The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Dr David Thork on December 16, 2019, 01:32:56 AM
-
The UK had a general election. You wouldn't know it because the lefty champagne Socialists on this site probably don't want to talk about.
I'll summarise for those that didn't understand the main talking points.
The British were offered some cold blooded Capitalists who would list their first born on the FTSE100 if they thought they might make a profit OOOOORRRRRR socialism.
So the British had a quick look at Venezuala to see what all this socialism mumbo jumbo is about, decided that they liked eating and that socialism probably wasn't for them. The NHS selling Tory party won by a landslide.
This has had the effect of 'draining the swamp' in the UK. Some of the most hideous politicians have now all lost their seats. And Socialism is for now at least ... dead in the UK.
Now of course the USA has the same opportunity coming up if they have Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren on the 2020 ticket, and I expect the USA to do the same thing and boot the wicked socialists out.
Of course, Twitter has had a meltdown. British media has had a melt down. Students have had a melt down. Celebs have been having melt downs. I'm up to my armpits in salt and have been enjoying it very much. Its been like a nice little early Christmas present. Oh, and Brexit is now going to be a thing.
In this thread I'd like to collect leftist tears. Please can Pete Svarrior and others report for duty. I want to hear how it was Brexit's fault, how it was the fault of antisemitism, how the Russians ate their homework, how the electorate just didn't understand the Labour Manifesto because it was too clever for them, and how under no circumstances whatsoever was it the manifesto to blame. The Manefesto (peace be on it) was perfect, and it must not change for the next election. Even if Corbyn goes, the brain scrubbing must continue.
-
Watching indignant leftists get shut down is incredibly satisfying. Well done UK.
-
1. Shutdown indignant leftists
2. Empower retarded conservatives
3. Profit?
-
1. Shutdown indignant leftists
2. Empower retarded conservatives
3. Profit?
Hilarious. But not as hilarious as this: An individual’s likelihood of being a Democrat decreases with every additional dollar he or she earns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeaWDCEvgZM (https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/economic-demographics-democrats/)
-
And the best part of all, you're about to get the United State's model of healthcare!!!!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/08/privatisation-continues-to-threaten-our-nhs
Best healthcare system in the world if you like watching poor people declare bankruptcy every time they visit the emergency room.
-
1. Shutdown indignant leftists
2. Empower retarded conservatives
3. Profit?
Hilarious. But not as hilarious as this: An individual’s likelihood of being a Democrat decreases with every additional dollar he or she earns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeaWDCEvgZM
(https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/economic-demographics-democrats/)
Even more hilarious is that higher intelligence correlates with being a liberal.
-
Even more hilarious is that higher intelligence correlates with being a liberal.
Yes, it is hilarious that that idea would be propagated around the internet, given that almost all real-world evidence contradicts the idea. If you're referring to the study by Satoshi Kanazawa, well, he's an overt racist (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/may/18/satoshi-kanazawa-black-women-psychology-today).
-
Even more hilarious is that higher intelligence correlates with being a liberal.
Yes, it is hilarious that that idea would be propagated around the internet, given that almost all real-word evidence contradicts the idea. If you're referring to the study by Satoshi Kanazawa, well, he's an overt racist (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/may/18/satoshi-kanazawa-black-women-psychology-today).
You sound like a dumb liberal now. What does someone being racist have to do with their ability to conduct a study on political leanings and intelligence?
Regardless, Satoshi’s paper wasn’t even specifically about the correlation, as that had been floating around prior but rather about why.
-
What does someone being racist have to do with their ability to conduct a study on political leanings and intelligence?
Obviously it shows that they are biased to a greater degree than the average, well-adjusted person.
-
What does someone being racist have to do with their ability to conduct a study on political leanings and intelligence?
Obviously it shows that they are biased to a greater degree than the average, well-adjusted person.
Show me where their bias affects their work and I will happily doubt it. But it just seems like you poisoning the well right now.
-
Thork doesn't know what socialism is.
-
haha black people are so stupid
hot take
-
Thork doesn't know what socialism is.
He does not.
And when his economy collapses due to a hard Brexit and his old body costs several hundred thousand pounds to keep alive, he'll be crying for Labour to come back.
-
ITT: Triggered leftists
-
Even more hilarious is that higher intelligence correlates with being a liberal.
I would like to see some sources for this. I would also like to know if by "liberal" you actually mean "liberal" or if you're erroneously referring to leftist ideologies as liberal.
-
>leftists
>me
But I'm a complete neoliberal shill, the kind that "will get the bullet too". I'd happily vote Tory before they got trolled by Brexit, but that's not a left-right issue. (If anything, the left is more opposed to the EU than the current Brexit crowd, they're just kind of not allowed to talk about it loudly because Labour).
Labour's manifesto was a complete shambles, and since they purged the slightly more centrist section of their party, they didn't have anyone with the brains to justify their proposals to non-sycophants. They shouted a lot about things like "free FTTH for all!1!!!", and that kind of crap just doesn't sell to working-class people.
They don't need 1Gbps Internet, they just need reasonably reliable Internet, and they'll happily pay for it if they need it and the price is not exorbant.
And rich people who might want 1Gbps Internet will... oh, they'll pay for it too.
This pattern repeats for most of their loudest policies. It's really not surprising that they got obliterated, as they rightly should have. Does that mean I'm happy about BoJo's Tories in power? No. And I don't think you are either, given our previous conversation on Brexit. Or is the satisfaction of gloating about Labour more important to you than the dissatisfaction of Brexit being effectively castrated?
-
Thork doesn't know what socialism is.
In the words of Lenin ... the goal of socialism is communism.
Its about a bourgeois pointing at other people's wealth and confiscating it. Everywhere real socialism goes, the people starve and the politicians are the richest people in the country.
Venezuela is interesting. The richest person in the country is Hugo Chavez' daughter and she is worth $2bn.
It is interesting for 2 reasons.
1) How does a public servant amass $2bn?
2) How is the richest person in the country only worth a paltry $2bn in a nation that has more oil than Saudi Arabia?
That's socialism.
You think socialism is funny?
(https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/37daf53158f2674e7877930c7f986e2f?width=650)
You think socialism is compassionate?
(https://steemitimages.com/DQmbnsRDaCEFHhttmDNyw9aQdPJHx4qqvG5qnaw4fiLp7ME/image.png)
You think 'nice people' vote left?
(https://s2.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20180106&t=2&i=1219860164&w=640&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&sq=&r=LYNXMPEE050FI)
Once the socialist gets elected, that's the last election you ever have. They never step down. They are better than you. They deserve your wealth. They will take it. You vote socialism in, but you have to shoot your way out. Do not be lured by the promise of free things for all. The socialist will bury you.
This pattern repeats for most of their loudest policies. It's really not surprising that they got obliterated, as they rightly should have. Does that mean I'm happy about BoJo's Tories in power? No. And I don't think you are either, given our previous conversation on Brexit. Or is the satisfaction of gloating about Labour more important to you than the dissatisfaction of Brexit being effectively castrated?
Honestly, I felt like we've been flirting with enslavement for too long. Destroying the left is far more important than Brexit.
-
I was happy to support Labour in the election (and note with some small amount of pleasure that my constituency remains red) because I believe that a vote on a "deal", something at least close to concrete, is far more valuable than a vote on a vague declaration of intent. And no, a general election was not the proper forum to determine whether or not the patchily reheated withdrawal agreement was a good way forward for the union. In all truth, Labour should have maybe not helped but at least allowed the Tories to get on with their shitshow leave policy, bided their time and then (2021 perhaps) brought forward the confidence motion to trigger an election. But I suspect we are now locked in to at least a decade of Tory rule, and without a strong opposition at that.
I kind of felt bad for Corbyn personally because he was trying to acquiesce on the point of being more "electable" by agreeing to put at least a couple of fingers into the teflonising machine, yet his backbencher instincts compelled him to stick up for his beliefs, kind of the opposite of Tim Farron's gay marriage gaffe. So you ended up with someone who was honest about his most controversial views, yet was fidgeting in his seat over a question about the Queen's speech, which most people in this country don't watch or care about in any sense. He would die on hills that would play up his association, rightly or wrongly, with antisemitism, yet meaningless trifles presented some kind of image dilemma for him, and not even the incumbent PM hiding in a fridge while his aide told a journalist to fuck off on national television was apparently enough to take the pressure off in any real way. "Boris is Boris" as Theresa May once said, shortly before sacking him; show him doing something patently retarded and people will laugh and clap for more.
Speaking of Boris Johnson, the worst thing Labour could have done was to fall into the same trap the Democrats did with Donald Trump. By attacking his character and things he had said in the past, they played into a game of personality over policy, so all Bozo had to do was bumble around affably repeating the same basic lines over and over, and not even those self same lines coming from the bloated lips and B'stardish grimace of Gove and Raab respectively were enough to make them seem less than wonderful. Ironically Labour and its activist army probably drove more support to the Tories by attacking their leader so fervently.
So I think Labour played its hand quite poorly, appealing largely to "champagne socialists" and the sort of people who view Ash Sarkar as an insightful political commentator, but the deck was stacked against them with their leader being a pro-Palestine critic of Israel who wanted to go after the wealth of the British elite. Even Ed Miliband, himself a Jew, felt the weight of the establishment coming down on him when he whipped in favour of recognising Palestine as an independent state in 2014. Yet the party could have gotten rid of Corbyn at any time had they actually presented a credible alternative. With the best will in the world, Cringela Eagle and Owen "99 Flake" Smith were about as viable as chocolate fireguards. Labour would have been in an infinitely better position if (for example) Hilary Benn, who had already been sacked from Corbyn's cabinet and probably had popular narrative on his side, had been convinced to step up instead.
Well, shit happens. It's at least going to be amusing to see brexiteers of all stripes gradually realise how little what they're getting matches what they voted for. You won, get over it, and so on and so on.
Signed, a working class "small el" lefty who doesn't particularly care for the EU and for whom the real tragedy is that FPTP strikes again.
-
And the best part of all, you're about to get the United State's model of healthcare!!!!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/08/privatisation-continues-to-threaten-our-nhs
Best healthcare system in the world if you like watching poor people declare bankruptcy every time they visit the emergency room.
Rather than just trumpet this talking point, it would be good if you backed it up with facts.
How about this fact.
Most people are incapable of exercising self control, make stupid choices, and suffer rational consequences for being stupid.
Why would you choose to make someone else pay for that stupidity?
-
I was happy to support Labour in the election (and note with some small amount of pleasure that my constituency remains red) because I believe that a vote on a "deal", something at least close to concrete, is far more valuable than a vote on a vague declaration of intent. And no, a general election was not the proper forum to determine whether or not the patchily reheated withdrawal agreement was a good way forward for the union. In all truth, Labour should have maybe not helped but at least allowed the Tories to get on with their shitshow leave policy, bided their time and then (2021 perhaps) brought forward the confidence motion to trigger an election. But I suspect we are now locked in to at least a decade of Tory rule, and without a strong opposition at that.
I kind of felt bad for Corbyn personally because he was trying to acquiesce on the point of being more "electable" by agreeing to put at least a couple of fingers into the teflonising machine, yet his backbencher instincts compelled him to stick up for his beliefs, kind of the opposite of Tim Farron's gay marriage gaffe. So you ended up with someone who was honest about his most controversial views, yet was fidgeting in his seat over a question about the Queen's speech, which most people in this country don't watch or care about in any sense. He would die on hills that would play up his association, rightly or wrongly, with antisemitism, yet meaningless trifles presented some kind of image dilemma for him, and not even the incumbent PM hiding in a fridge while his aide told a journalist to fuck off on national television was apparently enough to take the pressure off in any real way. "Boris is Boris" as Theresa May once said, shortly before sacking him; show him doing something patently retarded and people will laugh and clap for more.
Speaking of Boris Johnson, the worst thing Labour could have done was to fall into the same trap the Democrats did with Donald Trump. By attacking his character and things he had said in the past, they played into a game of personality over policy, so all Bozo had to do was bumble around affably repeating the same basic lines over and over, and not even those self same lines coming from the bloated lips and B'stardish grimace of Gove and Raab respectively were enough to make them seem less than wonderful. Ironically Labour and its activist army probably drove more support to the Tories by attacking their leader so fervently.
So I think Labour played its hand quite poorly, appealing largely to "champagne socialists" and the sort of people who view Ash Sarkar as an insightful political commentator, but the deck was stacked against them with their leader being a pro-Palestine critic of Israel who wanted to go after the wealth of the British elite. Even Ed Miliband, himself a Jew, felt the weight of the establishment coming down on him when he whipped in favour of recognising Palestine as an independent state in 2014. Yet the party could have gotten rid of Corbyn at any time had they actually presented a credible alternative. With the best will in the world, Cringela Eagle and Owen "99 Flake" Smith were about as viable as chocolate fireguards. Labour would have been in an infinitely better position if (for example) Hilary Benn, who had already been sacked from Corbyn's cabinet and probably had popular narrative on his side, had been convinced to step up instead.
Well, shit happens. It's at least going to be amusing to see brexiteers of all stripes gradually realise how little what they're getting matches what they voted for. You won, get over it, and so on and so on.
Signed, a working class "small el" lefty who doesn't particularly care for the EU and for whom the real tragedy is that FPTP strikes again.
I'm not in love with the Tories either. And of labour I prefer the politics of Jess Phillips and Caroline Flint ... but then they are community minded Labour MPs, not leftists.
The election was split between the anywheres and the somewheres.
If you are a somewhere, your parents live in THIS town, your kids go to school HERE, you use THESE roads to get to work, you voted Conservative. If you are someone who moved to a place, a city, a university, you could live and work anywhere, you voted Labour. Those that can happily turn a place into a toilet and just leave and go some place else like a plague of locusts ... those are the metropolitan elites. A Cornish fisherman votes Tory, an international corporate lawyer votes Labour. Somewhere vs anywhere. Reality vs Ideology. Good vs Evil.
On the day of the election, perennial Labour idiot Dianne Abbott was wearing two left shoes.
(https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/PRC_109472682.jpg?quality=90&strip=all)
That's a metaphor for the Labour party after this election if ever I saw one. So left it has two left feet and is still wandering around in circles after the election wondering what happened. RIP Socialism. RIP.
-
If Boris had been wearing two left shoes everyone would have fallen around laughing.
Good old Boris! *chuckle* Isn't he a laugh?! *guffaw*.
It's all cult of personality these days and Boris just has that bumbling affable likeability.
It doesn't seem to matter than most of what he spouts is a lie. He's Trumpesque in that regard - he's bulletproof when it comes to scandals or telling lies.
He's a lot smarter and more knowing about it than Trump but it's a depressingly effective tactic.
-
Even more hilarious is that higher intelligence correlates with being a liberal.
I would like to see some sources for this. I would also like to know if by "liberal" you actually mean "liberal" or if you're erroneously referring to leftist ideologies as liberal.
Don’t sweat it too much. It was just me pushing back against nitwits who think “hurr durr you’re a [leftist/rightist] so you’re automatically the WORST!”
There are some stupid papers floating around that show people subscribing to left wing ideology have higher IQs, you can find the same for right wing. You can show that the poorest states vote GOP and the richest vote Dem. It just depends on what kind of sick game you want to play.
Like Thork with his “somewhere v anywhere” diatribe. I’m left wing because I think we should try and lift each other up. I also think we should strictly encourage people to learn to lift themselves up. These things aren’t in conflict. Some right wing people want to scour the Earth for a profit. So do some left wing people. Generalizations are the end of conversation and the beginning of enmity.
I hope the people of the UK and the USA and many other nations can get it together to realize their neighbors aren’t the enemy, no matter who they vote for. The people who would commoditise humans are the enemy.
-
Like Thork with his “somewhere v anywhere” diatribe. I’m left wing because I think we should try and lift each other up.
You’re picking a side the same as Thork. You’re left wing because you’ve succumbed to the same retard tribalism as anyone else.
-
Like Thork with his “somewhere v anywhere” diatribe. I’m left wing because I think we should try and lift each other up.
You’re picking a side the same as Thork. You’re left wing because you’ve succumbed to the same retard tribalism as anyone else.
No, because I don't blindly follow my side. I don't run around branding all people who claim to be right-wing as idiots except as a troll. Thork denies climate change because he listens to pundits instead of experts. Thats retard tribalism. Bringing up the wealth of the average Dem, as if its relevant, is retard tribalism.
-
Like Thork with his “somewhere v anywhere” diatribe. I’m left wing because I think we should try and lift each other up.
You’re picking a side the same as Thork. You’re left wing because you’ve succumbed to the same retard tribalism as anyone else.
No, because I don't blindly follow my side. I don't run around branding all people who claim to be right-wing as idiots except as a troll. Thork denies climate change because he listens to pundits instead of experts. Thats retard tribalism. Bringing up the wealth of the average Dem, as if its relevant, is retard tribalism.
::)
In the words of every leftist ever ...
https://youtu.be/evh3wvVQuI8?t=48
-
Like Thork with his “somewhere v anywhere” diatribe. I’m left wing because I think we should try and lift each other up.
You’re picking a side the same as Thork. You’re left wing because you’ve succumbed to the same retard tribalism as anyone else.
No, because I don't blindly follow my side. I don't run around branding all people who claim to be right-wing as idiots except as a troll. Thork denies climate change because he listens to pundits instead of experts. Thats retard tribalism. Bringing up the wealth of the average Dem, as if its relevant, is retard tribalism.
In your very first post in this thread you said conservatives were retarded. You then went on to try to mount an argument that liberals are more intelligent overall, and when asked for sources you realized that you couldn’t find any sources that clearly backed up your argument. So, you coyly retreated to a “guys I’m actually middle of the road, I just want to help people lol” position. I’m not sure why you’re so adamant in trying to disprove your original claim that liberals are more intelligent, but you’re doing a very good job.
As for me, I’ve typically made bipartisan votes in local and state elections because I’ve always thought the “vote with your party” idea is incredibly stupid. I’ve voted for left and right propositions because I don’t think one party can be right 100% of the time, or even close. But a lot changed as soon as people saw Donald Trump had an actual chance at becoming president. The left became a wild band of zealots, and ideas like reparations or suppressing freedom of expression so people wouldn’t be offended became a lot more than just liberal boogieman memes propagated by the right.
The left wants tax money to fight climate change, they want to repeal the 2nd Amendment yet harp on about rights, they want to do away with the electoral college because iT wAs HeR TuRn, they want more open borders AND a welfare state, they want to stay in Syria and kill more kids only because Trump wanted to leave. The list goes on and on. Conservatives might be mouth breathing retards, but the collective IQ of the left seems to have dropped by 30 points over the last several years alone.
-
Like Thork with his “somewhere v anywhere” diatribe. I’m left wing because I think we should try and lift each other up.
You’re picking a side the same as Thork. You’re left wing because you’ve succumbed to the same retard tribalism as anyone else.
No, because I don't blindly follow my side. I don't run around branding all people who claim to be right-wing as idiots except as a troll. Thork denies climate change because he listens to pundits instead of experts. Thats retard tribalism. Bringing up the wealth of the average Dem, as if its relevant, is retard tribalism.
In your very first post in this thread you said conservatives were retarded. You then went on to try to mount an argument that liberals are more intelligent overall, and when asked for sources you realized that you couldn’t find any sources that clearly backed up your argument. So, you coyly retreated to a “guys I’m actually middle of the road, I just want to help people lol” position. I’m not sure why you’re so adamant in trying to disprove your original claim that liberals are more intelligent, but you’re doing a very good job.
As for me, I’ve typically made bipartisan votes in local and state elections because I’ve always thought the “vote with your party” idea is incredibly stupid. I’ve voted for left and right propositions because I don’t think one party can be right 100% of the time, or even close. But a lot changed as soon as people saw Donald Trump had an actual chance at becoming president. The left became a wild band of zealots, and ideas like reparations or suppressing freedom of expression so people wouldn’t be offended became a lot more than just liberal boogieman memes propagated by the right.
The left wants tax money to fight climate change, they want to repeal the 2nd Amendment yet harp on about rights, they want to do away with the electoral college because iT wAs HeR TuRn, they want more open borders AND a welfare state, they want to stay in Syria and kill more kids only because Trump wanted to leave. The list goes on and on. Conservatives might be mouth breathing retards, but the collective IQ of the left seems to have dropped by 30 points over the last several years alone.
Your parents should be very proud of you. They raised you right. You have a good nose for evil, good critical thinking, sense of community, sense of right and wrong, empathy, fairness and you aren't bullied with 'but muh feelings'. You're not a snivelling shit weasel who is thirsty for virtue and tumblr likes. You could be trusted with a gun.
-
Like Thork with his “somewhere v anywhere” diatribe. I’m left wing because I think we should try and lift each other up.
You’re picking a side the same as Thork. You’re left wing because you’ve succumbed to the same retard tribalism as anyone else.
No, because I don't blindly follow my side. I don't run around branding all people who claim to be right-wing as idiots except as a troll. Thork denies climate change because he listens to pundits instead of experts. Thats retard tribalism. Bringing up the wealth of the average Dem, as if its relevant, is retard tribalism.
::)
In the words of every leftist ever ...
https://youtu.be/evh3wvVQuI8?t=48
Literally proving my point. The guy who sits there and thinks that he can tell good from evil is the one you should never trust.
Is new to shitposting...
I do the same, my dude. I am not chained down to voting for an ideology and if you look through my history here you can find me arguing for and against ideas I don’t like, whether left or right.
Lots of people lost their shit when Trump is elected. He is incompetent. Even more lost their shit because they were triggered. People lost their shit when Obama was elected too. American’s are good at losing their shit.
I bet if we had started our conversation here differently we would find common ground but when someone’s response to a pretty clear joke is “oh yeah? Well Dems are POOR!!!” I can’t take them seriously.
Anyway, enjoy your circlejerk with Thonk.
-
Literally proving my point. The guy who sits there and thinks that he can tell good from evil is the one you should never trust.
I would posit that the guy who admits that he can't tell good from evil, is the one you should never trust.
-
Literally proving my point. The guy who sits there and thinks that he can tell good from evil is the one you should never trust.
I would posit that the guy who admits that he can't tell good from evil, is the one you should never trust.
Sure. Let me know when you find this person and we can tease him/her mercilessly.
-
Literally proving my point. The guy who sits there and thinks that he can tell good from evil is the one you should never trust.
I would posit that the guy who admits that he can't tell good from evil, is the one you should never trust.
Sure. Let me know when you find this person and we can tease him/her mercilessly.
When I catch you walking up a path of utter bullshit and I call you out on it, have the good grace to own it. This isn't the upper fora. ::)
-
Literally proving my point. The guy who sits there and thinks that he can tell good from evil is the one you should never trust.
I would posit that the guy who admits that he can't tell good from evil, is the one you should never trust.
Sure. Let me know when you find this person and we can tease him/her mercilessly.
When I catch you walking up a path of utter bullshit and I call you out on it, have the good grace to own it. This isn't the upper fora. ::)
I never said I couldn’t tell good from evil. The hilarity of you asking someone to own up to their BS is not lost on me btw.
-
I never said I couldn’t tell good from evil.
Explain this quote.
The guy who sits there and thinks that he can tell good from evil is the one you should never trust.
So you think you can tell good from evil? Does that mean I should never trust you?
You don't have to die on this hill. You can just wave a little white flag and say "you win this time Baby Thork, you win this time" and it'll all go away.
-
I never said I couldn’t tell good from evil.
Explain this quote.
The guy who sits there and thinks that he can tell good from evil is the one you should never trust.
So you think you can tell good from evil? Does that mean I should never trust you?
You don't have to die on this hill. You can just wave a little white flag and say "you win this time Baby Thork, you win this time" and it'll all go away.
If I started preaching about how people commoditising humans are shitheads I would not be surprised if you cast doubt on my position. I thinks that’s good and healthy. If you don’t trust me, it’s ok. Don’t trust away. Let’s talk about it like humans and not call each other evil is all I ask.
-
Let’s talk about it like humans and not call each other evil is all I ask.
I never called you evil. I called Socialism evil. More people have died because of Socialism than have died in wars.
https://youtu.be/-tZ79ep4S3o
You don't mess around with socialism. You vote it out immediately. Bernie might look like a nice old fool ... but he's potentially a mass murderer if you make him POTUS. Trump might be an arse, but he's not wicked like Bernie.
-
Let’s talk about it like humans and not call each other evil is all I ask.
I never called you evil. I called Socialism evil. More people have died because of Socialism than have died in wars.
https://youtu.be/-tZ79ep4S3o
You don't mess around with socialism. You vote it out immediately. Bernie might look like a nice old fool ... but he's potentially a mass murderer if you make him POTUS. Trump might be an arse, but he's not wicked like Bernie.
It wasn’t socialism that killed them, it was tyranny. Tyranny makes people devalue lives. Maybe socialism when it’s pervasive does that, I don’t think there is good evidence because dictators of every sort end up murdering their people. Bernie isn’t wicked either, what a silly thing to say. Obviously socialism isn’t perfect but elements of it obviously have a positive effect. It’s the same with free market capitalism. It’s not perfect, and if it were just left to run amok you would end up with more of the terrible shit corporate profiteering has resulted in.
-
It wasn’t socialism that killed them, it was tyranny.
Socialism is tyranny.
Socialism is any system that restricts or infringes upon the free exercise of human action or entrepreneurial role, and that is justified in the popular, political, and scientific discourse as a system capable of improving society and accomplishing a set goals and objectives that are considered to be good.
Socialism is not what it claims to be. It is not the pioneer of a better and more beautiful world, but rather the destroyer of what thousands of years of civilization have painfully created. It builds nothing and demolishes everything. If it were to triumph, it should be named destructionism, because it is, in essence, destruction.
-
It wasn’t socialism that killed them, it was tyranny.
Socialism is tyranny.
No. Tyranny is tyranny.
Socialism is any system that restricts or infringes upon the free exercise of human action or entrepreneurial role, and that is justified in the popular, political, and scientific discourse as a system capable of improving society and accomplishing a set goals and objectives that are considered to be good.
Socialism is not what it claims to be. It is not the pioneer of a better and more beautiful world, but rather the destroyer of what thousands of years of civilization have painfully created. It builds nothing and demolishes everything. If it were to triumph, it should be named destructionism, because it is, in essence, destruction.
I mean those are eloquent rants, but they are still just rants. I can quote Parsifal on how he thinks Dell computers are the worst shit ever, but it doesn’t mean he’s right.
-
Socialism is when the top 1% convinces the top 49% to give all of their wealth to the bottom 50% for the good of all mankind.
-
Capitalism is when the top 1% convince the other 99% to give the top 1% their wealth so they can be free.
Look I can make a pithy generalization too!
-
Capitalism is when the top 1% convince the other 99% to give the top 1% their wealth so they can be free.
The difference in capitalism is that the 99% decides who gets rich. No one is being forced to buy anything from Amazon or Apple or any corporation made rich by capitalism. Stop playing yourself I guess.
-
Capitalism is when the top 1% convince the other 99% to give the top 1% their wealth so they can be free.
Look I can make a pithy generalization too!
Capitalism is what allows the middle class to thrive and the only economic system which has resulted in the gulf between the uber wealthy and the poor to narrow significantly. Systems like socialism thrive on taxing that same middle class out of their wealth and making sure generational wealth disappears by taxing inheritance. The result is that the rich people stay rich, the middle class disappears and the amount of working class enlarges. Then the poor stay poor because the government taxes them out of their income then gives it back to them, telling them they should be grateful for the exchange.
Socialism is the equivalent of taking grades from people who made B's and giving them to people who made D's, then claiming you've made the entire class smarter.
-
I would happily agree that capitalism has contributed to the fabulous wealth of western nations. I would caution against giving 100% of the credit to capitalism, but that's a general thing, I doubt you are stupid enough to think that. Socialism has also contributed something to the prosperity of the West. I don't believe there is a one-size-fits-all system that will lead to utopia. I also don't think capitalism and socialism need to be at odds with one another. Norway seems to have taken a decent crack at blending them.
-
I would happily agree that capitalism has contributed to the fabulous wealth of western nations. I would caution against giving 100% of the credit to capitalism, but that's a general thing, I doubt you are stupid enough to think that. Socialism has also contributed something to the prosperity of the West. I don't believe there is a one-size-fits-all system that will lead to utopia. I also don't think capitalism and socialism need to be at odds with one another. Norway seems to have taken a decent crack at blending them.
Norway is predominantly homogeneous in its population and is nowhere near the size and population of the US.
-
I would happily agree that capitalism has contributed to the fabulous wealth of western nations. I would caution against giving 100% of the credit to capitalism, but that's a general thing, I doubt you are stupid enough to think that. Socialism has also contributed something to the prosperity of the West. I don't believe there is a one-size-fits-all system that will lead to utopia. I also don't think capitalism and socialism need to be at odds with one another. Norway seems to have taken a decent crack at blending them.
Norway is predominantly homogeneous in its population and is nowhere near the size and population of the US.
Norway also has an enormous amount of North Sea oil.
They put the wealth this generates, into a fund.
https://www.nbim.no/en/the-fund/market-value/
^So converted that is savings of $1.1Trillion. Trillion with a T.
That is Norway's piggy bank. That's the money they have left over after they paid for everything they wanted. Comparing the US to Norway is like comparing a regular high school kid to a kid with a Trust Fund.
-
Canada also successfully combines elements of socialism and capitalism and has a lower GDP per capita than the US.
-
Canada is a dumpster fire right now.
Like every other leader with even remotely socialist leanings, Trudeau's spending other people's money faster than they can earn it.
https://torontosun.com/2017/01/04/trudeau-will-bury-us-in-debt/wcm/f848772a-416a-46d7-b844-b2545e9969ca
-
ITT: Lots of people conflating redistribution of wealth with socialism when it actually has nothing to do with socialism, while capitalism has significantly higher wealth redistribution.
-
Canada is a dumpster fire right now.
Like every other leader with even remotely socialist leanings, Trudeau's spending other people's money faster than they can earn it.
https://torontosun.com/2017/01/04/trudeau-will-bury-us-in-debt/wcm/f848772a-416a-46d7-b844-b2545e9969ca
Harper manufactured surpluses by selling off crown assets. It’s the definition of sacrificing the future for today. Don’t think you know something because you found a link.
-
Canada is a dumpster fire right now.
Like every other leader with even remotely socialist leanings, Trudeau's spending other people's money faster than they can earn it.
https://torontosun.com/2017/01/04/trudeau-will-bury-us-in-debt/wcm/f848772a-416a-46d7-b844-b2545e9969ca
Harper manufactured surpluses by selling off crown assets. It’s the definition of sacrificing the future for today. Don’t think you know something because you found a link.
At least I always provide a link. You assert you know things and never back anything up. It is the height of arrogance as though your opinion is lore.
-
Canada is a dumpster fire right now.
Like every other leader with even remotely socialist leanings, Trudeau's spending other people's money faster than they can earn it.
https://torontosun.com/2017/01/04/trudeau-will-bury-us-in-debt/wcm/f848772a-416a-46d7-b844-b2545e9969ca
Harper manufactured surpluses by selling off crown assets. It’s the definition of sacrificing the future for today. Don’t think you know something because you found a link.
At least I always provide a link. You assert you know things and never back anything up. It is the height of arrogance as though your opinion is lore.
You won’t be applauded for providing bad information no matter how much you pretend to be offended.
-
Canada is a dumpster fire right now.
Like every other leader with even remotely socialist leanings, Trudeau's spending other people's money faster than they can earn it.
https://torontosun.com/2017/01/04/trudeau-will-bury-us-in-debt/wcm/f848772a-416a-46d7-b844-b2545e9969ca
Harper manufactured surpluses by selling off crown assets. It’s the definition of sacrificing the future for today. Don’t think you know something because you found a link.
At least I always provide a link. You assert you know things and never back anything up. It is the height of arrogance as though your opinion is lore.
You won’t be applauded for providing bad information no matter how much you pretend to be offended.
And I just wanted to remind you that every time you are rude to me on this site, I'm gonna go tell you to fuck yourself. So order restored.
-
And I just wanted to remind you that every time you are rude to me on this site, I'm gonna go tell you to fuck yourself. So order restored.
If you do I won’t even pretend to be offended. Anyway, do you have anything else to add to the conversation or can I expect a parade of “go fuck yourself” from now on?
We were discussing blending socialism and capitalism.
Junker was saying it has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth and I would love to hear more from him on that. Or perhaps even a credible link with information. Thork’s need not apply.
-
And I just wanted to remind you that every time you are rude to me on this site, I'm gonna go tell you to fuck yourself. So order restored.
If you do I won’t even pretend to be offended. Anyway, do you have anything else to add to the conversation or can I expect a parade of “go fuck yourself” from now on?
We were discussing blending socialism and capitalism.
Junker was saying it has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth and I would love to hear more from him on that. Or perhaps even a credible link with information. Thork’s need not apply.
We're done. Manners cost nothing. If you don't respect my thoughts, there is no point in sharing them with you.
-
And I just wanted to remind you that every time you are rude to me on this site, I'm gonna go tell you to fuck yourself. So order restored.
If you do I won’t even pretend to be offended. Anyway, do you have anything else to add to the conversation or can I expect a parade of “go fuck yourself” from now on?
We were discussing blending socialism and capitalism.
Junker was saying it has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth and I would love to hear more from him on that. Or perhaps even a credible link with information. Thork’s need not apply.
We're done. Manners cost nothing. If you don't respect my thoughts, there is no point in sharing them with you.
I was asking for Junker’s thoughts not yours.
-
Junker was saying it has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth and I would love to hear more from him on that. Or perhaps even a credible link with information. Thork’s need not apply.
Sure thing. At the end of the day, the key tenet of socialism is that the workers own the means of production (this can be achieved in a number of ways, not all "good"). There is nothing about wealth redistribution that is uniquely tied to socialism or even communism. A quick and dirty explanation can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_income_and_wealth#Role_in_economic_systems
-
Isn’t owning the means of production is a way to redistribute wealth since the means of production are a way of generating wealth? Or are you drawing a distinction between generation of and redistribution of wealth?
-
Isn’t owning the means of production is a way to redistribute wealth since the means of production are a way of generating wealth? Or are you drawing a distinction between generation of and redistribution of wealth?
Functionally, yes, but not by the "numbers," so yes I am drawing a distinction. You aren't redistributing wealth since it doesn't (see: shouldn't) be controlled by one person (or a group of wealthy people). Obviously a socialist overthrow of capitalism would naturally result in a massive redistribution of wealth initially. It becomes a much more in-depth discussion as we will move into private property vs. personal property which I don't think is appropriate for Thonk's teen angst thread. In modern society, redistribution of wealth is significantly larger in capitalist economies which is really the main point. You can't have a functional discussion about socialism (whether for or against) if you aren't aware of the basics which is all I was really trying to point out. I have brought up socialism before, but no one really wants to have an honest discussion about it because no one really gives a shit, which is fine.
-
No one said one system is redistributing wealth and the other is not, that's a complete straw man and a poor reading of the thread. Economic systems, at their core, are arguments on how wealth should be distributed, not whether or not it is. To argue the latter rather than the former is pure nonsense.
-
No one said one system is redistributing wealth and the other is not, that's a complete straw man and a poor reading of the thread.
I am aware, which is why I never made that claim. The only strawman so far is you arguing against something no one has claimed, which is a very poor reading of the thread.
Economic systems, at their core, are arguments on how wealth should be distributed, not whether or not it is. To argue the latter rather than the former is pure nonsense.
Agreed. It seems you are suggesting someone other than you has mentioned the latter. Surely that cannot be the case since it is nonsense, as you mentioned.
-
"I'll just say the same thing that Rushy said back at him, that will surely show him that I don't know what I'm talking about again."
Yes, thank you.
Here, I'll make this easier:
ITT: Lots of people conflating redistribution of wealth with socialism when it actually has nothing to do with socialism, while capitalism has significantly higher wealth redistribution.
Here is you saying socialism has nothing to do with wealth redistribution. Then you decide to agree with me and say it does. Which is it?
Economic systems are various forms of wealth redistribution. Saying socialism has nothing to do with wealth redistribution is like saying lakes have nothing to do with water.
-
"I'll just say the same thing that Rushy said back at him, that will surely show him that I don't know what I'm talking about again."
Can you stop being intentionally obtuse for 5 seconds? In normal human conversation if something is unclear, you ask for clarification. I realize you aren't actually interested in discussion and just want to find something and say "haha you're wrong."
Here, I'll make this easier:
Here is you saying socialism has nothing to do with wealth redistribution. Then you decide to agree with me and say it does. Which is it?
And this is how I know you either don't actually read the posts in the thread or you are being intellectually dishonest on purpose. I should have been more clear in that post, but is obvious that I meant exclusive to socialism, especially since I qualified it at the end comparing higher wealth redistribution in capitalism. The only reason I said it was because most of the people in this thread are under the impression that socialism is about taking all your stuff and giving it to others, which is completely incorrect. There is literally a comparison in there that you decided to ignore like you just stopped reading the thread once you saw what you wanted to reply to. Had you actually kept reading the thread, you would have seen Rama ask for clarification like a reasonable person would do. To which I replied:
Functionally, yes, but not by the "numbers," so yes I am drawing a distinction. You aren't redistributing wealth since it doesn't (see: shouldn't) be controlled by one person (or a group of wealthy people). Obviously a socialist overthrow of capitalism would naturally result in a massive redistribution of wealth initially. It becomes a much more in-depth discussion as we will move into private property vs. personal property which I don't think is appropriate for Thonk's teen angst thread. In modern society, redistribution of wealth is significantly larger in capitalist economies which is really the main point.
I literally tell you what my main point is which you completely ignore and now pretend like you couldn't possibly understand what was being discussed. Instead you say that:
Economic systems, at their core, are arguments on how wealth should be distributed, not whether or not it is.
Literally no one is saying wealth isn't distributed. I should have just applied your level of pedantry and focused on you saying the word distributed instead of redistributed, then pretend like since they are different words I couldn't possibly understand what you mean so I just point out you are wrong and ignore context and not bother asking for clarification. Something like:
Economic systems are various forms of wealth redistribution. Saying socialism has nothing to do with wealth redistribution is like saying lakes have nothing to do with water.
Which is it? Can you not contradict yourself? Is it distribution or redistribution? They are different words, you know? You literally just said before that economic systems are about distribution of wealth. Now you are saying redistribution, maybe you should try being consistent.
Anyway, context matters. Try reading the thread next time.
-
Can you stop being intentionally obtuse for 5 seconds? In normal human conversation if something is unclear, you ask for clarification. I realize you aren't actually interested in discussion and just want to find something and say "haha you're wrong."
I'm not being intentionally obtuse, but thanks for reaffirming that you can't read.
And this is how I know you either don't actually read the posts in the thread or you are being intellectually dishonest on purpose. I should have been more clear in that post, but is obvious that I meant exclusive to socialism, especially since I qualified it at the end comparing higher wealth redistribution in capitalism. The only reason I said it was because most of the people in this thread are under the impression that socialism is about taking all your stuff and giving it to others, which is completely incorrect. There is literally a comparison in there that you decided to ignore like you just stopped reading the thread once you saw what you wanted to reply to. Had you actually kept reading the thread, you would have seen Rama ask for clarification like a reasonable person would do. To which I replied:
Functionally, yes, but not by the "numbers," so yes I am drawing a distinction. You aren't redistributing wealth since it doesn't (see: shouldn't) be controlled by one person (or a group of wealthy people). Obviously a socialist overthrow of capitalism would naturally result in a massive redistribution of wealth initially. It becomes a much more in-depth discussion as we will move into private property vs. personal property which I don't think is appropriate for Thonk's teen angst thread. In modern society, redistribution of wealth is significantly larger in capitalist economies which is really the main point.
Saying "you aren't redistributing wealth by redistributing wealth" is functionally nonsensical, but I'm sure you already knew that. Read your posts before posting them in the future.
I literally tell you what my main point is which you completely ignore and now pretend like you couldn't possibly understand what was being discussed. Instead you say that:
Economic systems, at their core, are arguments on how wealth should be distributed, not whether or not it is.
Literally no one is saying wealth isn't distributed. I should have just applied your level of pedantry and focused on you saying the word distributed instead of redistributed, then pretend like since they are different words I couldn't possibly understand what you mean so I just point out you are wrong and ignore context and not bother asking for clarification. Something like:
Anyway, context matters. Try reading the thread next time.
Even in context, your sentence makes no sense. Saying socialism isn't redistributing wealth is nonsense. It's an economic system, they're all literally designed to redistribute wealth based on certain priorities. In capitalism, wealth is redistributed to those operating the market. In socialism, it's redistributed based on who you erroneously believe to be operating the market.
-
Even in context, your sentence makes no sense. Saying socialism isn't redistributing wealth is nonsense.
Good thing that is not what I said, then. I already clarified for you even after you ignored the context of other posts and what I explicitly said to Rama. Continuing to pretend otherwise just confirms that you are indeed being intentionally dishonest. Good luck with that.
It's an economic system, they're all literally designed to redistribute wealth based on certain priorities.
You are free to keep thinking anyone is disagreeing with you. Although, you said it is about distributing wealth, not redistributing. Those are different words with different definitions. The only thing I can do is take what you literally said and assume it was the only possible thing you could have meant. You can clarify what you actually meant, but I will ignore that and continue to work on my initial flawed assumption and ignore any further context. That method seems to be working for you so far. You may want to look up what economics actually is before posting again so you don't give an incomplete definition rendering your position entirely incorrect.
>>Insert flawed, unrelated analogy here
-
And so we are a week later and Jeremy Corbyn is hating life. Each day he goes to Parliament with a face like a smacked arse and is remorselessly taunted. A living meme.
Corbyn expelled and forced out so many people, reshaping the Labour party, filling it with people just like him. The feral left. Those that when things turn bad will eat their own. And my, how they have been. I am reminded of the story of Prometheus, the Titan who was punished by Zeus for stealing fire and giving it to mankind. He was tied to a rock and each day an eagle would come and peck away his liver, and each night it would grow back and be pecked out all over again. And so each day Corbyn's self-esteem is pecked away by the Corbynistas and it recovers only to be pecked at again the next day. A man who set out to create Utopia but instead has shaped the Labour party into his own private hell.
And right now, that is all the Labour party is. Jeremy Corbyn's private hell. It serves no other function than to torment him.
Oh, and happy #OwenJonesIsAWankerDay
-
I am reminded of the story of Prometheus, the Titan who was punished by Zeus for stealing fire and giving it to mankind. [...]
This is amazing BoJo roleplay. I almost started reading this in his voice