, ok fusty....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @06:29PM (3 children)
:-) Funny that you think you know who you are talking to. This is one of the great joys of this place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @08:05PM (2 children)
:-) Funny that you think you know who you are talking about. This is one of the great joys of this place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @08:53PM (1 child)
Funny that you think you know, . . . anything.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @08:56PM
But if I knew I didn't know anything, then I'd know something.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday June 25 2020, @09:42PM
"DM and the other three" aren't noticeably worse than most on moderation, they're just more active about moderating.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @06:41PM
Troll
Thank you! May I have another?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday June 26 2020, @12:52AM
You don't know me. But I know you. I am in your head. Rush Limbaugh is dead.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday June 26 2020, @01:30AM (16 children)
I may be mean and bitter, but I'm actually not all that unhappy right now. And only 31, 32 this August. No cats yet though :(
Here's a free hint: the people I'm mean to generally deserve it, and I'm mean in ways they hate because I keep ripping holes in their worldview. Good isn't necessarily nice or soft. I tried that for far too long and just ended up suffering for it.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 26 2020, @02:30AM (15 children)
Yeah, you're obviously suffering the same incorrect assumption that most rotten bitches suffer from. Bitch is not how do Strong Woman. It shows weakness rather than strength that you let anyone have that much control over your mood or emotions.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @04:12AM (1 child)
Buzzard, you rotten Bitch! I am going to control your emotions! You are a fake! Not actual! Here is a Poll for you to dance upon.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 26 2020, @05:19AM
That's not my poll, it's a strawpoll.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday June 26 2020, @08:48PM (10 children)
Offense is taken, not given, as someone I know once said :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 27 2020, @03:03AM (9 children)
Didn't say anything about being offended. You can say whatever you like and I won't be thinking about you anymore by the time I read the next comment.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday June 27 2020, @09:37PM (8 children)
Horseshit. You respond to each and every comment I make. You're either mentally ill or obsessed, maybe both as that's an or and not an x-or.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 27 2020, @10:31PM (7 children)
Hi, have we met?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday June 28 2020, @12:03AM (6 children)
In meatspace? No. Never. The evidence for this claim is that you aren't at this moment sucking well-deserved hellfire :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday June 28 2020, @09:49AM (5 children)
I'm quaking in my stylish yet affordable boots. What I meant was you know perfectly well I reply to nearly every comment addressed to me.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday June 28 2020, @06:25PM (4 children)
You couldn't stop yourself if your life depended on it. You claim you don't care, but you obviously do. Who do you think you're fooling? Do you truly think the entire site hasn't got your number by now?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 29 2020, @11:49AM (3 children)
Oh noes! Azuma has asserted something both incorrect and unkind of me! How ever shall I live with myself?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday June 30 2020, @01:58AM (2 children)
Unkind, yes. Incorrect? No, and you stand condemned by your own words.
You'll live with yourself the way you always have: by being an antisocial piece of shit who leeches off the commons without paying it back, forward, or sideways.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 30 2020, @03:55AM (1 child)
And you'll keep building strawmen that you know to be completely wrong. It's what you do when you can't win an argument. That and tell someone they're going to hell.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday July 01 2020, @01:05AM
The projection is amazing. Keep doing it; the more you expose yourself, and the more people see how completely full of shit you are, the better.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by catholocism on Monday July 06 2020, @04:58AM (1 child)
You realize you don't have to use a gendered negative to negate her right? You can just say asshole. Sorry if that's too p.c.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday July 06 2020, @03:47PM
That was a joke, right? I mean, if I'm insulting her anyway, the only thing using a gendered noun as opposed to a neuter one accomplishes is greater precision.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 28 2020, @01:21PM
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday June 25 2020, @01:43PM (65 children)
That's not a failure in freedom, that's a failure in the thickness of your skin.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @04:14PM (64 children)
I think that's a expected reaction from you because you are a key part of the site. And so you feel obligated and responsible to tolerate things and try to remain objective in site related behavior. And you've done a great job in that. It's likely a big part of the reason why the site didn't deteriorate into the echo chamber drivel that is typical of most sites, regardless of ideology.
Yet when you reach a point where you have a hyper-radicalized tiny minority chase away users, you will find that tiny minority becomes a larger and larger voice. Not because they're persuading anybody, much to their chagrin, but simply because others start leaving or no longer participating as discussion becomes about as sophisticated or interesting, or insightful, as a Yankees vs Red Sox discussion.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 25 2020, @05:21PM (54 children)
Yep, when Ethanol_fueled blames everything bad in the world on the Jews it does cause reasonable people to leave the site.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday June 25 2020, @06:53PM (51 children)
Makes me laugh. Not because I hate Jews but because he'd blame it raining on his day off on them just as emphatically as he would the slightly less insane rants.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @07:02PM (50 children)
One of the biggest problems we have in the US is a bunch of centrists sorta like yourself who blow off the bigotry of assholes like EF as if they are simply trolling. That is one of the tactics for radicalization, normalize bad behavior by rationalizing it with "just the facts" or "just a joke." Next thing you know you've got angry young men marching with Nazi flags screaming about their non-existant persecution and running people over because they got scared.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 25 2020, @07:10PM (5 children)
Tell me about it. SJW's used to do that "just kidding" routine, until they had radicalized enough people to stop apologizing for being assholes.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @07:49PM (3 children)
Runaway pulling a script flip? No way!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 25 2020, @08:36PM (2 children)
Here, pull my finger.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @08:55PM (1 child)
Don't do it! It's a trap! That's no finger! (Runaway, seriously, put that thing away, no one wants to see it.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 02 2020, @10:13PM
Fingers are bigger anyway.
(Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Friday June 26 2020, @02:03AM
Careful there, 4channers would be deeply offended to be called SJW - that trolling tactic is their master creation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday June 25 2020, @09:45PM (34 children)
A) Not a centrist. Libertarians do not fit on the left-right axis.
B) I'd much rather tar and feather folks for trying to silence assholes than for being assholes, yes. The latter are easy to ignore but you ignore fascist fuckwads at your own peril.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @10:17PM (8 children)
"you ignore fascist fuckwads at your own peril"
You've been doing exactly that for 3+ years now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @10:35PM (5 children)
No, you just fail to see that fascists are trying to control you on both ends of the spectrum.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @11:18PM (4 children)
Ah yes, those damn liberal fascists trying to get healthcare and equality for everyone. Yup, real scary those ones. Your centrist shtick is lame.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday June 26 2020, @12:54AM (2 children)
I have this broad brush that I use on TMB. His people are used to being painted "alt-right" as well as "alt-white".
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 27 2020, @03:05AM (1 child)
"Painted"? Is that like "colored" but for people who can be trusted not to spill?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday June 27 2020, @05:32AM
Mudblood Muggle! Not that that is bad thing, unless you tie it to rightwing nutjob libertariantard idiology!
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @05:14AM
Good ideals don't excuse bad behavior. Speaking of fascists, you might want to read the Fascist Manifesto. [wikipedia.org] It was the document which defined the original literal Fascist Party's ideals and values. You might find you agree with most, if not all, of it. That's not a problem - I do too. But do you know what history now just remembers them as Fascists? Because ideals don't matter - behavior does. And their ideals were noble, but their methods were fascist.
Tearing down statues, forming digital mobs (alongside real life ones now), extreme racism while claiming it's not racism, and having 0 hesitancy to engage in every possible Machiavellian scheme if they think it will further their ends, and of course an absolute and extreme intolerance for any other worldview is what is increasingly defining the democratic party today. And I suspect that is what they will be remembered for, especially should they continue further down the dangerous path they're already on.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 26 2020, @02:32AM (1 child)
Nah, I notice you guys just fine. Oh, were you talking about Cheeto Jesus? He's just a narcissistic asshat, you're the fascists that want to make everything you don't completely approve of illegal.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @02:42PM
As usual you spout off idiotically. Good show I say wotwot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @01:27AM (23 children)
No, because they have a whole axis to themselves. The libertarian-authoritarian axis. [politicalcompass.org]
See for yourself. These are my results. [politicalcompass.org] Which put me solidly on the Libertarian left.
Shocking. Truly shocking!
Not so much.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @01:39AM
Same AC replying to himself.
I ran across this [politicalcompass.org] after I posted the above. It should enlighten some and anger others. The funniest part is that I'm way farther left and way more libertarian [politicalcompass.org] than all of those folks.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 26 2020, @02:35AM (16 children)
I reject politicalcompas's dual axis way of looking at things as well. There is only liberal or authoritarian, the rest is nothing but trivial details.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @10:23AM (11 children)
There should be more than one axis, but all of the axes are wider than we often consider, essentially ranging from anarchist (0) to totalitarian (1), or from no government (0) to absolute government control (1). I'd say three axes are appropriate, though it might be more complex than that:
1) Social issues, ranging from no government restrictions (0) all the way to the most repressive regimes you can think of (1).
2) Economic issues, ranging from zero government regulations (0) all the way to an absolute planned economy (1).
3) Foreign policy, ranging from complete isolationism (0) all the way to total interventionism (1).
The first two axes are fairly common, but I don't think foreign policy fits nicely on those two axes. It can also be even more complex than this. Both Libertarians and Republicans would be quite a bit closer to 0 than 1 on economic issues, but there are differences. Republicans support free movement of goods but support restrictions on the movement of labor. If there's a party that truly supports open borders, it's the Libertarian Party. Economists often view labor as being subject to the same forces of supply and demand that apply to goods. Republicans and Libertarians agree on economic policy toward goods but not on labor. So it's more complicated than the three axes, but I think it's a good start. The third axis also is useful in distinguishing the USSR from the DPRK, for example. The USSR would be pretty close to 1 on all three axes. The DPRK would be similar on social and economic issues, but are very close to 0 on foreign policy.
Libertarians are much closer to 0 than to 1 on all three axes. I think there are a lot of Americans who would agree with Libertarians on social issues and foreign policy, but want more government involvement on economic issues. The problem is that the US doesn't have a party fitting that description, so a lot of those people end up voting for Democrats. There's quite a bit of common ground with Libertarians on social issues and foreign policy, but a lot of divergence on economic issues.
I agree it's fundamentally about more or less government, but it's helpful to divide this across multiple issues.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 26 2020, @01:44PM (8 children)
Sounds reasonable but only sounds that way. No other axis even makes sense unless you're way off into authoritarian-land to begin with. A government that isn't trying to control its citizens doesn't have the power to do anything to put themselves on any other axis.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Sunday June 28 2020, @02:32PM (5 children)
I think you've independently rediscovered the effect where the far ends of each axis curve towards one another as their governments become similar. Your own personal compass is skewed so far to libertarian / anarchy that left / right have very little meaning to you. It's fine to redefine the compass in your own head, but try to recognize the fact that the other positions are important to other people. The whole model is built around graphing what is and isn't important to different people across the whole population and across history as well. If you just want to throw the compass in the trash and say "NO, mine is the one true way!", I wish you luck in that.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 29 2020, @12:09PM (4 children)
You're trying to promote criteria of secondary importance to equal primary importance when they're predicated on the criteria of primary importance having a minimum value in the first place. This is not logically sound.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Monday June 29 2020, @02:03PM (3 children)
It wouldn't be logically sound if you were correct about the left / right criteria being predicated on liberty (the libertarian / authoritarian metric) having a minimum value (IIUC). You're not correct about that.
The existence of economic policies that can be positioned on the left / right axis does not imply minimum liberty. For sure the state will be imposing a hell of a lot of restrictions on liberty to implement such a system, but it can still be parsecs away from the theoretical minimum.
Minimum liberty / maximum authority would make 1984 and most other fictional dystopias look like a party in international waters. We'd be talking brain implants that correct, punish or outright prevent all thoughtcrime instantaneously and everyone living in communal camps with no concept of privacy, ownership or leisure at all. Or did I misunderstand when you were talking about a "minimum value"?
It's worth mentioning yet again as well that if you cut back state intervention too much, to the point of approaching anarchy, it absolutely does not maximize liberty, because other entities (individuals or mobs) will keep popping up to control / attack / steal from other individuals. In a sense, you could say, that's how we eventually got the systems we have today.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 29 2020, @09:47PM (2 children)
You're reading me wrong. I meant that there is a certain level of (not maximum) authoritarianism necessary to either modern definition left or modern definition right policies. There is a specific (and entirely unacceptable to me) amount of liberty that must be taken away before either can put enough policies in place to warrant considering as a secondary characteristic.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Monday June 29 2020, @11:58PM (1 child)
Ah yeah I see where you're coming from. It's a coherent if perhaps unusual position to believe that the whole left / right spectrum is founded on an unacceptable violation of human rights.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 30 2020, @12:29AM
Didn't used to be unusual. A couple hundred years ago it was the bull's eye.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2020, @10:17AM (1 child)
I actually agree that the best approach to classification is one's views on the size and role of government. This means that the scale is between absolute libertarian (anarchist?) and absolute authoritarian (totalitarian?) governments. This is effectively quantifying one's position on the size of government. However, the role of government is also important. One could support libertarian views on social issues but more authoritarian views on economic issues. It's basically taking your scale of libertarian and authoritarian views and splitting that across multiple issues.
I agree that classifying left vs. right isn't a good way to do it. A libertarian favors small government across for all issues, not just certain ones. But for other political positions, it's not just about the size of government, but about the role of government.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 01 2020, @12:22PM
See, I see that as just deciding what flavor of authoritarian you are and that doesn't really matter to me. I'm not a full on anarchist because anarchy is only stable until you get human beings involved. What I am is a minimalist who believes government should have no power except what is absolutely necessary. Not that there should only be laws to cover what is absolutely necessary but that the government should be explicitly forbidden from from creating any others.
I don't have a problem debating what constitutes "absolutely necessary" on any given specific issue but anyone looking to a categorization for what they should believe has turned their brain off and isn't worth debating; they've outsourced their ability to think, so why should I listen to opinions with no thought behind them?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @03:08PM (1 child)
Proportional representation would solve this dilemma in a heartbeat, which is why it will never, in a million years, ever be allowed by the current political establishment.
Imagine a government with let's say something like 30% republican, 30% democrat, 15% libertarian, 15% green, 10% rando stuff (independents, commies, socialists, nationalists, etc). It'd suddenly mean those corporate handouts and pork might face real opposition, and you'd have folks more interested in pursuing agendas focused on bettering society from a wide array of different perspectives. More importantly, I think that distribution is likely far more realistic than the current bullshit 50/50 democrat/republican nonsense which is driven only by our district based first past the post systems which, at best, are angling towards some sort of instant runoff system which won't change anything.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Thursday July 02 2020, @01:55PM
Instant runoff isn't proportional representation.
However, it does make small parties more viable, in that voting for one as first choice doesn't have the effect of wasting your vote. It's a step in the right direction.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Sunday June 28 2020, @01:43PM (3 children)
Is charity authoritarian? It can transform someone's life for the better (clearly not trivial) and it needn't impose on anyone who wants to ignore it. It's neither liberal nor authoritarian, but charitable actions--i.e. assistance, could be part of government policy. What axis should that be represented on, then?
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 29 2020, @12:10PM (2 children)
Charity is voluntary. If it's not voluntary, it's theft not charity.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Monday June 29 2020, @02:06PM (1 child)
I was trying to think of an economic policy that you wouldn't immediately dismiss as illegitimate, and that is obviously not trivial in terms of the positive difference it can make to some people's lives. By that reasoning, such things should go on their own axis.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 29 2020, @09:55PM
Nah, I don't care what they're for. Unless they're absolutely necessary (for our continued existence, not to make someone feel better about themselves because they voted for it) and can not be done by the private sector, they should not be done by the state. I just can't back an "what should we use stolen money/liberty from our citizens for" axis, because it's predicated on stealing money/liberty from citizens.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @03:19PM (1 child)
You disgust me, moderate.
My results [politicalcompass.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2020, @02:15AM
Not surprised. I'd expect you would be intolerant if you're that much of an extremist.
You go, girlfriend!
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Sunday June 28 2020, @02:22PM (2 children)
Here are my results [politicalcompass.org]. Left of Sanders without approaching the extreme, but far more libertarian than any mainstream western politician.
I think the site would put me even further onto libertarian except I suspect my strong desire for regulation to protect the environment may be marked as authoritarian. To me, it's libertarian, because I consider the liberty and rights of other species to be of greater significance than freedom for large corporations (which are not people).
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 29 2020, @12:13PM (1 child)
Um, neither are other species. =P
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Monday June 29 2020, @01:40PM
I see what you did there, Buteo.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 26 2020, @02:06AM
No, they only project on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday June 26 2020, @01:32AM (8 children)
Not to mention, Eth has committed the cardinal sin of the drug dealer, i.e., getting high on one's own supply. He believes that shit now.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @04:02AM (7 children)
Yeah! Like you know what he believes...
You arrogant fucks are so full of shit
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @04:16AM
Oh, yeah? Well, you arrogant shits are so full of fuck! Like fucking shit fucks, given, not received! Death to all conservatives! Burn Atlanta again! Milo for Gay President! Q is a lie! The Pudding is in the proof! So, there.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday June 26 2020, @08:47PM (5 children)
He's gone into extreme detail as to what he believes, which exposed at least three major noetic attack surfaces, and of course I took the opportunity gladly. How about you shut up about things you don't know from a hole in the ground?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2020, @12:15AM (4 children)
OMG! extreme detail! For sure that means it's true!
:-) You are such a goof! You do phrenology, too, right? With all that other voodoo you blab about? You're as weird as a flat earther.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday June 27 2020, @09:30PM (3 children)
He went into his personal life, geographical history, and religious beliefs both on the level of dogma/theology and on how he applies them practically in day to day life. That's pretty damn detailed. You apparently didn't see this conversation so what the fuck are you spouting off about?
And actually, as it so happens I do retro-phrenology. That is, since the theory holds that the shape of one's skull is indicative of one's personality, it follows that by remodeling your skull I can change it. In your case, I'd recommend complete deconstruction, as there very obviously isn't anything in there to begin with.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 28 2020, @05:40PM (1 child)
Ah, now I see why you're so peeved about the claim you exist to encourage people to suicide rather than go on sharing a planet with you.
You don't want people you disagree with dead, you want to kill them.
And suicide represents them cheating you out of your righteous vengeance.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday June 28 2020, @06:21PM
Oh no, no, no, you've got me all wrong. I want to do something much, much, MUCH worse than kill those people.
Know what it is? Are ya ready? Here's that much^3 worse thing I want to do to them: I want to leave them to their own devices in a world that has left their worthless, divisive ideology in the trash heap, living surrounded by the broken wreckage of their destructive worldview, epistemological shipwrecks along the reefs of reality.
Because I learned something a good long time ago about that sort: they don't fear violence, and indeed take it as a badge of honor. They welcome death, because like the cultural suicide bombers they are, they believe it will make them martyrs for the cause. What they absolutely cannot stand is mockery, and the one thing they can't stand worse than mockery? *Irrelevance.* So no, I don't want them to die. I want them to live, and to chew their sclerotic, hateful old livers like stale beef jerky until they drop dead of their own accord.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 28 2020, @11:40PM
You are hilariously dumb! Taking yourself so seriously like that... He writes what he wants you to see, pretty well, I might add. None of that silly voodoo you preach all the time. Only you see what YOU want to see! Yep, definitely a goof...
(Score: 1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday June 25 2020, @09:48PM (1 child)
I also blame all the bad things on the world on the Chinese and Mexicans, but of course with the Jews it's about about "me, me, ME! Muh Holocaust! Never Forget! All animals are equal but some are more equal than others!"
No problem with the Blacks though -- just wish they would wake up to just how much they're being manipulated and exploited by the Jews.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @10:20PM
Ya ya we know you are an idiot
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @06:08PM
Bye! Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday June 25 2020, @06:51PM (6 children)
Again, that's a failure in those surrendering the debate not in the policy. If you don't want radical nutters to win the site, you have to fight them. TANSTAAFL.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday June 25 2020, @07:49PM (1 child)
If you don't want radical nutters to win the site, you have to fight them.
No you don't. You don't have to "fight" anything. Just drift around them.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday June 25 2020, @09:48PM
Fighting noise with signal is what I meant. Yes, they're exactly why God created the mouse wheel but if you're letting them keep you from posting something worth reading, you're being part of the problem not part of the solution.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @05:45AM (3 children)
"Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it."
To see what things trend towards, look at Wikipedia. There are people on that site voluntarily putting in 80 hour weeks just to shit post/edit political diatribes. They undoubtedly delude themselves into thinking they're changing the world, but it's likely had a zero if not negative effect. The negative deriving from the fact that political stuff tends to backfire once you go overtly partisan. See: Trump being elected likely not in spite of the nonstop negative media coverage of his campaign, but because of it.
When people of any ideology become sufficiently radicalized, they will out-radical you, by definition.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 26 2020, @01:51PM (2 children)
Well, yeah. If you don't care about and believe in your position as much as they do, they're going to put more effort in. So either care about it enough to put the work in or stop caring about it enough that it makes you unhappy. Moderation is not always a good thing.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @06:55PM (1 child)
I'd obviously agree moderation is not always a good thing. Problem is it seems that view is not especially consistent when paired with forums where moderation, above and beyond the removal of spam, is implemented as playing an integral role. If exaeta had gotten the memo and just modded everybody as 'troll' - the hip new thing to do, he'd have been all clear. You don't find this system kind of 'touched'?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 27 2020, @03:11AM
Nope. We have way more good moderators than bad moderators, though who's good and who's bad on any given day is not a static list. There are plenty of points out there available to correct any moderation worth correcting.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 26 2020, @01:59AM
LOL re objective. Good laugh for a TGIF
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 25 2020, @03:36PM (17 children)
Whelp, live by the sword die by the sword.
I just find it interesting how these folks constantly claiming to be censored melt like snowflakes when people they disagree with speak.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @03:51PM (6 children)
(Score: 5, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 25 2020, @05:14PM (5 children)
Yep, but notice that it's my SJW ass that's still here while that manly libertarian exaeta flees from the opinions he disagrees with.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @05:48PM (3 children)
It's just that he does have better stuff to do than get into political arguments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @06:10PM
It's good to have hobbies. I wish exaeta all the luck in the world. Although I'd caution him against committing violent acts against judges (well, everyone, but exaeta seems to have a special bug up his ass about judges). To paraphrase Heinlein, "Cutting [their[ throats is a momentary pleasure and is bound to get you talked about."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @07:08PM
I seriously doubt this. Politics is what brought exaeta, that and bitching about his appeal to a court being dismissed for, um, insanity. If it is politics that made him leave (and remains to be seen if this is a feint), he is only again being hoist by his own petard.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @08:42PM
That is all he did. Well, that and complain about sovereign immunity and getting access to drugs and precursor chemicals. However, those two can also be considered political as well, depending on your perspective.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday June 25 2020, @06:54PM
It's the person not the platform, otherwise you wouldn't still have me to play with.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Touché) by shortscreen on Thursday June 25 2020, @07:09PM (9 children)
(an hour and a half later...)
Dare I ask how you distinguish between snowflakes and reasonable people?
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 25 2020, @07:14PM (6 children)
St. Greta the Great says, "HOW DARE YOU!!"
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @09:22PM
Kooky Runaway triggered by a teenager who wants to make the world better.
Really sad bro.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday June 26 2020, @01:33AM (4 children)
Why does Greta Thunberg constantly trigger you? You seem to have some real trouble with women in general. I can see why your wife left you...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 26 2020, @02:12AM (3 children)
[Citation needed] No, seriously, if true, I missed that tidbit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @04:18AM (2 children)
First wife. Now into livestock, mostly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @05:08AM (1 child)
The new meaning of "consuming one's relation". Ugh, I wish I can unthink this.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday June 26 2020, @08:49PM
I was thinking "animal husbandry" myself... :D
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 25 2020, @11:29PM (1 child)
Posting a tantrum in your journal: snowflake
Simply choosing to not read something: reasonable
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 26 2020, @02:38AM
Dude, you been snowflaking the hell out of it then.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @04:49PM
There's like 3 'uniquely active' freethinking users on the site matched for 3 'uniquely active' democrat party shills here. The latter may modbomb posts they don't agree with, but this site is not big enough to not be able to read at -1.
Exaeta leaving is thus, as TMB said, a failure to have sufficient skin thickness.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @06:27PM (48 children)
Yep..But there are more than three. Yourself included, even though you generally post AC.
Your racist/authoritarian shitposting as walls of text don't help.
Fusty's shill posts and AC sockpuppeting gets pretty tired.
And while Runaway1956 has moments of clarity, he generally spews false information, from ignorance and malice.
It's good to talk about this stuff, because it's clear that there is disagreement among users here. That's a GOOD THING™, as it promotes discussion and debate. Who wants to live in an echo chamber? Exaeta, apparently. Facebook is good for that.
The tenor of comments on this site is generally pretty right-leaning. There are a bunch of centrists here who generally take that as a call to duty [xkcd.com], but they are often shouted down with bullshit arguments and attempts to discredit the data linked by them.
Sure, some folks can be pretty shrill, but there are those of us who prefer facts and evidence to broad brush pronouncements that don't comport with objective reality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @06:37PM (2 children)
but there are those of us who prefer facts and evidence
Oh please! You didn't produce any during the hearings! You're just another sore loser democrat weenie!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @07:16PM
"Oh please! The GOP wouldn't let anyone produce any during the hearings! You're just another justifiably angry American."
FTFY
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @07:22PM
You've mistaken me for a member of Congress.
I assure you that I am not.
In fact, I *repeatedly* said that the House was moving too quickly and should get all its ducks in a row before moving forward.
You seem to conflate anything you don't like with "Democrats." Is that some sort of weird delusion disorder?
People are individuals. Painting large swathes of the population with such a broad brush doesn't make for good discussion, good ideas or good policy.
Open your mind. Because just like parachutes, minds work best when they're open.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday June 25 2020, @06:57PM (12 children)
Funny, I see about half a dozen tops right-leaning folks, at least three times as many seriously-to-radically progressives types, even more moderates, and a few weirdo libertarians who do not fit on that axis at all.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @07:09PM (11 children)
Well you call yourself a liberal so you're judgment is hardly trustworthy.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday June 25 2020, @09:52PM (10 children)
On the contrary, outside of the left-right axis is the best place to view it from. You don't get a false horizon from being way the hell off to one side. And the left-right axis has nothing to do with how liberal (which is what libertarians are and progressives aren't) someone is in the US nowadays, it's about which flavor of authoritarianism you prefer.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @02:44PM (9 children)
Amusing you think of yourself as moderste or objective. Huff some more proppy.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 27 2020, @03:14AM (8 children)
I'm not remotely a moderate. I'm quite uncompromising in my ideals compared to the general public. Like I said, libertarians do not fit on your left-right scale. We don't want either of your flavors of big government authoritarianism, thanks.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dry on Saturday June 27 2020, @04:33AM (7 children)
Yet, you come across as pretty right wing in the traditional sense. Unluckily you're so invested in your view of yourself that discussion becomes like talking to a wall, and who wants to waste too much time talking to a wall?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by aristarchus on Saturday June 27 2020, @05:46AM
TMB: Chickasaw/Cherokee Nazi, not doubt with a good amount of white blood. Never made sense to me, until I say "Under the Volcano" [imdb.com] with Albert Finney, with the one scene where the Metis wearing a Nazi lapel button, beats down on a pure blood Mayan. That explains TMB. But, he is no Mayan.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 27 2020, @10:39PM (5 children)
Dude, if you think I'm right-wing, you're so far out in the progressive fringes that you think anyone less progressive than you is right-wing. I'm what liberal actually means even if it has been badly misused in the US for quite some time: championing the liberties of the people.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Sunday June 28 2020, @02:52PM (2 children)
I'm idly curious where on the graph politicalcompass.org would put you [politicalcompass.org], Buzzard.
I'm sure the test isn't perfect but it seems to do a good job of scattering people across the axes according to their political views. I don't disagree with where it aligned me.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 3, Informative) by dry on Monday June 29 2020, @02:20AM
He may not agree with the result. I myself end up close to the bottom left.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 29 2020, @12:39PM
I'll give it a go for the lulz but I can tell from the first few questions that it's a colossally shitty test. Most of the questions require presuppositions that are themselves wrong. Take "Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.", for instance. That's like asking if oxygen or water are more important to your health. It's not an either/or and there's not a scale of agreement, both are completely, factually crucial but there's no option for that and they lump the folks who understand that in with the folks who have rabid beliefs that unemployment control is more important by how they ask the question.
Joke Test Results:
Economic Left/Right: 4.5
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.9
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday June 29 2020, @02:16AM (1 child)
You do come out with right wing believes regularly, one I remember was that you considered the value of someone was accurately reflected in their wages, implying that someone getting low wages was worthless. This in a country where the leading predictor of your income is your parents income.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 29 2020, @12:45PM
It is a relatively accurate reflection. Unfortunately all of society gets a vote not just you and those who agree with you but also people who vehemently disagree with you and complete morons who watch reality TV. They vote with their wallets every day and you can see the results easily.
Dude, you think that's a rebuttal? Both can be true at the same time. If your parents had or at least knew the value of possessing valuable skills, they're capable of passing that on to you. If they didn't, they aren't.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday June 26 2020, @01:34AM (30 children)
Just keep in mind, what most Americans refer to as left-wing or leftist is *centrist* (and boring as hell) in the civilized world. People like Sanders are boring, run of the mill centrists in places like Norway.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 26 2020, @02:41AM (4 children)
Civilized? Bitch, please. Allowing the government control over every aspect of your life is not civilization, it's just sheep trying to make themselves feel better about being sheep.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday June 26 2020, @08:45PM
What did I tell you about what happens to you in Hell when you commit strawman genocide, carrion-breath?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cmdrklarg on Friday June 26 2020, @09:05PM (2 children)
Having no government (anarchy) is worse. Too many wolves out there for all the sheep to be rugged individualists.
The key is balance; small enough government to facilitate freedom, but enough government to keep the wolves from eating all the sheep.
The US does a horseshit job at both, because most of the shepherds are wolves.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Saturday June 27 2020, @01:10AM
Well put, and, as I keep saying, you can't have small government unless you keep the corporations small as well, otherwise they'll control people (eat the sheep) instead.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 27 2020, @03:16AM
Truth. We're a hell of a long way past what's actually necessary though. And most of that shit is just to cover up that you're being sold to wolves daily anyway.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @05:56AM (21 children)
I think the best refutation to this frequently stated claim comes from Norway itself: Hjernevask [wikipedia.org].
Hjernevask was a series run on Norway public television about gender politics. And so you can only imagine what it's about. Except you can't. Hjernevask means to brainwash, and it was deeply critical of gender politics and the radicalized path they had taken. And the film received an exceptionally positive reputation. But not only this, it ultimately led to the termination of public funding for gender studies programs in Norway. If that was run in America he would have been labeled a Nazi or misogynist at the minimum with the video being no doubt labeled hate speech. The author would have faced never-ending digital hate mobs and calls for his head on a spike. American democratic social views and values have become deeply radicalized relative to just about anywhere in the world. The scariest thing is that people don't even realize how radicalized they're becoming. This is how you get those groups we now look back in history wondering 'how did things ever get to this point?'
As an aside, it's an absolutely awesome series. The Wiki page has links to all of the videos, and the English subtitles are excellent. Amusingly though, YouTube has chosen to declare that they have "inappropriate content" and so the videos are marked as adult only. That's also a new thing. New America, eh?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday June 26 2020, @08:45PM (20 children)
So I'm a radical for supporting human rights then? Even as an outsider to this particular subset of humanity? Jesus. This may come as a very large shock to you, so I want you to sit down and take a breath, maybe have a few sips of water before I hit you with this. Okay? You ready? *deep breath*
NOT EVERYONE YOU DISAGREE WITH HAS THE EXACT SAME SET OF BELIEFS AND NOT EVERYONE YOU DISAGREE WITH IS ALL THE WAY ON THE FAR EXTREME OF THOSE BELIEFS!
I'm sure you're mentally segfaulting right about now, but there are such things as leftist gun owners (hi!) and people who are able to recognize irrational excesses from exponents of the causes they support. Huge revelation, right? What a shock, right? And, oh pooballs, it looks like now you're going to have to actually do some mental legwork instead of just assuming everyone you disagree with is some unthinking tentacle extruded from a writhing, self-propelled mass of slogans.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by Arik on Saturday June 27 2020, @02:46PM
It's a very radical idea still, almost 200 years after Thomas Jefferson died.
"NOT EVERYONE YOU DISAGREE WITH HAS THE EXACT SAME SET OF BELIEFS AND NOT EVERYONE YOU DISAGREE WITH IS ALL THE WAY ON THE FAR EXTREME OF THOSE BELIEFS!"
Very well said.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2020, @05:52PM (14 children)
Do you even realize how hard you just shifted the goalposts? Your original post was, "Just keep in mind, what most Americans refer to as left-wing or leftist is *centrist* (and boring as hell) in the civilized world." Without missing a breath you now happily transition to your views and behaviors instead of what you literally said "what most Americans refer to as left-wing or leftist".
When "most Americans" speak of a leftist, how often do you think they are referring to whatever you're describing? By contrast how often do you think they're referencing things such as this [youtube.com]. That is US Democratic Representative Maxine Walters encouraging people to form mobs and try to harass (if not worse) any representative from the opposite political party. How often do you think they're referencing the groups that will increasingly aggressively try to destroy the life of anybody who does something they politically disagree with? How often do you think they're referring to the
brownshirtsblackshirts that appear in an effort to intimidate, assault, and disrupt any and everybody that disagrees with their ideology?The problem you're facing is what happens when people choose not to actively reject these radicals that are perceived to be, at least compared to the alternative, ideologically aligned with them. Those radicals behavior becomes normalized and gradually trends towards becoming a part of the group as a whole. Here's a hint for you: you're likely simply not an *American* leftist anymore. You may be a leftist and liberal, but American leftism and liberalism is characterized by the democratic party. And that party has become deeply radicalized and going down a dark path that many other nations have gone in the past - invariably with nothing but regret to show for it.
An increasingly large number of the ideals and behaviors that characterize what most people mean they refer to a 'leftist American' would be unwelcome in nearly any other nation.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday June 27 2020, @09:35PM (13 children)
If you think the Democratic party machine is leftist, or indeed has been since about the early 70s, you're so delusional that nothing I say or do is going to reach you. Ever since Nixon kicked McGovern's ass all over the electoral map they've been, slowly at first and since about the mid-90s at almost supersonic speed, shifting rightward and authoritarian. Bill Clinton was a moderate Republican by the standards of merely 25 years before, Obama was barely any better than Reagan and substantially worse on civil rights (spying, dronebombing a US citizen), and the beat goes on.
Your characterization of anyone mobbing as leftist is worse than delusional: it's intentional gaslighting. Were all those neo-Nazi fucks flying the literal Nazi flag demanding the governor of Michigan reopen in any sense leftists? You don't know what words mean and until you do I will thank you to shut up. You're talking out your ass at great length and it smells like it, too.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2020, @06:51AM (12 children)
Once again, please look at your own words. You said, specifically: "what most Americans refer to as left-wing or leftist is *centrist*"
Now you're instead engaging in some sort of weird nonsequitur about whatever you personally happen to define as leftist, and then just throwing out politically charged words in a mostly incoherent fashion. Calm down and think rationally.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Monday June 29 2020, @02:24PM (11 children)
You intentionally snipped off the context of her post:
Your comment isn't rational. You're arguing in bad faith.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2020, @04:23PM (5 children)
She obviously knows what she said. I assumed nobody else was reading this. It's buried in the middle of a dead thread.
Read above since you seem to have skipped to the bottom or something. And no, the views most Americans are referring to when they speak of "leftists" would most certainly not be centrist in a place like Norway. These things like cancel culture, statue toppling, digital hate trying to get people fired for holding different opinions, taking offense at everything by actively working to interpret things in the worst possible way, etc, etc would generally be seen as deeply radicalized in nearly everywhere else in the world. The American left has become deeply and dangerously radicalized.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday June 30 2020, @01:53AM (4 children)
Sounds to me more like they've successfully adopted the tactics and strategies of the American "right," who are now collectively shitting their Depends.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2020, @09:15AM (3 children)
I'm not sure I agree unless you go back some number of centuries, at which point the modern notions of liberal and conservative lose all meaning. I mean obviously the conservatives had their brand of ignorant and bigoted self righteous hypocrisy with the Moral Majority, Focus on the Family, and so on. I can still remember people trying to ban Dungeons and Dragons because it was 'Satanic'.
But what we're seeing today is similar to the bigotry (and hypocrisy) of times *far* past. Digital mobs in particular are becoming increasingly reminiscent of lynch mobs. While that has a racial connotation today, people of all sorts were lynched for falling short of what the masses perceived as their social norms of the time. The largest lynching in the US was the Great Hanging at Gainsville. [wikipedia.org] 41 men were lynched for being 'suspected unionists.' The digital mobs of today are actively and purposefully doing all they can to try to destroy people's lives: getting them fired and even actively driving people to suicide. And the digital world is increasingly starting to blend with the real world where that 'digital violence' is becoming physical violence.
This is rather unprecedented at such scales. I mean can't try to step outside of this all and look back at how people are going to see all of this? For that matter, step outside of it and imagine how people in much of the rest of the world *already* see it! This is a serious problem, but people are just kind of shrugging it off, or creating incredibly spurious rationalizations for it. Mobs are stupid and dangerous. Self righteous mobs are the same only many magnitudes worse. Events of this sort are relatively new in modern times, but it's not a new story: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday July 01 2020, @01:04AM (2 children)
I've always been a shy sort myself, and all this stuff is telling me boils down to "hole up, hunker down, keep your nose clean, and wait for it blow over. Oh, and get across the Canadian border ASAP."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2020, @03:13PM (1 child)
Wouldn't disagree, though I chose a bit further than Canada - whom I suspect this nonsense will also come to in relatively short order.
The one thing that confuses me about society at large is that I think if you ask people about the trajectory of the country most people can see the directionality/momentum of where things are headed. But they kind of just blank on what the destination is. It's kind of a fun thing about reading very old newspapers around the time of various historical events. They rarely if ever come from nothing. It's all just a gradual stairstepping towards the final show. So recurrent is this that on occasion get this sort of deja vu type feeling when reading of modern events. It just feels I'm just reading more of those old headlines leading up to a historic event you already know.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday July 02 2020, @10:54PM
I'm poor, traumatized, and all alone in the world save for my SO. We have very very limited options. I plan if at all possible to end up in Halifax or thereabouts within 5 years or fewer and basically just disappear off the face of the earth waiting for all this shit to blow over. I know I won't live to see a positive resolution, and I know I'm about to witness geopolitical seismic shockwaves the likes of which have not been seen since world war II. I just don't want to be in the epicenter when the shaking starts.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 29 2020, @09:58PM (4 children)
So is she by implying we're not part of the civilized world.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday June 30 2020, @01:51AM (3 children)
We're fucking close to not being part of it. Money, wealth, and technology alone do not make you civilized.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 30 2020, @03:57AM (2 children)
Unfortunately, you do not get to decide what civilized means.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday July 01 2020, @01:04AM (1 child)
Then neither do you :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 01 2020, @03:09AM
The difference being, I don't try. You're the one who thinks one little bit of the world gets to set the standard for the rest.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by barbara hudson on Thursday July 02 2020, @03:37AM (3 children)
Not worth it. I've been so busy this last few months that I decided on this Canada Day holiday to see if anything has changed. it hasn't. Too bad the world has.
It's fun to tease the unevolved, but it got boring, and I don't have the spare time to look for any alternative (and don't really need one, so wtf). Bad enough that months after giving all the clients notice that they need to wear masks and they can't enter the building, half still show up unmasked. I discussed it with the younger workers and they aren't confident enough to enforce the rules, so I told them I'd be the mean cunt who enforced it. Half say "I forgot it in the car". One said "I can't wear a mask because I have a cough." Seriously, we're doomed.
But seeing all the Trumpers refusing to wear masks is great - get the libertarians out of the gene pool sooner rather than later. Will also raise the average IQ, so what's not to like?
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 02 2020, @07:08AM (2 children)
You may be disappointed to discover that both conscientiousness and a favorable attitude towards regulation have both been correlated quite strongly with lower IQs. Though you may be happy to discover that favorable attitudes towards social liberalism are also strongly correlated with higher IQs.
These are all fairly recent discoveries which confound previously works on 'conservative' vs 'liberal' studies. The reason being that contemporary liberal ideology tends to encompass social liberalism = high IQ as well as well as greater regulation = low IQ. And obviously vice versa for contemporary conservatism. This is likely a part of the reason that the results were so inconsistent. Incidentally libertarianism encompasses the values of social liberalism = high IQ, minimal regulation = high IQ, and freedom over conscientiousness = high IQ.
There's also an issue of age bias in older studies. In my life I've found one old saying to be unfortunately true: "If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at 40, you have no brain." I expect you'd find a rather different distributions of cognitive abilities in looking at older vs younger conservatives and liberals. Views change over time - yet many studies are carried out primarily on college age volunteers in psychology departments.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday July 02 2020, @10:49PM (1 child)
IQ measures very little aside from how well you do on IQ tests. I've consistently placed from the low 140s to the low 150s...and so fucking what?
EQ and CQ, emotional and cultural intelligence, are at least as important. INT and WIS are separate dice in DnD for a reason. And someone with high IQ, low emotional intelligence, and low cultural competence is extremely dangerous to themselves and other people, because they lack a certain amount of what you may term "memetic immune response" *and* are super, super-good at fooling themselves, justifying their bad takes, and reinforcing them internally. After all, if all those chimp-brained commoners can't argue you out of X, X *must* be correct, riiiiiiiight? And there's no difference, as we know, between theory and practice. A-yup.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03 2020, @06:19AM
I think this argument can be strongly challenged with a simple question. Why would somebody *want* to fool themselves? The answer is easy: because they have an *emotional* desire to reach some outcome that contradicts what logic tells them. If you do not let yourself be controlled by emotion you have no necessity to fool yourself. And while I think I can see the argument you're alluding to, I do not agree that that this is dangerous in the least.
Your argument I suspect is that if people consider, without compassion, that e.g. '6% of people commit 50% of violent crime' then that naturally trends towards 'okay get rid of the 6%, get rid of 50% of violent crime.' But I think that is both an emotional idea and an emotional conclusion. The idea itself is emotional since it makes no sense. Purge millions, many who have done nothing, for the sake of some percent that have? Would you yourself then not be guilty of far worse? And the conclusion itself is emotional since even if you want to achieve this end there are vastly better ways to do so. At the age of 18 each male is offered $10,000 to engage in an irreversible vasectomy. For the sake of gender equality we might extend the offer to females as well though that's probably unnecessary. There'd be absolutely no restrictions on angle shooting the law such as by freezing your sperm. The bias in who would opt in to such a procedure means you've effectively achieved your end while not only never engaging in one non-consensual action, but actually actively improving the lives of many millions of people. Same desired outcome but a vastly better path there. Emotion vs logic.
In many ways I think this is the difference between Jefferson and Lincoln. Jefferson in 1808, the first year it was constitutionally possible, ended the transatlantic slave trade. No new slaves were coming in and the system was only being perpetuated by the fact that children of slaves were also born into slavery. Jefferson wanted to phase out slavery in a peaceful and productive way. His idea was to take the children of existing slaves while providing compensation to their 'owners', train them up, and send them abroad to make a living as skilled freemen. He felt that freeing the slaves en mass in the US would cause issues due to discrimination and the inability of slaves lacking any meaningful skills trying to make their way in a deeply merit based society. Lincoln instead just went for an emotional solution. He forced the matter, started a war resulting in about 2% of Americans being killed (seriously imagine 1 in every 50 people you ever knew or saw suddenly being violently killed!), nearly destroyed the country and certainly did destroy its unity. And the freed slaves were left in exactly the situation Jefferson predicted. They faced immense discrimination and had difficulty making anything of their lives. Their descendants continue to argue, with some degree of merit, that these issues -now approaching 200 years ago- continue to affect them to this day. Jefferson was intelligent, Lincoln was emotional. And today we, as an entire society, continue to pay the price for such emotion. And indeed today we continue along an emotional trajectory.
It's only through consideration of things such as this that I'd ever frame conscientiousness in a negative way. Slavery was of course an absolutely awful institution that was inherently wrong and needed to be abolished. But solutions to problems must always be driven by logic. A man driven by emotion is like an animal on a leash led wherever its master fancies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2020, @09:42PM (2 children)
Then go live in the civilized world then. If you are a libertarian on either side of the spectrum you only have one option right now, and thats America. After that everything is varying degrees of less liberty. For those who are libertarian minded they have nowhere else to go, they are a bear backed into a cave, and you are the guy with a stick poking it for fun because you can't handle only having 90% of the world being significantly more authoritarian.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by barbara hudson on Thursday July 02 2020, @03:20AM
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 02 2020, @03:00PM
I definitely do not agree with this notion. In my opinion libertarianism is particularly under assault in the United States, and to a lesser degree in Western/Central Europe.
The other 90% of the world nobody ever talks about lacks certain niceties, but I find them to be vastly more free places *in general*. One major difference are the liberties you gain and lose. In America you're free to call the government and other people all sorts of nasty things. But that's pretty much the main liberty you have. And it's increasingly becoming a facade. Say the wrong thing and you can find a hate mob going out of their way to ruin your life and meet words with violence. Similarly, the pseudo-governmental companies companies which are increasingly gatekeeper's can erase you without any recompense whatsoever.
But in much of the rest of the world by contrast you have vastly more freedom of action. Want to sell stuff outside your home? You can. Want to turn your home into a restaurant? Can do. Want to have overgrown trees in your front yard because you think they look beautiful? Can do. In general people and the government leave you alone unless you start actively screwing up society. And that is the way things should be. The downside is you often end up sacrificing freedom of speech. And in times of tyranny that would be abysmal. Yet in America today we already see that our freedom of speech is a facade. If the government wants to ban some topic or prevent some person from speaking - they can do so trivially, without ever having to pass a single law. In some ways it's much worse, because there's no accountability. Oh every single American card and financial processing institution decided to start rejecting donations to Wikileaks? Don't worry - they're just private institutions doing whatever they want. I mean don't you now, massive multinational financial organizations just love engaging in actions that do nothing but make them lose money. No governmental action there, nope - none at all.
So while I think freedom of action and freedom of speech are both critical, if I'm left to choose one over the other it would be the one that actually involves doing things.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @02:14AM
Has he? I mean, yeah, he may appear so to be so now and then, but I'm constantly reminded of that broken clock being right on occasions.