Political Test

[Ayayay]

Although, I will say that even here you're walking a thin line between a recognition of differences among groups of people and justifying X country being a !@#$hole because "those people like living in a !@#$hole, it's their 'culture'".

Do not turn me into a strawman. A cultures views on gun ownership does not make them superior or inferior to a different cultures stance or view on the subject.

 

Nobody would actually identify themselves as a "bourgeois nationalist" in the same way that nobody would identify themselves as a "cosmopolitan social democrat" or a "bourgeois patriot".

I meant it as it doesn't exist because, again, it was used as an insult.

[Hereno]

Do not turn me into a strawman. A cultures views on gun ownership does not make them superior or inferior to a different cultures stance or view on the subject.

 

I meant it as it doesn't exist because, again, it was used as an insult.

I didn't misrepresent your argument - what I was addressing was the very clarification that you've made here. Cultural relativism not taking into account the political economy or morality is intellectually vacuous. As in, it's not okay for other people to own slaves just because "their culture says it's okay". People who exist around the world are deserving of their rights regardless of whatever cultural background they come from. The position you're taking has much in common with the one that you claim is a straw man - and indeed, you do not come from that viewpoint. With, of course, the position in question being one that slavery is rather "acceptable because those people are less than us, so let's enslave them". But the ultimate view - that is, that it is okay for people of X culture to be enslaved by someone /because of their culture/ is functionally the same.

 

It goes without saying that my use of slavery as a rather extreme demonstration of my point is in no way meant to imply that you support slavery of any sort in any country.

Edited May 12, 2014 by Hereno

[FS108]

You are a Leftist-Fascist. 6 percent of the test participators are in the same category and 67 percent are more extremist than you.

Edited May 12, 2014 by FS108

[Ikol]

So far, this thread is working as intended.

[Hereno]

What the actual !@#$ is a "leftist-fascist"?

[Ayayay]

What the actual !@#$ is a "leftist-fascist"?

Left-wing fascism and left fascism are terms that have been used to describe tendencies in left-wing politics that contradict or violate the progressive ideals with which the Left is usually associated. Syntagmas such as left-wing fascism provide shorthand labels, but they lack any scientific precision, not the least due to the broad meaning of each of the components. Considering the general classification of fascism as being on the far right, crossovers may be expected according to the extremes meet theory. The touching point between the far left and the far right may be the use of power and/or political terrorism.

[Hereno]

Left-wing fascism and left fascism are terms that have been used to describe tendencies in left-wing politics that contradict or violate the progressive ideals with which the Left is usually associated. Syntagmas such as left-wing fascism provide shorthand labels, but they lack any scientific precision, not the least due to the broad meaning of each of the components. Considering the general classification of fascism as being on the far right, crossovers may be expected according to the extremes meet theory. The touching point between the far left and the far right may be the use of power and/or political terrorism.

So in other words it's a meaningless liberal phrase for "likes Stalin"?

[Don Juan]

That you make a distinction says quite a bit about your politics.

Can I ask how? I too would make a distinction. Also I'm not sure why I have to have a consistent set of principles or thought to what I want to live in and what I want to rule.

 

Personally/to live in, I end up being pretty liberal and easy-going.

 

For ruling, I'd be authoritarian as !@#$. (Don't give me real world power, it's a mistake).

[FS108]

What the actual !@#$ is a "leftist-fascist"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_fascism

[Hereno]

Can I ask how? I too would make a distinction. Also I'm not sure why I have to have a consistent set of principles or thought to what I want to live in and what I want to rule.

 

Personally/to live in, I end up being pretty liberal and easy-going.

 

For ruling, I'd be authoritarian as !@#$. (Don't give me real world power, it's a mistake).

It's a simultaneous admission that the interests of the ruling classes are divorced from those of society, and that the person's politics are based in self-interest rather than in moral terms. Alternatively, it just means that the person is 3edgy5me.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_fascism

Yeah I already said that, see:

 

So in other words it's a meaningless liberal phrase for "likes Stalin"?

[Don Juan]

It's a simultaneous admission that the interests of the ruling classes are divorced from those of society, and that the person's politics are based in self-interest rather than in moral terms. Alternatively, it just means that the person is 3edgy5me.

So your political views aren't in your own vested self-interest?

 

Also, I don't think it's an anomaly for the ruling class to be divorced from society. It happens the world over. Even in countries where they've tried and failed to implement proper communism. That said, while I don't think it's ideal, I also don't think it's going to change.

[Hereno]

So your political views aren't in your own vested self-interest?

 

Also, I don't think it's an anomaly for the ruling class to be divorced from society. It happens the world over. Even in countries where they've tried and failed to implement proper communism. That said, while I don't think it's ideal, I also don't think it's going to change.

Not everybody sees what's good for them and what's good for everyone to be separate.

[Fox Fire]

Did this one because the one you posted didn't work.

Not to mention the terminology is absolutely terrible.

 

I also find this graph to be not only far more visually pleasing, but also far more accurate in terms of "ability to classify."

I also use this same exact graph for examples in discussion because its very straight forward.

[Fox Fire]

As an aside though, Bourgeois Nationalism doesn't actually exist.

Of course it doesn't. 6 million Jews were killed just because some people got bored.

 

It would be the equivalent of calling all the members of NATO an Oligarchic Military Dictatorship but more made up.

Its funny you say that. Especially considering that NATO is quite literally, not only the ONLY actual military alliance in the world, but also contains 3 permanent members of the UNSC, as well as virtually every European nation of any significance (EU is NATO).

NATO is literally the ONLY military force on the globe. In fact, the only reason Russia and China are attempting expansion at.this very point in time is certainly not coincidence. They know we can't afford any further mass military operations. But even being bankrupt, NATO still easily has far.more military influence than the rest of the planet combined.

Best part is, NATO is literally an extension of US policy. Modern America is the modern Roman empire.

People hate to accept that, bit its true. Just like how politicians can't seem to accept that all systems inevitably fail and no system is perfect, or right for everyone.

The fact of politics is that everyone is actually wrong, regardless of how much evidence you may have to prove your argument. Societies and cultures evolve. So too must the system, or fail.

 

I hate it when people like to ignorantly deny the blatantly obvious.

[Ayayay]

Of course it doesn't. 6 million Jews were killed just because some people got bored.

And what about the other 5 million? Or the 21 million dead under Stalin?

 

Genocide happens for political and/or economic reasons. No government decides to kill an entire race for no reason whatsoever. (Although the reasons are always bad and and is never excusable)

 

Its funny you say that. Especially considering that NATO is quite literally, not only the ONLY actual military alliance in the world, but also contains 3 permanent members of the UNSC, as well as virtually every European nation of any significance (EU is NATO).

NATO is literally the ONLY military force on the globe. In fact, the only reason Russia and China are attempting expansion at.this very point in time is certainly not coincidence. They know we can't afford any further mass military operations. But even being bankrupt, NATO still easily has far.more military influence than the rest of the planet combined.

So NATO is evil and we should allow the poor defenseless Russian Federation and Peoples Republic of China do whatever they want to whomever they want?

 

Modern America is the modern Roman empire.

Nah, we haven't exterminated every culture we've encountered yet

 

People hate to accept that, bit its true. Just like how politicians can't seem to accept that all systems inevitably fail and no system is perfect, or right for everyone.

Democracy is the lesser of all evils

 

I hate it when people like to ignorantly deny the blatantly obvious.

Perfectly intelligent and rational people can end up having a completely different opinion as you and that's okay. Edited May 18, 2014 by underlordgc

[Fox Fire]

And what about the other 5 million? Or the 21 million dead under Stalin?

 

Genocide happens for political and/or economic reasons. No government decides to kill an entire race for no reason whatsoever. (Although the reasons are always bad and and is never excusable)

All Im saying i what you just said. Genocide doesn't happen for.nothing. Whether the reasons are baseless or factual is debatable.

 

So NATO is evil and we should allow the poor defenseless Russian Federation and Peoples Republic of China do whatever they want to whomever they want?

Why not? We do all the time. The biggest reason I speak against.the west is because of its blatant hypocrisy. Only Murica is allowed to illegally invade nations, apparently.

 

Nah, we haven't exterminated every culture we've encountered yet

Anywhere America has any influence, we have converted the.populace to our culture. Just.look at Japan, Germany and Russia. Hell, even China is.being.forces to slowly convert. (Slow and steady does win the race though).

 

Democracy is the lesser of all evils

Democracy is a universal norm these days. Most nations are surprisingly democracies (Including USSR and China).

Only.difference is, in America, our definition of.democracy isn't democracy unless its American style and or American approved.

America doesn't know what democracy is these days. Its become some freedom fantasy we can't even appropriately define.

 

Perfectly intelligent and rational people can end up having a completely different opinion as you and that's okay.

I agree. But denying the blatantly obvious truth, which you only deny because you refuse to accept it, is different than simply disagreeing.

[Fox Fire]

Actually, on the subject of democracy, America isnt a direct democracy and your presidential vote literally means absolutely nothing.

In fact, when you actually take the time to push the little bubble for your presidential vote, you're entirely wasting your time because your vote literally has no effect on the presidential election. And even if it did, the most suitable people for office have never had any chance to run because our.capitalist system immediately defines the two candidates based on publicity, media, and what the richest people can buy off, before the race even begins.

So all in all, especially with an ever increasing.populace, we will always be stuck with wealthy idiots in office, rather than the truly intelligent people deserving of such a title.

[Ayayay]

America isnt a direct democracy

It is a Representative Democracy but a variant of Democracy nonetheless

your presidential vote literally means absolutely nothing.

I don't think you understand the meaning of "literally"

Anyways, the electorate college is flawed. The problem is that we will be stuck with it forever simply because smaller states would never want to give it up as it is not in their interests to do so.

So all in all, especially with an ever increasing.populace, we will always be stuck with wealthy idiots in office, rather than the truly intelligent people deserving of such a title.

To be fair, the American election system has the best manipulators in the world. They are able to successfully manipulate people using relatively basic and tribal rhetoric such as the ever famed "Us or Them" mentality, the "repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" system, and the often overlooked slogans and chanting. America has made an art of elections, would be a shame to have those two and a half centuries of manipulation tactics go to waste.

Or they could just go to other countries and work there (I was going to post an old video about how the same people who worked the 2008 election campaigns helped elect a really corrupt guy into power somewhere in Eastern Europe but I gave up because I don't remember the country or care to much)

Edited May 18, 2014 by underlordgc

[Fox Fire]

It is a Representative Democracy but a variant of Democracy nonetheless

PRoC is a representative democracy too. (Also, Rome, Russian Federation, North Korea, etc are all Republics).

 

I don't think you understand the meaning of "literally"

Anyways, the electorate college is flawed. The problem is that we will be stuck with it forever simply because smaller states would never want to give it up as it is not in their interests to do so.

I think I do, and correct. My state in particular probably loves it.

 

To be fair, the American election system has the best manipulators in the world. They are able to successfully manipulate people using relatively basic and tribal rhetoric such as the ever famed "Us or Them" mentality, the "repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" system, and the often overlooked slogans and chanting. America has made an art of elections, would be a shame to have those two and a half centuries of manipulation tactics go to waste.

Or they could just go to other countries and work there (I was going to post an old video about how the same people who worked the 2008 election campaigns helped elect a really corrupt guy into power somewhere in Eastern Europe but I gave up because I don't remember the country or care to much) 

Yes. And America intervenes in other nations politics to no end. We directly started the civil war in Syria, literally gave suitcases full of cash to Afghanis to rebel against the taliban, and over all, the US is the primary cause of the "Arab Spring" in general.

Our government/system is just as !@#$ed up as any other. Difference is, or domestic policy has been far more successful in gaining local support.

 

On another note, I think you and I are.mostly agreeing here, give or take minor details.

I like meeting people who can see the flaws on both sides, as no side is ever perfect.

[Ayayay]

America intervenes in other nations politics to no end. We directly started the civil war in Syria, literally gave suitcases full of cash to Afghanis to rebel against the taliban, and over all, the US is the primary cause of the "Arab Spring" in general.

ooo I love these topics. Let's break it down though

 

America intervenes in other nations politics to no end.

Interventionism works, plain and simple. If it wasn't America it would have to be someone else, a superpower is needed in the modern world.

 

We directly started the civil war in Syria

The revolution in Syria was inevitable, I don't like using that word when discussing things like this but it was. Although it could have been greatly mitigated had the government of Syria not ignored the warning signs so utterly. They basically funneled weapons to every damn rebel group in that part of the Middle East for the past two decades, most notably with Hezbollah and Iraqi militants. The thing about funneling weapons though is that some of those weapons tend to stay inside the country instead of leaving. Then, in 2006 Syria had an absolutely devastating drought, 1.5 million farmers lost their farms and became nothing more than homeless beggars. In 2011, when the drought ended, those farmers wanted their lands back but couldn't because, ya know, the government is corrupt. So Syria now had black market guns and 1.5 million discontented farmers, you do the math. Although there were other reasons for the rebellion those two factors I mentioned were the main reason it grew into what it is now. Later, a bit into the war, it started becoming Sunni vs Shia (at least according to the media)but at the end of the day it was 1.5 million pissed off [homeless] farmers with guns.

 

the US is the primary cause of the "Arab Spring" in general.

I would say secondary, true we gave those dictators (and their armies, can't put all our eggs in one basket now can we?) buckets of money but we didn't force them to be corrupt !@#$ about it. They could have done something to mitigate it like Saudi Arabia did where they more or less paid people to not revolt(big oversimplification I know) but they didn't and are now either dead or exiled.

The "best" part is that we are just going to give money to their replacements as well because we don't want them to attack our strategic ally in the region(that by supporting makes everyone in the region hate us) and because money makes the world go 'round in general.

Edited May 18, 2014 by underlordgc

[Fox Fire]

Interventionism works, plain and simple. If it wasn't America it would have to be someone else, a superpower is needed in the modern world.

Oh? Prove it.

The world has never needed interventionism. In fact, interventionism is exactly what has created most global conflicts.

 

The revolution in Syria was inevitable, I don't like using that word when discussing things like this but it was. Although it could have been greatly mitigated had the government of Syria not ignored the warning signs so utterly. They basically funneled weapons to every damn rebel group in that part of the Middle East for the past two decades, most notably with Hezbollah and Iraqi militants. The thing about funneling weapons though is that some of those weapons tend to stay inside the country instead of leaving. Then, in 2006 Syria had an absolutely devastating drought, 1.5 million farmers lost their farms and became nothing more than homeless beggars. In 2011, when the drought ended, those farmers wanted their lands back but couldn't because, ya know, the government is corrupt. So Syria now had black market guns and 1.5 million discontented farmers, you do the math. Although there were other reasons for the rebellion those two factors I mentioned were the main reason it grew into what it is now. Later, a bit into the war, it started becoming Sunni vs Shia (at least according to the media)but at the end of the day it was 1.5 million pissed off [homeless] farmers with guns.

I won't disagree. I will simply point out the fact that you've completely disregarded the propaganda war that has been being wages.on a global scale between east and west since before WWII.

Its basically common knowledge that the US funneled cash.into Syrian anti govt media for years. Just like we did in Libya and numerous places around the world throughout decades.

Most modern wars are actually waged and done entirely.under our noses. IE: The situation in Ukraine has been a battlefield LONG before it it literally became a physical battlefield. There's been a propaganda war raging in Ukraine since the fall of USSR. East and west both want to keep its away from.the other.

This civil war going on now was actually not as random as the media makes it sound. Its the result.of decades of propaganda war.

Why do you think Russia invaded so Damn fast?

Syria is absolutely no different and its no coincidence that both nations happen to have a very close relationship to Russia.

Since 1991, our policy toward Russia has been "containment."

Which is absurd. Were badasses, but not gods. Its this same "containment" policy that created Nazism and WWII.

 

There has been a global propaganda war raging under our noses for decades. Says war is entirely directed at Russia and you think Syria, Russias single largest arms buyer is not going to be drawn in? Even Iran has been pulled in, though it has manages.to maintain local support to a point, we've given up on them with more focus on other Russian assets.

Keep in mind that what the media tells you is always only a small fraction of.the story.

 

I would say secondary, true we gave those dictators (and their armies, can't put all our eggs in one basket now can we?) buckets of money but we didn't force them to be corrupt !@#$ about it. They could have done something to mitigate it like Saudi Arabia did where they more or less paid people to not revolt(big oversimplification I know) but they didn't and are now either dead or exiled.

The "best" part is that we are just going to give money to their replacements as well because we don't want them to attack our strategic ally in the region(that by supporting makes everyone in the region hate us) and because money makes the world go 'round in general. 

No, I mean we created the Arab spring through a propaganda war which has now clearly grown beyond the control of both opposing sides.

We now have conflicts raging, created by both sides, that we cannot control and have since lost influence.over.

We inspired some people and it spread further than we intended. Our propaganda war inspired these movement and now what? Now we are.left with several conflicts that we assumed would happen differently and cannot contain, or.attempt.to contain without blowing our poorly shaded cover.

[Ayayay]

Its this same "containment" policy that created Nazism and WWII.

I have to go to sleep so I'll just leave these here

Edited May 18, 2014 by underlordgc

[Fox Fire]

I have to go to sleep so I'll just leave these here

So..... You agree....

Cool.

[Ayayay]

So..... You agree....

Cool.

Not even close, non-intervention caused WW2, Czechoslovakia was fully mobilized and the German army was not in a position to fight both the Czechs and France. Actually I should be more specific, appeasement led to Germany taking over Western Europe. Japan was already at war with China and their navy would probably still have attacked someone they shouldn't have.

[Don Juan]

It all went downhill after the Germans reoccupied the Rhineland DMZ and the French didn't respond.