Comments by "DynamicWorlds" (@dynamicworlds1) on "The Rational National"
channel.
-
163
-
120
-
89
-
88
-
78
-
62
-
59
-
55
-
41
-
39
-
38
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
34
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
26
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
As terrible as the internment camps were, what we are doing now is So much worse.
Taking meds from people, seperating families, forcing people into life-threatening living conditions, and generally being deliberately punitive.
For as much as the internment camps were concentration camps and a violation of the rights of the Japanese, more people came out of the camps than went in, and we talk about their harm in terms of the financial, psychological, and social damage done, not in terms of deaths.
Once we're talking about deaths and seperated families, to use a term other than "concentration camps" is to downplay the severity for the sake of actual politically correct language.
This is the real face of the #resistance(tm)
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
I highly recommend Innuendo Studios' "alt right playbook"
In particular, "always a bigger fish", "the origins of conservatism", and "I hate Mondays"
The very notion of "solving problems" in the sense a progressive would think about it isn't actually a part of the ideology. Problems exist as something to sit around and passively just keep agreeing it's bad (without taking any systemic steps to reduce in the future) or as either evidence that people aren't "in the right place in the hierarchy" or just something to sort those deserving of power and privilage from those underserving.
It's often not even that they believe that solvable problems need to persist. It's that (especially beyond "just put the right people in power and it'll sort itself out") they don't even believe "solvable problems" are a thing, and look at attempts to solve (or at least mitigate) them as either dangerous naivete or a cynical plot to put the "wrong" people in power.
And yeah, there is almost zero room for compromise there. Unless you can make them feel like following their thought leaders will make them weak (the avoidance of feeling weak being the underlying motivation for everything), you can't get through to them because not only do they not believe in your goals, they probably don't think you do either.
Why do they resist masking (for one of countless examples)? Because who's telling who what to do and blaming China are more important to them than any reduction in the death toll. Notice also the black and white thinking: either something is 100% effective, or it's worthless. They don't believe that, say, a 50% reduction in death toll would matter to anyone because they don't. To them, either a single solution will completely eliminate the problem, or it's worthless. And if it's worthless, they assume you're either a "sheep" or (by projecting their own motivations onto you) trying to control them just for the sake of wielding power.
They are occasionally (accidentally) right on some things, though. Like psychology, as a field, being far too PC. Right-Wing Authoritarianism is a mental disorder and needs to be categorized as such.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
@TheGroovyJones no, that was the focus of the bill. The key thing you're missing is that the high-level executives are effectively a class of their own, and they're the ones who decide if, how much, and to which politician the company "donates" so their interests are protected as well.
On paper, the CEO is just the employee of the shareholders but in practice generally it's more like the power sharing relationship between the clergy and nobility in medieval Europe kept in balance dispite competing interests through moving in the same circles, an unwritten code of conduct, solidarity in contempt for the rest of us, and the implications of what the other's elimination would mean for their position. Some differences, of course, but the highest level executive positions don't function in the same employer/employee dynamic the rest of us live in, dispite how much they want to offload responsibility for their actions when convenient.
It's....complicated.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Left vs Right, originating from republicans (as in literally supporters of republics) vs royalists has come to refer more broadly to collective, democratic power VS hierarchical, establishment power.
If someone's not a real populist, they're not a leftist by definition, nor are you if you support mega-corps in an effective oligarchy.
Even if you use the twisted economic version of boiling the whole thing down to communism vs capitalism (which you REALLY shouldn't) the establishment Dems and the corporate media are still way far right.
While we're on the subject of definitions "liberal" means "open to new ideas and ways of doing things &/or pro freedom" so the Hillary camp isn't that either.
(I know this all seems pedantic, but if we allow politicians to constantly redefine political terms, they become meaningless and all discussion devolves into screaming empty buzzwords at each other, while they get to do whatever they want)
Corporatist, oligarch, neo-liberal, neo-conservative, right wing, or hell, regressive (which as a parallel of "progressive" has come to mean someone who pretends to be about progress while taking us backwards), all are much better descriptors of those like Hillary.
What YouTube is actually doing, at the behest of advertisers (who are used to their dollars buying control of the public narrative) and old media (who want to continue to exist despite people not liking to watch their content anymore), is trying to crack down on all alternative media (regardless of political slant) to make way for the giant media conglomerates to step in and make YouTube the new cable TV. (I can dig up specific companies and related agendas for examples if needed)
It's all about power and money, as usual, and to be honest, I'm surprised they didn't hit this channel sooner.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The racist vote always goes red. If Trump was about racism, we would have expected to see a bump in the proportion of the total population that voted GOP. Instead, we had completely normal (even slightly low) turnout, meaning Trump turned more people off by the overt bigotry than he dragged off their couches by not being subtle about it.
The anomaly we do see, however, is that between election and taking office (a time when a president's approval numbers normally go Up) his approval numbers dropped sharply. What was the only significant thing to happen in that time? He picked his cabinet, proving to everyone paying attention with 2 brain cells that he wasn't going to "drain the swamp".
Basically, non-racists voted for Trump because they knew that Hillary was 100% corrupt and going to work against them, so they took a gamble on the wild card.
You want to know why we have president Trump? Stop looking at Trump. Look at the 2nd most disliked candidate in US history who rigged the dem primary, overtly scorned those she stole it from, colluded with the media to push Trump through the GOP primary, and ran such an incompetent campaign that (among many other failings) hit Trump with attacks so incompetently that it helped a compulsive liar seem like a straight-shooter.
Hell, even just looking at the polling leading up to the election (where they leaned towards Trump when Hillary was speaking publicly and away from Trump when she was out of the public eye) shows that the election was just a reaction to her and what she represented, not a favoring of Trump (the most disliked presidental candidate in US history).
The only part of the 2016 election results that can't be traced back to the establishment "democrats" is interstate crosscheck, and even that voter disenfranchisement program is something they ignored for years and pulled something similar in their own primary, so they had no room to suddenly complain about.
Sure, racism is a problem and Trump emboldened them to be more overt and violent, that's all true, but if you want to understand the 2016 election, you need to look no further than the cover of Hillary's book:
What Happened?
Hillary Clinton
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@CutThroatJuggalo both want the cultural battle to go on indefinitely, though. The GOP will stir up irrational hatred to get bigots to vote against their own interests, and the "Democrats" then get to play "good cop" and say "I know you don't really like the platform we're giving you, but can you risk not taking the deal?"
They can also, like $hillary and many others have done, play things such that the public has to spend their political capital in the form of time and energy to get them to "evolve" on an issue. In the meantime, they're made a mess of the economy, violated constitutional limits on power, and "ops" lost ground on another social issue.
We won some ground with the last administration on gay and trans rights, but Obama broke deportation records, normalized Bush's constitutional violations, set up the next market crash, put the healthcare discussion back to "is Romneycare too left-wing", and "couldn't do anything" as the GOP set themselves up to stack the courts to (among other things) put Roe vs Wade back under threat so that they could use that as a threat on the voters to vote for an even further right-wing "Democrat" than Obama, shifting the Overton Window further right no matter which way the election went.
They even quietly expanded executive power after Trump won to ensure he would be able to do even more damage when he got in so their next candidate would look better by comparison.
As long as the current illusion of a 2-party system remains, all gains are temporary, because neither the GOP nor "Democrats" want anything solved permanently.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@indymarrow8050 "give all the money to the government" wtf does that even mean? Money exists because the government spends it into existence to pay public servants, has universal value because it's what the government accepts as payment for fees and taxes, and exists in between those steps as a representation of debts paid (dirrectly or indirrectly) to those who work in fields outside of normal markets to make a society function. Since the very invention of coinageb "giving all the money to the government" is a concept that makes no sense if you understand what money is.
As to wages, do I want government to have total control over them? No, that level of micromanaging doesn't really work. Do I want the government to do some things about income inequality? Yes, because as I've stated and you haven't refuted, people need to organize in some way outside of markets to put a check on the inevitable trends of markets. People organizing to collectively decide on rules for a society to be run by isn't tyranny; it's democracy (representative or otherwise).
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group,” -FDR
As banks were able to force our government to bail them (instead of the people our government is supposedly by, for, and of) out of a crash they created themselves, by FDR's (and Mussolini's) definition(s) we're already bordering on fascism, and it isn't because of people wanting to limit economic inequality.
Sorry to tell you, but you've been fed a line of BS because it was to certain people's advantage to have you spouting off unintelligible nonsense and ignoring sound reasoning against what you've been taught to believe like it was a religion.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
To answer the question, it comes from the fact that a lot of the early voting states where Bernie did poorly, due to not having any name recognition by that time, had large black populations.
There's also the fact that at the beginning of the primary, Hillary was coasting on some manufactured illustration that the Clintons were good to black people and some twisting of some things Bernie said.
Given time, however, Bernie showed he was willing to respectfully listen (even when he could have been excused if he didn't), his history of marching with MLK became public knowledge, people came to understand what he was saying better, and Hillary's "superpreditors" quote came to light and she showed complete disdain for those that challenged her on it (in complete contrast to how Bernie handled black people that challenged him on racial issues).
After that, one after another, black community leaders came out in support of Bernie, but many of the votes had already been cast, and the great spin machine took that and went to work.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@anthonybrowne3942 Obama expanded 2 wars to 7, compromised to the right of a Heritage Foundation healthcare plan, made sure almost all the economic recovery went to the rich, failed to put in anywhere close to sufficient regulation to stop the next financial crash, let the GOP pack the courts, normalized (and in many cases expanded) Bush's violations of the constitution and international law, made most of Bush's tax cuts permanent, disbanded his progressive movement right after getting elected, abandoned crisis like Flint (while pretending to drink the water and telling people it was safe), paved the way for Trump, and expanded executive power on the way out the door after Trump was elected.
But please, tell me more about how great center-right President Obama was. Speek up though, it's hard to hear over all the harm he's done including the easily 6 figgure death toll.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Zack NoLastName the problem is you're arguing with dictionaries and equating neoliberalism with liberalism. They are not the same thing (neither are neoconservativism and real conservatism).
Let's be clear here. It was conservatism that preserved slavery. Liberals ended monach rule, ended slavery, ended segregation, got women the right to vote, created social security and unemployment, created unions, etc etc
The real definition I gave, is the only one not subject to twisting by politicians. Liberalism is a synonym for progressivism, with an emphasis on generosity and personal freedom. It's an ideology that says that we can and should try to change things for the better (as opposed to conservativism, which seems stability through not changing things, and neo-conservatism which seeks to "return" things to an idealized version of the past that never actually existed).
Neoliberalism is just neoconservativism dressed in a thin veil of being slightly liberal on some social issues, which is why they try to sound like liberals while usually voting like neocons.
Of course, since basically all right-wing ideas have been tried in history, liberals tend almost exclusively to left-wing (aka populist) politics.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Liberal, by definition, is openness to change, new ideas, and new ways of doing things.
Conservativism, by definition, is traditionalism and resistance to change.
"Neo-conservatism" is a desire to return to an idealized version of the past that never actually existed.
"Neo-liberalism" is neo-conservatism, with a sugar-coating of (mostly empty) rhetoric on social issues to help those that don't hate brown people or gays swallow the poison.
Establishment Democrats are not at all liberal. They're about as strongly neo-conservative as Reagan under their rhetoric and occasional bone thrown to people on social issues.
While we're on definitions, left vs right is about populism vs establishment power (originally democratic government supporters vs monarchy supporters). Of course, this means the DNC isn't "left" either, whether by the origins of the term or as a coloquial euphemism for "liberal".
"Progressive" is the same listed definition as above by its root (though lacking the "pro-freedom" 2nd definition), but was popularised because of the DNC bowing to republicans using "liberal" as a smear. It does avoid the confusion with libertarians saying their economically liberal under the 2nd definition, even though their policies are regressive in terms of the change-spectrum.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Most self-described "conservatives" these days are either neo-cons (which is just a more polite way of saying "proto-facists" or worse) or liberals who have been scared away from using the term out of decades of propaganda using it as a smear and the democratic party caving to it rather than doing something like this: https://youtu.be/zTFp7WG9J-E
I am a big advocate of going to the dictionary and finding definitions that are consistent across both dictionaries and contexts (and when that fails, going to the historic origins of their use).
This gets you the definition of left and right I already mentioned, and:
Conservative: 1-Traditionalist/favoring the status-quo
2-Cautious
Liberal: 1-Open to change, new ideas, and new ways of doing things
2-in favor of freedom (especially personal)
3-generous
and given the rather recent movements' behaviors:
Neo-conservative: attempting to return to an idealized version of the past that never actually existed (students of history will read that as "proto-facist at best")
Neo-liberal: Neo-conservative under a thin veil of social progressivism
While normally, language's meaning is determined by use, politicians must never be allowed to change the definitions of political terms (or any terms really) or, as you mention, they will quickly strip all meaning from the words so the public ends up talking past each other and they end up with all the power. Basic divide and conquer stuff, really...so if there's ever a time to be pedantic, it's about politics.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We really need to stop calling them centrists at all and bring up by any definition outside of the current climate in DC, that Bernie is what centrism looks like.
His platform is supported by most of the population, is considered moderate by most of the developed world, and is in the middle of nearly every spectrum of political thought.
On ecnomics, he's about halfway between free market capitalism, and pure communism (both of which fail spectacularly).
On war, he's neither a total pacifist, nor a hawk/imperialist.
On civil rights, again, moderate as he doesn't support special rights/restrictions for any group.
On scope of government, he neither wants an important nor tyrannical one.
Etc.
Bernie is what a real centrist looks like without the filter of the Overton window redefining the political spectrum.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"1. The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition. . . 2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism. . . The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life, but it mainly concerned the rejection of the Spirit of 1789 (and of 1776, of course). The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism. . . 6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. . . Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Goering’s alleged statement (“When I hear talk of culture I reach for my gun”) to the frequent use of such expressions as “degenerate intellectuals,” “eggheads,” “effete snobs,” “universities are a nest of reds.” The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.
4. No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.
5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity. Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. . . 7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country. This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. . . 12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters. This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons — doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.
13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, . . Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. To have a good instance of qualitative populism we no longer need the Piazza Venezia in Rome or the Nuremberg Stadium. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People."
-Umberto Eco: the 14 characteristics or Ur-Fascism (basically the only damn thing he ever talks about because he's a single-issue pundit, and that issue is being pro-fascism)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LonerWeirdo yeah, for home defense, baseball bats (or equivalent stick) or a sword or something generally is the way to go, imo. Statistically, someone in the house is more likely to die to the gun than be saved by it, so while there are reasons for gun ownership, home defense is a poor one.
Also, all that talk about the distance within which someone with a knife has the advantage is basically all the distances in which a home confrontation will happen, and since you're defending with a home-field advantage, you get to determine the distance the fight happens at.
Also, it's really hard to beat the threat neutralization of severing the forearm holding the weapon. Even if you don't get through both bones, if the tendons/muscles are severed it can't pull a trigger or even hold anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life, but it mainly concerned the rejection of the Spirit of 1789 (and of 1776, of course). The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.
3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action’s sake. Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Goering’s alleged statement (“When I hear talk of culture I reach for my gun”) to the frequent use of such expressions as “degenerate intellectuals,” “eggheads,” “effete snobs,” “universities are a nest of reds.” The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values."
-topical excerpt from Umberto Eco's 14 characteristics of Ur-fascism
Seem familiar?
That's because he's not just another corporate talking head.
He's a fascist propagandist. (See also the Nazi great replacement conspiracy theory he's repeatedly pushed)
CNN & MSNBC are full of corporate talking heads. That's still bad, but there is a difference.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
“At present it is estimated that marijuana’s LD-50 is around1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response." (note; that makes it about as dangerous, in terms of lethality of a single dose, as sugar)
Even if you believed that was an extreme outlier, that makes it far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco, and we don't require prescriptions for those either.
On top of that, you can't just say "well something is harmful, so we're going to make it illegal" but (even setting aside the argument that a person should have the right to put whatever they want into their body) you have to both compare the harm done in penalties to the harm caused by the substance (arresting people for it causes far more harm than the thing itself, even ignoring the black market sales funding organized crime) as well as the effectiveness at curtailing use (which drug prohibition fails spectacularly at).
Further, even for medicines, the prescription model doesn't make sense as the dosage doesn't need to be tightly controlled at all and people are largely able to self medicate with it more safely than just about any OTC medication, so even in the medical sense that doesn't really fit well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I called you a Nazi apologist because that's exactly what you've been doing. You straw-maned Seronemo__ who was talking about extremists, when you brought it to the mainstream right. I exposed the implied false equivalence (a logical fallacy often used in propaganda) in your comment and brought the discussion back to measuring the actions of extremists who might be presumed to align with the rhetoric of the left or right and radicalized in part by the rhetoric (a subject brought up in the video).
You then, as I mentioned, not only straw-maned me and continued the false equivalency, but claimed I "refuse to admit the toxicity of the mainstream left" even though I explicitly cited the existence of left-wing terrorism.
Now you're trying to erase all that, claim the decades of racial dog-whistling from the right doesn't mean they have any culpability for the Nazi violence, but try to pin antifa's actions to the left and me (even though I've explicitly said I don't agree with them, and refuse to be baited into defending them). Even if you're not "elevating the Nazis" that means you're trying to drag down the entire left and paint the mainstream left as toxically radicalizing and to be avoided, which would leave them virtually unopposed as the right refuses (or is unable) to reign them in.
That is Nazi apologetics. You are pushing Nazi propaganda, and frankly, your insistence on holding to that means that you're indistinguishable from a Nazi trying to pretend to be a moderate.
Don't like how you look to others, change how you, but as I've sufficiently proven how dishonest you are I'm done with a possible Nazi.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Joe Ciliberto thank you for the sentiment. It's nice to hear when most of what we seem to get is opposition and millenial-bashing when we try to take up the fight. Any ally still willing to stand with us in their later years is still very welcome (Bernie would have never gotten the support he did if that wasn't true).
Sadly, though, I think too many people in the boomer generation and older aren't strong enough to turn an objective eye to the failures of their generation like you have. I'd imagine it's quite difficult to face that one has become exactly what they fought against in the youth they take pride in when they look back at their lives for the real achievements of their generation. That's all the more reason, though, to value the ones who can face that.
Anything you can do to get people of your generation to stop hating us, or treating us like little kids, would be greatly appreciated, because without that baseline level of respect, it's impossible to have a real conversation with any of them. Even when I develop a good amount respect from a boomer on a job, I still hear a whole bunch of generational bashing right to my face with the only difference being that it's clear they're not counting me as part of that group.
It's like a low-key version of "you're a very well-spoken black man" as just a constant din in my day-to-day life, and yeah, it sucks comming from people with no awareness of their own generation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Chander S it's funny because most people don't know that the road system amounts to socialism. You're wrong about healthcare though. Single-payer systems provide better outcomes at lower cost than our system. That's just objective fact.
It's an industry with inelastic demand which benefits the whole of society for everyone to have access to and is arguably infrastructure. That's exactly the kind of thing that tends to do better when run by the government. (Also, where we have inelastic demand, we would expect to see exponentially increasing costs, which is exactly what we see for healthcare)
The insurance part is the worst as, unlike other types of insurance, there's little incentives they can create for behavior change that are more significant than risks to one's health, and there're no real efficiency gains to be made.
That means the only ways the health insurance "industy" can look to to seriously increase profits are making people think they are getting better coverage than they are, arbitrary denying coverage based on arcane rationalizations, flat out denying the chronically ill coverage/making it prohibitively expensive (which thankfully the ACA greatly cut back), and charging more to let the rich cut in line over those with greater need for immediate treatment.
None of those are good for consumers as a whole. We're much better off just pooling money through taxes and paying for it that way as the government doesn't need to make a profit.
To top it off, we're only talking about socializing health insurance while leaving the rest of the healthcare industry very privatized, which is hardly even an extreme position, especially in light of superior systems out there doing just that. You could go much further and still have a healthcare industy that still had a lot of capitalism in the mix.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RichO1701e so you're willing to support a dictator as long as they aren't as bad as another dictator? That's the logical extension of what you're saying. Shall we debate wether Hitler or Stalin was worse too, or would you like to actually support democratic government?
We can sit here and tally up estimated war crimes, human rights violations, and death tolls, and yes, if limited to 1-2 presidential terms, Hillary's long list of black marks would likely come up shorter, but that misses the bigger truth that the greater evil is the one that rigs your elections and tells you to choose between Hillary and Trump in the first place.
Btw: if Hillary had targeted black voters for disenfranchisement instead of millennials (if, for example, the "super predators" bit came out earlier and hurt her more), would we even be having this conversation?
No, people would say "well, she stole the primary from them, and then treated them with utter contempt, so of course they didn't turn out in the general" but hey, I guess millennials are just an acceptable target undeserving of real rights to you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1