Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
Umm... I don't see how anyone can seriously claim the US military would automatically beat the American people, when we can see just how effective the "full might" of the US armed forces have been against organized guerrilla movements in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Just exactly what "positive change" can unconstitutional and economically illiterate socialist policies bring to the US? In economics, outside of market failure which in reality is quite rare, government nationalization of a service or industry compounds negative externalities, creates the free rider problem and disincentivizes innovation and cost-cutting. Almost every economic or social problem that's blamed on capitalism is either a result of corporatism or government.
Let me play Devil's advocate for a second and say socialized healthcare works well in European countries. Many of the most successful have employed mixed market models to stave off bankruptcy, but let's say for all intents and purposes that they're universal. These systems are used in small, ethnically and culturally homogeneous countries that are far more prone to centralization due to their geography and population density. The United States is a massive, federal republic that's far larger geographically and more diverse than Europe, and sees its services work best when decentralized and locally controlled. The more centralized and sprawling a program or agency, the worse it operates. We already have a system of centralized, socialized healthcare in the US, and it's called the VA, and it's been an absolute disaster for veterans and literally led to thousands of unnecessary deaths. If we look to the north, Canada has a federal health care system. Care is rationed and patients die on wait lists that are longer than those in Europe. Don't believe me? My aunt, a left-leaning voter based in Ontario, has been a nurse for twenty years and can confirm all of this.
If you can prove me wrong and demonstrate why the free market system has somehow failed, then I will return to Europe where half of my wages would go to tax.
Miencraft, Narland, The New United States, Miri Islands
Don't mind Balloon, he's the Hannibal Buress of the region
Narland, Rateria
I can. To wit:
That's a good question, although I feel I should point out that your question is wrapped in the sort of misleading rhetoric that keeps conservatives pressed into the service of the state.
You cite corporatism and government intervention as the cause of most economic and social problems attributed to capitalism, but when you consider the purpose of capitalism - to generate capital such that the generator gets the spoils - it becomes evident that those things are themselves problems caused or exacerbated by something inherent to capitalism. I posit that this inherent something is human greed - it's something we exploit in individuals to drive them to generate capital (as they believe it will make them rich - and, in many cases, it likely will, which is something I love about capitalism), but it serves to exploit us in turn because there's little we can do to keep collectives from getting in on it too. Money, the carrot we're dangling in the face of men who would do anything to have it, presents a danger to us when those men form governments and corporations in order to rob us of it. Using greed as an incentive is something of a double-edged sword, and it is one we will stab ourselves with many times over until we steel ourselves and learn to use it better.
And these metaphorical stab wounds - the consequences of the blind pursuit of wealth - disproportionately affect the lower class. I see this not as a failing of the free market system itself but the means by which we have employed it; indeed, if we were to fully embrace automation without concern for the welfare of those whose labor has been displaced, the disparity between classes would become more severe, poverty more rampant, and the security of this system unduly threatened by civil unrest born of misplaced anger. To see how such a future might be avoided, we can look to existing examples of this misplaced anger for inspiration: to 'proletarian' revolution, to the installment of regimes proporting themselves to be communist, and to the rampant famine, starvation, and poverty caused by ceding control of the economy directly to the state. Socialism has been often attempted and just as often failed, yet somehow the ideology persists; where first I saw this as a mistake, I have come to understand that the specter that haunts us is one of notions and values that can only be dispelled in tandem with the axiomatic misconception that capitalism has failed the poor.
Ideals do not grow in a vacuum; they are shaped by our experiences, beliefs, and needs. The idealism that drives socialism is endemic to those who feel betrayed by capitalism, and they cling to it even when, in the pursuit of realizing it, it betrays them more so. It would seem that some people feel very strongly that it is imperative that the poor be uplifted and empowered such that the rich can no longer use them as tools; in that respect, perhaps there is something we may yet learn from leftist rhetoric. Perhaps the ideals and policies would bear fruit if not pulled along by a vehicle of failure, violence, and desperation. Perhaps capitalism can be reformed in order to be more equitable without losing the engine of self-interest that allows it to function.
To have any hope of achieving this in any practical sense, certain standards must be met which, as it happens, you've already laid out: any change would need to be made such that the negative externalities can be contained (and/or compounded by positive ones), that the resultant "free rides" are simultaneously universally applicable and universally beneficial, and that the capacity for innovation and competitive pricing is maintained (or, in any industries that lack it, introduced). A completely socialized economy would meet none of the criteria; indeed, giving the state total control over the economy would be too great a concentration of power - too inviting of tyranny. Indeed, there are only three aspects of socialist thought that I know of which could potentially enrich capitalism:
1. A universal basic income - a stipend paid to every citizen, without exception, calculated and designed to allow each citizen to achieve a basic, safe standard of living without the imposition of budgets or restrictions on how each citizen may spend this money. Much unlike certain aspects of our current entitlement system, people who casually piss away their money and contrive a justification wouldn't be afforded increased allowances; indeed, a truly universal basic income would render the most bloated elements of welfare spending obsolete, potentially saving the state (and therefore the taxpayer) the money needed to fund a UBI - possibly more. Negative externalities would be offset by a populace that, by and large, isn't perpetually broke. The poor would benefit because this would grant them a chance not to starve; the rich would benefit because they could more easily commit to bold and risky ventures without fear of losing everything. And once society fully embraces automation, we won't need a gigantic workforce of unskilled laborers anyway; people could turn their creative talents to what drives them (rather than what they need to survive), potentially leading to innovation not only in business but in the arts and sciences as well. Competitive pricing would shift to become less about what people will settle for and more about what they think they're worth, so consumer confidence - and therefore the generation of capital - would not only be heightened, but more stable as well. This is perhaps the big one out of the three ways I could see capitalism improving with the measured incorporation of socialistic - or at least socialist-seeming - ideas.
2. Universal education. As it is, the populace and the state are at something of a stand-off; the populace thinks it's got one over on the state because reliable access to information has never been more universal, while the state thinks it's got one over on the populace because its schooling system is indoctrinating the people such that they're raised to be generations of workers rather than scholars. The obvious lie that both sides are perpetuating is that it is the role of government to provide access to higher learning so that the people can be empowered by the knowledge they gain - but the government would ultimately be the side that would lose its edge if the lie were true. Ensuring that everyone has free - or at the very least, highly competitively-priced - access to all forms of schooling that they can take advantage of at their leisure would be a massive step toward arming the populace with a greater threat to the state than guns: again, it seems pen and policy dictate everything.
3. Universal healthcare. This is the one I'm most iffy about and unsure as to the potential ramifications of; the main thing I recognize here is that most of the spending bloat comes from the existence of the health insurance industry, which is something I've observed to be quite predatory towards patients and doctors alike because, like any other industry, the businesses within it are there to make money and the government is terrible at laying down rules for how they can and can't do that. Ultimately, the barriers to competitive pricing in the healthcare industry - likely composed of the health insurance industry itself - ought to be demolished, or we'll continually find ourselves paying for services, drugs, and potentially life-saving measures at hundreds of times their practical market value.
Without anything remotely resembling expertise on the subject, I can only say that the ideal scenario, in my eyes, would be to create a healthcare system that manages to be both decentralized (indeed, the closer to the patient the relative "center" of the system is, the better) and universal (so that no one can be irreversibly financially crippled by the state of their health).
I assign this sort of consensus because, in a way, society is also something I often find myself in contention with.
Narland, Rateria
I understand your point. I address this in my previous post, but Ill add a bit here. A libertarian or ancap revolution will not have popular support if it happens any time soon. Without popular support, guerrilla warfare by libertarian factions, which would be inherently reliant on the people, would fail. The US government also knows its own land, which is a significant advantage over US forces when they fought in foreign countries. This also means that the government would almost definitely have the public relations advantage over insurgents, which would also help in enlisting soldiers for the US military. It will also be easier to deploy troops in the United States than in a far off country such as Iraq or Vietnam. Foreign backing of libertarian rebels sounds like it will most likely never happen. Foreign aid for revolutions helps them win, or simply survive if the war cannot be won. Victory partially due to the help of foreign support is evident in Vietnam, the American Revolution, and the Soviet war in Afghanistan. Even with foreign support, a revolutionary war may never be won. A great example of this is the ongoing communist insurrection in the Philippines, which has been going on for over forty years. They had foreign support in the past, but they still havent won after 40+ years of violence. They also have popular support in certain areas, which helps them survive, yet they have not won the war. In conclusion, I dont see a second American Revolution succeeding any time soon.
I personally may have gotten mixed signals from Jaden on this section of his post. He goes against authoritarianism, which leads me to believe that he does not advocate for socialism. I think he means that people are too busy calling everything they dont like socialist to actually do anything beneficial while the situation doesnt improve. I could be wrong with my interpretation, and Jaden knows what he means better than I do.
Narland, West Smolcasm
I didn't read the wall of text but it is important to note that capitalism isn't a zero sum game. On paper it may seem that way but both parties are benefiting from the transaction. When I fork over money for car parts I don't rant and rave about it being highway robbery, I willingly give up my money and eagerly await my package so I can improve me car. I may have handed over my money but I got something I perceive to be more valuable than the dollars. My greed compels me to get the parts but I cannot steal the parts I have to give the equally greedy man selling the parts I want. He wants my money more than the part I want. we both get what we want inside of the legal framework. Socialists seemto think that the man with the part is stealing my money out of greed and completely ignoring that I want that part MORE than the money. The seemingly basic system under capitalism is more complicated than a central planner can possibly conceive. Why would a central planner give a crap about a part about a car he doesn't even know exists. The guy who has my part knows about my car. He has a whole business dedicated to parts that people need for cars people don't know exist. He only needs to focus on one peice of a gigantic puzzle. I can't possibly tell you how many radios we need for Ford f150s every 5 years but companies who build those radios know exactly how many to produce and can adjust their course many times a year. It's far more responsive to the needs of the market than a central planner telling me to make iron in my back yard
Narland, Rateria
I mostly agree, but I think you underestimate guerrilla warfare. It helped the Viet Cong defeat the US, and even to this day is employed successfully by groups like ISIS. Moreover, tanks, drones, etc. are good at causing widespread destruction, but not so much killing individuals. I don't think in this day and age the US government wants to destroy large parts of its country.
Possible counterpoint: The US did just that in the civil war
The New United States
In what world does ending forced marriages reduce civil rights?
Rateria
Welcome to NS, where lowering taxes increases taxation and expanding civil liberties reduces civil rights.
Rateria
Welcome to NS, where allowing protestors to protest causes the sea level to rise ten feet.
Narland, Rateria
And having free trade policies decreases meters of sunlight
Miencraft, Narland, Rateria
Reminds me of the episode of the Simpsons where Mr. Burns takes the sunshine away from Springfield.
Re: All the prior posts about Civil War that I was unable to join in. It only takes 3 days of no food trucking into the cities to see total chaos prompting urbanites / suburbanites in ravaging the countryside where the wood, metal, food and stuff what makes our clothes comes from. It would only take one occurrence of that for the ruralites to demand that the county armories be opened to get their tanks and military equipment out (in areas that still follow the 2nd Amendment) to protect themselves from the waves of blue menace, destroying the rest of our infrastructure in process. How many world examples does one need to know (especially in the age of instant info with all of the conflicts currently worldwide) to NOT want Civil War.
Re: Insurrection. In ever war game our State Guard has played with the US National Guard our State communications fall in seconds, defeat occurs in minutes and total subjugation of State within 3-5 days for political insurrection.
Re: Invasion. I cannot wrap my head around the Democrat Party in general and the Establishment GOP advocating full scale invasion of the US couching it in the terms "open borders" and "amnesty" as if those who come here are being slaughtered by their respective regimes. Open borders are one thing, accepting overwhelming invasion are something entirely different.
We need a law! :) I propose instantaneous self-biodegrading cans (ISBC) as soon as the expiration date is met. Those companies that cannot afford ISBCs can settle for instantaneous self-combusting cans (ISCC). Nothing tastes worse than a stale Full Throttle tm that has been left on the dash board of a car throughout a hot summer. I am sure I am not getting my full 58 grams of high fructose corn syrup as some of it must have degraded, and no amount of 1500 mg of powdered caffeine packets added to it spruces it up. I would complain louder from the share holders to the store clerks but they keep taking my money anyway. [insert Fry meme, "Shut Up and Take my Money" here] I needs the gubment to proctect me from myselfs.
The Viet Cong were propped up by both Red Armies of People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union, given aide and comfort from Hollywood, bolstered by self-loathing Western Academicians, and benefited from an uncaring American political class that was more concerned about either monetizing the war effort, shoving their "Great Society," down our throats or both. The Paris Accords were tantamount to total capitulation (read them for yourself) but we were betrayed by our media establishment and political ruling class who spun it off as a victory for North Vietnam and the United Nations. There was no internet back then as a forum to decry the betrayal, and groups that did such as the JBS (anti-fascist, and anti-communist) were vilified as dangerous crackpots, seriously mentally ill, or subversives for daring to broach the topic. Vietnam (and Korea) instead of being run like WW2 was run by "rational experts" embedded in an Administrative State that matriculated from the Academician armpit festering with Fabian/New Thought Socialists and the Rhodesian policies that have been a template for every undeclared war since.
When America (and what she once stood for) goes Liberty is gone for good. There is no nation or outside group (such as the Viet-Cong had) that can or will save us. Very few of us even have the energy to maintain the concepts of Freedom and Equality politically, economically, and societally (yes, in a free country polity and society are one and the same, but in a Socialist country society must be separated from polity until the bourgeoisie are eradicated) that will (like our forebears did) insure that our posterity live as free and as prosperous as we do from the relentless assaults of Statism.
I only want this for minors though. Adults can make whatever desicions that they want.
Caffeine can lead to heart attack and stroke, it's a drug, the same as alcohol, cannabis, and opiates. I think that the legal age to buy any drug with the potential for abuse should be 18 across the board.
I'm very Libertarian about adults, but minors, I believe, have some rights and restrictions that adults don't have.
I am a firm advocate of turning capable children into society as adults at 14 (those 5% that can) through 21 (Several members of my family graduated college at 16 to 18). Those who cannot handle adulthood at that time (21 years of age) then remanded to familial custody until such a time as they are mature enough to handle the responsibilities of adulthood. They then can be enfranchised (should they so choose to do so) at an age identical to the draft age, age of consent, drinking age, age of majority, age of enfranchisement, age of legal accountability etc. (One Age to rule them all).
I would like adulthood to be an unforgettable rite of passage (such as an emancipation ceremony similar to a Bar/Bat Mitzvah) more so than getting a driver's license or getting drunk on one's Nth birthday. We once had an informal rite of passage colloquially when children behaved and talked with their own subculture and addressed adults respectfully conforming to the best of their ability to adult expectations, where children were seen as "adults-in-training" until they graduated HS, but the Cultural Revolution destroyed that framework and the lack of expectation expects that everyone should be treated as immaturely and irresponsibly as everyone else.
Do you have any source on the war games thing? Im interested in seeing how the states failed in the exercises.
New poll in Zentari (as I mentioned a few days ago. Don't worry, I'm only slightly early :p). Expect another poll around Tuesday/Wednesday for the second debate.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=poll/p=144381
Rateria
I share the sentiment that there shouldn't be different ages for different rights. I believe a person should receive all their rights upon the age of majority. That'd be eighteen in the U.S. I'm not nessisarily opposed to the idea of young teenagers being given some sort of maturity test, and if passed, they get their rights early. The only part I disagree abput is the timeframe. 21 is too late; you can take the test from 14, but your rights and responsibilities are thrusted upon you at 18 whether you're prepared or not. Life is the greatest teacher. It's like throwing the baby into the pool to teach them to swim.
Miencraft, Rateria
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
I'm not particularly swayed by the argument that there should only be one age of majority; adulthood could be marked by a number of ages or events, up to and including the full maturation of the human brain in one's late twenties. While I can plainly see that many of the milestones our culture and government has set are quite arbitrary, it still makes a certain psychological and social sense that a person's progress from childhood to adulthood be tiered and staggered - even if that isn't necessarily economically expedient.
The sad reality of tossing babies into pools is that many would consequently drown.
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
A gradual coming of age process is good culturally, but I was speaking on legally. If you're an adult, you're entitled to 100% of your rights. If you're old enough to fight in a war, you should be able to consume whatever substances you want to.
Narland, Rateria
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
If you're an adult, you're an adult. It's extremely backwards to suggest that people who are otherwise adults are considered responsible enough to decide who ought to run the government, but because they haven't waited an extra three years, they're not responsible enough to be able to decide what to put into their body.
Whatever the age we've decided means you're an adult, that should be the highest possible age restriction on anything. Excepting, of course, things like the constitutional age requirements for certain offices, but for actually doing things in your day-to-day life, it shouldn't be possible to make laws requiring that you be older than the age of majority to do something. If businesses really want to enforce 21-year-old drinking age and garbage like that, they could, but the law shouldn't be allowed to decide that for them.
It's nonsense that you can be forced to go off and die in a war before you're allowed to decide that you want to buy alcohol. I would also argue that it's nonsense that a 16-year-old is considered responsible enough to drive a car but not responsible enough to vote. Pick one damn age and stick to it.
Narland
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
I can get back to you on that. I haven't seen any recent published reports through the State Archives, but I can ask some friends that are still in the Guard for some references.
Rateria
Rights and responsibilities are what they are, and either one can handle being an adult or they cannot. The line is relatively arbitrary mostly forced on us by Washington, DC instead of the local municipality, county or State as it used to be. Returning the drinking age to county control would be a good start. But if one is old enough to be drafted to maim or kill other people and destroy things all the other rights privileges and immunities of adulthood should be recognized as well.
Courts do recognize the folly of youth, even today and generally make adjustments. Some things I did that would get me a slap on the wrist from the Justice of the Peace at 14 or 19 years of age would definitely get me jailed at 59 years of age.
Miencraft, Rateria
IIRC until relatively recently the voting age in Iceland was 35.
The biggest conundrum I've routinely run into when discussing politics isn't political differences, its philosophical differences. I'm a Kantian at heart, I believe that following my moral code is the most important thing, regardless of the consequences, yet I often find myself acting in a Utilitarian manner, which demonstrates by my actions, that I do not fully believe in Kantianism.
For example: I would intervene in the case of the train, pull the lever, and save multiple lives at the price of condemning one life; I would also tell a lie to save lives, and if I really think about it, deep down in my soul, while I consider theft to always be wrong, stealing from a beggar seems to me to be obviously more wrong than stealing from a rich man. These are all Utilitarian observations and the last one, seems to be an anti-capitalist one.
However, I also believe that intent matters in ethics. I do not believe a person can be "accidentally racist." I don't consider it to have been a moral wrong in the old testament story when the men carrying the Ark of The Covenant, touched it, to keep it from falling on the ground. I believe that following an objective moral code, depending on what that code is, can potentially absolve a person from all wrong-doing or negative consequences their actions may have wrought.
For an example: I do not believe in the part of the civil rights act that makes it illegal for private business owners to discriminate against people based upon race, but I understand that having not voted for it would put me on the side of actual racists. Some people have argued to me that doing a "wrong thing" for a good reason is no different than simply doing a bad thing. Some even go so far as to quote Nelson Mandela and say that those who remain neutral in the face of oppression, take the side of the oppressors. While it would be obviously callous, I still don't believe that a person can violate someone's rights through inaction.
If I see a man dying of thirst, and I refuse him water, I haven't killed him, unless I'm responsible for his condition that made him die of thirst, say, if I tied him up, making him unable to pursue water, then denied it to him still. That's the same principle as in the Constitution and why we have the right to pursue happiness, and not just a right to happiness, ultimately I bring this up because I noticed that when I debate, people often use Utilitarian arguments when I'm using Kantian arguments. Were not even having the same conversation at that point.
How do I either:
A. Convince a person to argue using Kantian ethics when I don't follow them perfectly myself?
or
B. Bridge Kantianism and Utilitarianism? Which is something nobody has been able to successfully do for hundreds of years, with exception to "Rule Utilitarianism" which in my opinion, is just dressing up Kantian conclusions in Utilitarian language and pretending it makes sense using one leap in logic after another.
Post self-deleted by Narland.
I was being light-hearted in response but deleted the post.
More seriously, I believe that Western Civ (and Modernity) took a wrong turn with Kant (at the spearhead amongst others) discarding primacy in observable reality where one used their faculties to tame their passions to happiness (the ethics and epistemology of Objective Realism) for Existential Relativism which can only logically conclude (and has done so by metaphorically painting itself into a nihilistic Deconstructionist corner) in despair and anti-philosophy (things that Kant were trying to avoid). I would recommend Escape From Reason by Francis Schaeffer, The Consequences of Ideas, Blueprint for Thinking, and Worldviews in Conflict, by RC Sproul, The End of Christendom by Malcolm Muggeridge as a start.
But Kant was very much against life being about happiness. His primary opponent, Utilitarianism, is often criticized as being Hedonistic. The critique, and correct me if i'm wrong, is that Kant's advice to follow your own moral code, means that anyone could follow any moral code, but Kant also said that to determine one's moral code means to Universalize one's actions, "What if everyone did this; how would that be?" Are you saying that a person could reach any number of conclusions to that question, and thus that leads to Relativism?
If so, then that would only mean that Kant needs to be paired with another philosophy in order to know what's right. Kant wasn't wrong, he just didn't answer the question completely. He gave us correct directions on how to get to our destination, but failed to provide us a way to get there, a moral vehicle if you will.
On a trip so cant respond much longer than this:
1.) Im not a socialist, Im anarchist. I wouldnt ever become a statist.
2.) Rateria was right in how he interpreted what I said about socialism.
3.) Pevv you kind of proved my point.
Rateria
It seems like the younger generation is becoming uncomfortable with LGBT and quite honestly I think they deserve it. I see the pride marches and I wonder why more people aren't disgusted by it. When I talk to other gays about the marches being counter productive they usually respond with something along the lines of 'its about celebrating who we are and we shouldn't worry about how everyone else wants us to behave'. This is very counter productive thinking and I can only feel that they're not going to like the push back when people don't like what they see at these marches. Last day of pride month, I wonder how things will work out in the future
The New United States, Umbreeah
It's almost as if assless chaps, oversized inflatable dildos, and wearing nothing but body paint and glitter, oversexualizes pride... Particularly when you're in a place that children can be.
The New United States, Miri Islands, Umbreeah
Your assessment, to be quite honest, sums up a great number of my concerns. I feel your worry that society's tolerance for gender and sexual minorities is finite, fickle, and susceptible to the fleeting whims of people who only wish to see us at our best and can't or won't understand anything else. I fear for what might happen if the LGBT youth were to fail to maintain whatever safe environments and connections they have on account of the shifting views and priorities of the populace. I commiserate with your choice of language, which indicates that you have distanced yourself from those with whom you share common challenges and disapproval; there was a time when I, too, internalized this sense of disdain for aspects of my identity beyond my control to so great a degree that I began to sound like those who would ridicule or disparage me on account of those aspects. I hope that you will come to realize something that I had to discover for myself:
We cannot - must not - deny ourselves our own acceptance solely because we seek that of others.
Swaying the masses by showing them only the qualities they consider desirable sounds a sensible survival strategy, but history tells us that it is also one that forestalls progress in civil rights - that it is the reason "Uncle Tom" is an epithet rather than a compliment. To render ourselves subservient to the imagined will of those who despise us would be to give away our capacity for exercising our unalienable right to self-expression and self-determination to those who do not deserve it - an insult to liberty and to individualism. I understand your reservations against pride marches - indeed, you've made them quite clear - but endorsing gentle acquiescence to the perceived moralizing of the public is, I think, comparatively more objectionable; in a way, it would seem that you wish to undermine a tradition that celebrates and explores the finer intricacies of human identity in the spirited defiance of old taboos, rooted in the observance of a series of riots that occurred in a time when such taboos were ubiquitous and such exploration was impossible.
We could be like our predecessors and hide away the most vulnerable parts of ourselves - as though sharing them would get us ostracized, arrested, or killed - but doing so would forsake the steps they'd taken to make it more feasible for us to express ourselves as we are. To paraphrase an old cliche: we're standing on the shoulders of giants, so it would be a waste of our position to cower. We should express ourselves to whatever extent makes us most comfortable (so long, of course, as none are harmed); whatever the "push back," it's preferable to a life without the freedom to be who we are and love whosoever we choose. I understand if you are merely content to live with this freedom rather than to fight for it, but - as with anything else - it goes against the spirit of liberty and justice to scorn others for exercising their own freedom out of fear that it somehow cheapens yours.
Rateria, Jadentopian Order, Highway Eighty-Eight
I'm at a 2015 level of tolerance right now tbh
2015 tolerance: "We should all have equal rights!"
Me: "right on."
2019 tolerance: "Maybe we're ALL gay and gender is meaningless and if you question these assessments that means you hate me!"
Me: O_O
Miencraft, Umbreeah
I swear we had this conversation before...
West Smolcasm
Seems like it.
Jadentopian Order
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
Gotcha, then, I guess I am tolerant.
It sucks to have to prove I tolorate my own community. I'm bisexual myself, and I've often been accused of hating the LGBT community just because I don't buy into the crazier parts and theorys that's come out of it.
Rateria, West Smolcasm, Miri Islands
Post self-deleted by Highway Eighty-Eight.
I always get the accusation of internalized homophobia or of not actually being gay. It seems like I'm not the only one.
Rateria
I think LGBT has achieved full civil rights and no I don't hate myself because I'm gay. We're about to see another wave of conservative thought across the United States and LGBT is firmly in the cross hairs because of how visible pedos are becoming. The only reason they're visible is because LGBT is becoming a platform for anything degenerate rather than a movement for the acceptance of community (see drag queen story hour and drag kids). Displaying the community as a wholesome movement and toneing down the crazy will make LGBT less of a target in the coming years. There are no more fights to be won. It's ground that must be defended. The progressive era is coming to a close and people aren't going to be interested in tolerating the weird
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
I see that, but is that not to a certain extent just assimilation? If I married a Mexican and moved to Mexico; I'd probably make some efforts to adopt parts of the Mexican identity and culture.
Sure, we shouldn't demand a people change their entire lifestyle, but I don't see a problem with our culture encouraging small tweaks and changes just for social cohesion, not de Jure obviously, but just in general.
Miencraft, The New United States, Miri Islands
Libergaytem rises!
Rateria, Skaveria, West Smolcasm, Miri Islands
The big gay strikes again
Miencraft, Rateria, Jadentopian Order, West Smolcasm, Miri Islands
Welp, just had a girl imply that she was gonna try to get me fired over a Facebook debate, fun.
Rateria
The catty, queerer-than-thou undercurrent within the LGBT community certainly pretends at being the mainstream, but I've found that they're the exception rather than the rule. I've certainly seen a rise in "gender critical" or "gender essentialist" hot takes, but surprisingly, most gay and trans people I meet don't require me to take a litmus test to prove I'm one of them, nor do they espouse intolerant views disguised as the latest treatise on civil rights.
I wish that were so, but that's quite untrue. It's still legal for businesses to discriminate against new hires for being gay or trans in my home state; part of the reason I moved away was to get away from that. No matter where in the United States I take residence, however, my fiancee and I would still be unable to file our taxes jointly even when we're married. There are so many legal precedents which have yet to be changed or overturned to reflect that LGBT individuals aren't second-class citizens, to say nothing of social practices. (Indeed, I'm still irked that many people insist that children are "too young" to know anything other than compulsory heterosexuality and traditional gender roles.)
That's good to hear, but that's not the only thing that the expression "internalized homophobia" implies. I might be reaching, but it sounds like you think that other people are being gay the wrong way, and you're worried about what that might mean for you.
Ah, so that's what this is about. I assure you that this strident sound ringing in your ears is little more than a conservative dog-whistle.
Pedophilia does not, and will never, fall under the LGBT+ umbrella. We could have all of the psychological studies and scientific explanations in the world for why some people are sexually attracted to children, but it wouldn't change that acting on this attraction is an inherently exploitative affront to human rights and the principle of bodily autonomy. It stands in gross contrast to the movement dedicated to letting consenting adults do whatever it is they do in the bedroom, but opponents of civil rights are currently trying to equate them. Five years ago, a common line was "next, people are going to marry their cats". Now it's this.
The point of bringing LGBT issues - yes, even drag - to the attention of children isn't to expose them to degeneracy (another, more classic dog-whistle) but to diversity; most kids are going to see people much unlike them and come to realize from an early age that it's perfectly well and valid that some people are different, and a few are even going to find commonalities and realize that they aren't alone. I wish pride marches were on my radar when I was younger; I came from a rather sheltered conservative household, so I didn't know what "gay" meant until middle school and I didn't think "transgender" was a real thing until late in high school (by which point I had already been miserable and depressed for years without fully understanding why).
The harsh truth is that this cannot be so unless we were never truly tolerated to begin with. If society is only being patient with us and expects our time in the limelight to end, our rights will be snuffed out like a candle in the future irrespective of how we "defend" our "ground" - "toneing down the crazy" would at best delay the inevitable.
But I think you're giving far too little credit to the more... flamboyant aspects of the pride movement, as well as to the significance of exposure. Just being ourselves is how we gain the acceptance of our communities, however weird we may be. Maybe some of us no longer have to fight just to be ourselves, but there are still many out there for whom this isn't true - and even those of us who are secure in our identities still have to fight the urge to surrender our pride so that we can make ourselves acceptable in the eyes of those who hate us (spoilers: that won't happen).
Anyway, you're far from alone in wanting to jump ship now that you have the rights you want. Plenty of gay and trans icons have either decided to say "f**k you, got mine" or attempted to court political blocs that, quite frankly, don't have their best interests at heart. If that's the path you want to take, fine; I might find it morally reprehensible, but at least I can't honestly say that you're any less gay for it! I do hope you enjoyed celebrating Shame Month, but I, on the other hand, am all out of shame to feel.
Sure; the rest of it's called coercion.
Rateria, Jadentopian Order, Highway Eighty-Eight
"I'm still irked that many people insist that children are "too young" to know anything other than compulsory heterosexuality and traditional gender roles."
I didn't find out I was gay till I was in highschool. I see no problem in assuming a majority of kids will be straight and they shouldn't learn about sexuality period till middle school at the earliest.
"It sounds like you think that other people are being gay the wrong way,"
Don't misrepresent me again. People say pride is about acceptance and tolerance but they're working against their stated goals and are suprised by the results. I just think it's stupid.
"The catty, queerer-than-thou undercurrent within the LGBT community certainly pretends at being the mainstream, but I've found that they're the exception rather than the rule."
Be honest. What do you think grabs headlines? a wholesome looking gay couple or a naked guy covered in dildos dancing in front of kids.
"Pedophilia does not, and will never, fall under the LGBT+ umbrella."
That's not what soccer moms in middle America think. If there's one way to get normal people to turn against a movement it's to create the possibility that it could threaten their kids which exposing kids to sexuality is an easy way to do it. You cannot give me a straight face and tell me that the normal person looks at a Desmond is amazing performance and thinks wow, that kid is having alot of fun. Most people are thinking that they have basically turned the kid into a stripper.
"The harsh truth is that this cannot be so unless we were never truly tolerated to begin with. If society is only being patient with us and expects our time in the limelight to end, our rights will be snuffed out like a candle in the future"
Blacks in the civil rights era were hardly tolerated but after alot of activism and marching they got the change they desired and they faded into the 70s and 80s being normal members of society with the same rights as everyone else. The LGBT community is stuck in a phase of perpetual activism and people are growing tired of it. If we fall off the radar people will have no reason to question why things are the way they are with homosexuality being legal and allowed to marry, you don't see people advocating for segregation. People just don't question sharing public spaces with other races. Support for LGBT is at an all time high and I think it's only going to go down if people continue to be exposed to LGBT insanity headlines.
I didn't know that it was legal to discriminate against LGBT in 28 states but it goes to show how misguided the movement is. Instead of repeatedly harassing a baker it would be well worth the while to get LGBT into the federal civil Rights act while we have a LGBT friendly president in office
Didn't use the proper quote tool. It was alot of words to go through
That got to Godwin's law rather quickly. In Western Europe, assimilation helped the Jews minimize persecution alot, Nazi Germany was an exception
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
Kids learn about the most transparent aspects of sexuality (and gender roles, for that matter) at a far younger age regardless of their formal education; straight couples don't typically feel shame about kissing in front of young children, and if I had a dollar for every time I've seen people fetishize even the most innocuous of interactions between kids of opposite sexes (e.g. calling a little boy a "stud" or a "young Casanova," asking a little girl about her "boyfriend," etc.), I'd be a very rich woman indeed. If society doesn't see anything wrong with early exposure to heteronormativity, I'm sure it can handle a little bit of gay subtext from time to time.
The latter isn't in any headline I've seen before; I'm curious to know where you get your news.
I don't intend to misrepresent you, so I'd like to clear something up. Be honest - when you bring up disgust for pride, are you telling me what you suspect the soccer moms think, or are you telling me what you think?
To be quite honest, I've personally never cared much for drag shows; I feel that they trivialize aspects of gender identity and expression that I take more seriously. Nonetheless, I can understand why people like it - far beyond being mere spectacles of sex and glitter, they allow people to explore the complexities of gender roles (most often through highly exaggerated pastiches thereof) in an exuberantly supportive and safe environment. If this sort of thing were to appeal to a child, I see no reason that they should be denied a place in it (provided, of course, that they aren't pressured into it or unduly exposed to the more risque elements of it).
Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
If you're looking for someone to blame for the headlines, try the archaic fragment of our society that, in its fear of the inexorable march of social progress and being consigned to the wrong side of history, uses whatever media it controls to pump out such headlines regardless of their veracity. Face it - you've been had by the very same pundits who proclaimed that the next step after marriage equality was for a man and his dog to get hitched.
This should tell you all you need to know. What's more, a lot of nations - even first world nations - are not so progressive as the United States; you speak of a battle already won when in truth it's not even half over. Perhaps it's only over for you; if that's so, good for you. Really. Just don't go pretending that the rest of us need to pack up and move on just because you've got yours.
Oh, sure; we couldn't ask for a friendlier president. Why, he was so concerned for my welfare that he forbade me from serving in the military! Remarkable man. He stood in front of a rainbow flag once, you know. I can hardly fathom such bravery.
Sorry to have given you such ample reading material.
Rateria, Jadentopian Order, Highway Eighty-Eight
I couldn't serve in the military because I was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome in childhood. That is peanuts compared to gender disphoria. I completely agree with the trans military ban
I don't agree with it. The only conditions that should barr you from joining the military are those that would hinder your judgement or proformance under combat conditions.
For example: We can't have herion addicts patrolling around poppy fields in Afghanistan or have people with Schizophrenia or severe Bipolar disorder patrolling with guns next to their comrades.
I'm not entirely sure the military should be funding medical expenses for the troops either though. If it's easily fixed and cheap, like providing inhalers to those troops suffering from asthma, then sure, basic medical coverage for non-combat related conditions would widen the pool for potential recruits.
But when it comes to other medical coverage, like covering troops getting Viagra, or paying for hormone therapy, I think the coverage should stop there.
So in short, trans people should be able to join the military, but they shouldn't expect free coverage for their medical issues pertaining to their transition.
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
No
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
The idea is the troops with special needs put extra unnecessary burden on the supply chain especially combat troops
Nobody:
Nobody at all:
Someone: "Iceland"
Lib: [triggered]
West Smolcasm, Kongeriget Island
New poll in Zentari! Come and Vote!
https://www.nationstates.net/page=poll/p=144526
Rateria
Andrew Yang is a statist
Republic Of Minerva, Rateria
Obviously, they're ALL statists...
Hell I'm just a minarchist, I'M a statist.
EVERYBODY'S a statist.
Anarchy is a meaningless proposition because States are naturally formed and inevitable.
You know what Rick's group on The Walking Dead was? A proto-state, they basically had a king/group of elders that made all the choices.
ANY power structure where people give up their rights from nature, aside from a private property arrangement, is a damn state.
You could make the argument that anarcho-capitalism and a monarchy could coexist, seeing as though the entire kingdom is the property of the monarch.
I admire Yang's cahones to go on conservative shows and that he actually seems like a decent person.
I also admire Gabbard's vehement anti-war stance. She's being called a conservative for that btw, shows you what the left really thinks about war...
Rateria
^ Totally agree. I think he is a really nice guy, and I love him to death as a person, but as a politician, I cant support him. He wants to institute dna and fingerprint submissions when buying certain weapons and for me that goes too far.
Republic Of Minerva, Rateria
My friend and I have this fun discussion often: Who is in your cabinet if you were president of the US?
Rateria
I'd poll all my supporters extensively, and reach out and ask people of whom I trust their opinion in politics.
I'd pick whoever had the most support among my base out of the people who were suggested by the people I trust.
If I ran a pure enough campaign and expressed my ideas clearly, and was elected, then I'd trust the people to choose.
That'd also be practical because it solidifies my base and removes my culpability somewhat if one of them has a scandal or gaff.
Suzi Island, Rateria
State: Pat Buchanan
Treasury: Stephen Moore
Defense: Tulsi Gabbard
AG: Trey Gowdy
Interior: Dean Heller
Agriculture: Paul Ryan
Commerce: Linda McMahon
Labor: Mark Mix (current chair of National right to work committee
HHS: Rand Paul
HUD: Marco Rubio
Transportation: Gary Kelly (CEO of Southwest Airlines)
Energy: Mike Sommers (head of API)
Educarion: Larry Arnn
VA: Joni Ernst
Homeland Security: Tom Cotton
If I were president of the United States, I would make it a matter of policy not to shove people into furniture.
Miencraft, Narland, Kumquat Cove, Suzi Island, Rateria, Skaveria, Highway Eighty-Eight, Miri Islands
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
0/10 needs more Mike Lee
Trey Gowdy would be a great AG though
Or better yet, he isn't in the cabinet because he has been appointed to the supreme court
Suzi Island
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
243 years ago we kicked out the English and became sovereign, united, states.
Upon exiting the constitutional convention, Benjamin Franklin was approach by a group of citizens, they asked him what type of government they created, he answered, "A Repubic, if you can keep it."
We've gone through many changes, booms, and mistakes, but we're Americans, and we owe it to our ancestors to keep her.
Narland, The New United States, Rateria, Miri Islands
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
Nothing quite like a giant fireworks show every year to stick it to the British
The New United States, Republic Of Minerva, Rateria
I agree with most of your changes, but I would like to point out that even under a confederal system, the states were still somewhat united.
When talking about their government back then, people said "The United States are..." not "The United States is..." True, but, they still said "The United States."
Narland, The New United States, Rateria
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
My main problem with Yang is the UBI he proposes.
If UBI is instated, it will be rendered ineffective by inflation. Essentially it'll become Minimum Wage 2.0, with calls to increase it every several years. Whats more, it'd rapidly diminish the purchasing power of the dollar.
Narland, The New United States, Rateria
Yeah, people need to realize that it's not smart to just vote to give yourself more money.
That's what happened in Greece; the people just kept voting to increase entitlement programs, but nobody paid their damn taxes either.
So one year the spending was too high and the taxes too low and.... "Whoops, looks like we're bankrupt; hey E.U, think you can help us out!"
The New United States, Rateria
Inflation only occurs with increases in the money supply. Yang proposes a Value Added Tax to redistribute money already in the economy stolen by big businesses back to the American people.
Jadentopian Order, West Smolcasm
I detect a little communism
The New United States
I can see it in the things you do!!!!
The New United States, Skaveria
This. Not everything that stands to benefit the purchasing power of the common consumer contributes to inflation - though I can certainly see why large businesses would want to perpetuate the myth that it does.
Venomringo, Jadentopian Order
You have done nothing to deserve free money from other people that have earned it
The New United States, Republic Of Minerva, The United States Of Patriots, Skaveria
The bottom line is that regardless of the consequences, taking money from somebody and giving it to someone else is wrong.
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
So like, a lot of rich people
West Smolcasm
Whether someone "deserves" something is subjective; to mete that something out on a purely arbitrary basis, illogical. Socialists - and, dare I say, many capitalists - take such a reductive and needlessly moralistic view of the purpose of currency. No one deserves money - at least, any more than they deserve other tools and technologies such as the wheel, air conditioning, or the Internet - but I understand that it's generally agreed upon that people "deserve" their lives (and, in preserving them, their needs), their liberty, and their capacity to achieve whatever goals and ambitions are necessary for their self-actualization and self-satisfaction. That is to say, people have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - they don't have a right to "earn."
Indeed, the idea that anyone really earns money - even in our current system - is quite preposterous upon closer examination. Do cashiers earn the equivalent of the value they've provided to a company, even before counting taxes and other expenses? Do cooks, waiters, or clerks? And what about middle-men, stockbrokers, insurance agents, and other people whose job it is to make money out of the intermediate part of a trade? Do they not take "free money" from other people who have "earned" it? And that's to say nothing of the people at the top of any given business model - the fact is, an occupation is more of a form of barter than a means of receiving something as return for effort. Trade generates capital; of course even the fruits of one's labor are dictated by it!
If all people, regardless of unverifiable metrics of their labor or their "contribution to society" such as our current, trade-based system, were capable of living a comfortable - if modest and meager - life thanks to a fixed-sum stipend that they're free to spend as they wish, it would render many of the most unwieldy and expensive aspects of our government's entitlement system entirely obsolete and reduce the incidence of arbitarily-assigned gifts of "free money" to those you might deem undeserving. In its place, we'd have an objective system in place that benefits everyone - the lower class because it allows them to live (with considerably less financial pressure, at that), the middle class because it would allow many to pursue their passions without dedicating the lion's share of their time to menial labor if they do not wish it, and the upper class because - while they may not have chosen to make it - it would be an investment in better neighbors and in whatever artistic, cultural, economic, or technological advances the rest of society might come up with (special mention, of course, goes to automation).
I hope that was not a delibrate choice of words, because what you describe is the logical result of a chain of trades. Every business does this - and some, such as insurance companies or, say, the government, don't even offer you anything other than vague promises in return for the cash they're in such a hurry to funnel elsewhere.
Straw capitalists say the worker is entitled to his money and no one should rob it from him; straw socialists say the worker is entitled to the means of production and no one should rob them from him. Yet both go about advocating policies that ultimately serve to take power away from the worker and vest it in supposedly all-knowing institutions designed to be too big to fail! Is it really such a revolutionary idea for me to say that the worker isn't entitled to jack sh*t - except maybe the opportunity to accrue great wealth and the satisfaction of a job well done - but that everyone, the worker included, should be able to live freely within their means in pursuance of that which makes them happy?
Aww snap
Jadentopian Order
I feel like a broken record saying this because I swear I say this at least once a week but I hate corporations and the excessively rich just as much as I hate the government/state.
Also sometimes you just gotta take some shots and start sh*t in Libertatem
Venomringo, West Smolcasm
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
A corperation isn't inherantly bad; it depends on how they became a corporation.
Did they aquire their assets legally? Do they only continue to survive because of subsidy? Do they operate in such a way that is compatible with liberty?
Narland
Corporations aren't inherently bad. It takes a state giving those corporations laws to weaponize against competitors to turn them from companies you're willing to give your money to into basically government monopolies that are insanely difficult to get rid of. A good example is General Motors; a gigantic failing corporation that uses it's massive size as a bargaining chip to get government subsidizes and bailouts while small companies like American Motors Company drown not being able to compete on the slanted playing field
Skaveria
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
The goal of a corporation is to make profits for it's shareholders. People aren't inherently bad either; they're a mixture of good and bad.
The New United States, The United States Of Patriots, The New Icelandic Commonwealth
In the year 2017, the fiscal budget was 4 trillion. A proposed UBI that gives everyone 10k a year would cost...3 trillion. So that means a UBI would cost 75% of the budget. In comparison, Defense costs about 20%.
You can't be telling me that this is going to be paid for by the rich.
https://www.cbpp.org/poverty-and-opportunity/commentary-universal-basic-income-may-sound-attractive-but-if-it-occurred
Narland, The New United States
I don't disagree with the people being inherently bad part but corporations can't put you in jail for not buying their product in the same way the state will put you in jail for not paying taxes
Narland, The New United States
Agreed. Corporations are value-neutral. They don't kidnap you and force you at gunpoint to work for them at minimum wage. However government will force you at gunpoint to take a large percentage of your income that is generally used inefficiently. Which institution is the real evil here, hmm?
Miencraft, Narland, The New United States, The United States Of Patriots
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.