|
Manifest Despair posted:Well, we have to end police brutality for one. And slow down the effects of climate change, stop terrorism and nationalize healthcare. We have to provide food and shelter for the homeless, and oppose racial discrimination and promote civil rights, while also promoting equal rights for women. We have to encourage a return to sanity. Most importantly, we have to promote general social concern and less materialism in young people. I agree socialism "owns"
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 02:18 |
|
|
I think it's pretty cute that people believe there's a real difference between conservative and liberal politicians regardless of extremely wealthy and influential campaign donors, highly organized lobbyists and short term public opinion polls.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
"conservatives are just a bunch of loving retarded oval office making GBS threads niggers, and i'm sick and tired of their goddamn human being rear end bullshit" -FDR
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:Conservativism is the improper mixing of Christianity and Economic Liberalism because of ideology. This is actually true to a very large extent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Ekster posted:I think it's pretty cute that people believe there's a real difference between conservative and liberal politicians regardless of extremely wealthy and influential campaign donors, highly organized lobbyists and short term public opinion polls. You're so America-centric. But yeah, I was thinking of America. That's where I live. And the difference is slight--Like the scale may go: code:VVV: Oh, Dutch! Sorry. Hydrocodone fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Sep 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
The Whole Internet posted:"conservatives are just a bunch of loving retarded oval office making GBS threads niggers, and i'm sick and tired of their goddamn human being rear end bullshit" Really that whole speech was great.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
Hydrocodone posted:You're so America-centric. Actually, I'm Dutch and you're right it's less cut and dried here but the same poo poo happens here and in pretty much every other modern democracy that I can think of to varying degrees.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
It's hard being liberal, but seeing how manipulative people can be with free poo poo. Like people who have 6 of those government phones, or who earn large amounts of money under the table but still get welfare. But that's no reason to not have the programs and I know what it's like to be poor. On the OP, I think you're wrong. Depending on the person (and probably their own natural oxytocin levels) a significant portion of the world population doesn't like to see others suffer. It's natural to want to alleviate others struggling. It's not normal to see a starving, crying, forgotten child, and want to just step over them. So in conclusion, you're wrong OP. gently caress yourself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Ekster posted:Actually, I'm Dutch and you're right it's less cut and dried here but the same poo poo happens here and in pretty much every other modern democracy that I can think of to varying degrees. Neoliberal economic policies have become the norm, and are particularly entrenched in Germany, which drags the whole EU along with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Kleen_TheRowdyDog posted:the more i overcome my own difficulties, the more conservative i become. my reasoning is that if I - goon beta - can do it, then other people have no excuse.   r u serious bro?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
GORDON posted:If liberals really believed that all people should.contribute to the common good then they'd be a lot more interested in getting people off welfare and actually contributing to the common good instead of living off of it. Not when there's generations of structural racism and the fact that someone's these people can't support themselves Most of it is because conservatives hate black people and Hispanic people
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
greg sexyvibes posted:a significant portion of the world population doesn't like to see others suffer. You can put your windows on the seaward side of your ivory tower. But I know what you mean. Maybe the idea should be more of a community-level thing. Like communities that haven't learned enough empathy screw everything up by not worrying about the rest of the country/world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
That Robot posted:
I get shy around people and don't eat anything but hotdogs with one half smothered in ketchup and the other half plain. I face the biggest difficulties in life, I'd say my life was harder then poor people born to uneducated drug addicts in the slums. So they should all totally be able to escape the trap of a life they were thrown into.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
So you're saying conservativism is a personality disorder? Yeah, makes sense actually. I wish there was some kind of genetic screening for it in-utero though so we could abort the ones that test positive for it....
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Ekster posted:If being liberal is superior then explain Hollywood celebrities. they are crab people
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
CaptainSarcastic posted:Neoliberal economic policies have become the norm, and are particularly entrenched in Germany, which drags the whole EU along with it. It's funny because the Dutch Labor Party (PvdA) is currently in a coalition with the VVD (center-right libertarian party, which is admittedly still fairly socialist compared to US politics) and it's extremely neo-liberal. The VVD is completely honest about its agenda so nobody is mad at them, but the PvdA used to be very socialist, as its name would imply, so they've been bombing in polls ever since. General opinion is, what's the point of calling yourself socialist when you're just as bad if not worse as the most libertarian party in the Netherlands? As far as I can tell most other European or even Western countries are the same. It's like all current politicians went to the same neo-liberal school or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Hydrocodone posted:You can put your windows on the seaward side of your ivory tower. I think the problem is just, there is no end of the line. No community has enough. Even with excess and all the money, you want to squeeze more value. Better lives for your people. If we could turn the whole world into the standards of living of the 50s, but lose cell phones and computers, would we want that? If it meant we'd never get those things on a non commercial level?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
TEAH SYAG posted:Curious, I always associated liberalism with a sheepish like mental state caused by some form of retardation. Eh. They still bleed well. BAAAAAAHHHHHH! *salutes at a Ronald Reagan picture* Ronald Reagan died making GBS threads in a diaper He loving sucks anyhow for starting all this Carter should have been re-elected in 1980.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Hobohemian posted:As far as rich people go they definitely have the least blood on their hands. Yeah because they contract out their hits on people to hired thugs They are covered in blood except for their hands
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Pawn 17 posted:Liberal and conservative are the exact same thing sure it is 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Frackie Robinson posted:If there's gonna be winners in life, there's got to be losers too. Condemning the vast majority of people to be "losers" is a backwards retarded plan How rich are you? Most libertarians are rich trust-fund babies who never want to contribute for the good of society. You'd rather spend your money on selfish poo poo like hookers and blow it hookers and blow on yachts, rather than food for a struggling family. Libertarians are self-centered assholes who go against the values that define this country.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
the ideal of communism, realized to its fullest possible extent, immediately and without delay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Ekster posted:Actually, I'm Dutch and you're right it's less cut and dried here but the same poo poo happens here and in pretty much every other modern democracy that I can think of to varying degrees. Geert Wilders has the right idea with sticking it to the Islamists I'm a liberal and I can say that without a problem
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
greg sexyvibes posted:It's hard being liberal, but seeing how manipulative people can be with free poo poo. Like people who have 6 of those government phones, or who earn large amounts of money under the table but still get welfare. But that's no reason to not have the programs and I know what it's like to be poor. This is why government assistance should require every able bodied person to work, participate in community service, government jobs programs, or take courses which would improve their skills and marketability when job seeking. There are many unemployed or underemployed young people with college degrees who could help lead programs and teach classes that could help laid off workers retrain for a newer industries and job sectors. It would require childcare assistance and cost the government a lot of money but any money spent on lower wage workers in this temporary economy would inevitably go right back into the system because low wage workers spend a larger percent of their income (often all of it) rather than saving like wealthier people are able to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
im gay full communism now america deserved 9/11
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
greg sexyvibes posted:I think the problem is just, there is no end of the line. No community has enough. Even with excess and all the money, you want to squeeze more value. Better lives for your people. If we could turn the whole world into the standards of living of the 50s, but lose cell phones and computers, would we want that? If it meant we'd never get those things on a non commercial level? Can't we guarantee a higher standard of living for our poorest and least fortunate without removing incentives for hard work? I may not be understanding, but it sounds like you're hypothetical rules that out. I'd like a government that guaranteed housing and appliances, food, and healthcare but still allows enough of a market for the hard-working and lucky (not sure you can remove luck from the thing) to buy nicer things or pure luxuries. I haven't though much about whether, right now, a cell phone and computer should be among the guaranteed "appliances" but off the top of my head I say yes. And internet. It'd be similar to what the US has now but with much more generous welfare programs. Hydrocodone fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Sep 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Feranon posted:the ideal of communism, realized to its fullest possible extent, immediately and without delay. Can we settle for workers controlling more of what their labor produces, limits of campaign finance high jacking, addressing the prison system, universal healthcare, affordable education, raising capital gains tax?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Hydrocodone posted:Can't we guarantee a higher standard of living for our poorest and least fortunate without removing incentives for hard work? I may not be understanding, but it sounds like you're hypothetical rules that out. Sometimes opportunity and incentive is enough, but unfortunately, some people are lazy or ignorant or undisciplined. They should be disciplined with requiring community service or courses. These courses could be basic stuff like "strategies to market yourself" but it's just basic level good manners and decency. Unfortunately, some people don't learn these because capitalism, crime and sin have have destroyed their opportunities to do so. It's tough love. I don't know can be properly reeducated through secular liberalism. I don't know how a society of truly free men is possible without God, as men free men choose to sin they find themselves falling back into the bondage of slavery that is the sinful life. quote:[quote]I'd like a government that guaranteed housing and appliances, food, and healthcare but still allows enough of a market for the hard-working and lucky (not sure you can remove luck from the thing) to buy nicer things or pure luxuries. I haven't though much about whether, right now, a cell phone and computer should be among the guaranteed "appliances" but off the top of my head I say yes. This approach fails for more information see slavoj zizek on "capitalism with a human face"
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
this is so wrong and dumb that I'm not even going to attempt to engage with it intellectually. no, op. no. just no.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:this is so wrong and dumb that I'm not even going to attempt to engage with it intellectually. no, op. no. just no. But I want to be the kind of firebrand that DOES get the discussion going!
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Socialism is nice and all but how do you discern between helping those who truly 'deserve' it (because they can't help it) and people who are in a lovely situation because they are drunks/addicts/make lovely life decisions at every turn/are just plain lazy? You're always going to have people that work harder, are more competent and are more ambitious and chances are that they're going to be richer than people who don't have their drive/competence. You'd have to go full literal communism if you want to prevent that. Ofcourse those people are eventually going to have children and, as any parent would, they want their kids to have the best chance possible. Unfortunately this creates trust fund babies who have an 'unfair' advantage in society, just like people who make lovely decisions in life are going to have children who will have to work (a lot) harder to get anywhere. The only way I can possibly see completely eliminating these kinds of differences is if you go completely communist, which as history has shown doesn't work at all. The best any government can do is ameliorate problems, but any honest government needs to admit that there's a limit to what it can do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Pawn 17 posted:Liberal and conservative are the exact same thing this pretty much, the only difference is their political views on the idea of "change"
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Abuse of social programs is infuriating, but I'm not yet convinced it's common or serious enough to worry about a lot. And if it is, Commie NedFlanders has put forward some ideas for requiring people on assistance to pitch in that I think sound reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Gosh! All these people who disagree with me sure are stupid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
there are nations with welfare states where you can check out and have a lovely apt and get by on a basic income and guess what very few people take advantage of it and jerk off all day instead of working. if you think the natural response to having a minimum standard of guaranteed living is everyone will stop trying and abuse the system if anything you are projecting your own lazy goon self
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
I'm not necessarily talking about people who abuse social programs, because I agree that's a relatively small group, but people who just aren't competent enough to get their poo poo together. I've seen a lot of programs, at least here in the Netherlands, where social workers try to get these people to make reasonable decisions in life which would obviously benefit society as a whole. They can succeed at an individual level but on a whole they can't take away the mental scars that a lot of these people have due to a bad childhood, or perhaps someone who isn't quite mentally challenged but still has an IQ that's barely above 80, or they feel persecuted because they are some kind of minority and are absolutely convinced that there's no way there's a place in society for them, let alone people with a legitimate mental illness.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
dealing with incompetent people is one of the prices of having a compassionate society. whats the alternative? here in america we have a massive homeless problem and the worst poverty in the western world and guess what it sucks, also crime is much worse. bite the bullet imo, we are wealthy enough to absorb the cost if our priority is providing for people
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
I agree, bridging the gap between rich and poor as best as you can prevents a ton of problems. I never said governments shouldn't try. But you are going to have a difference no matter what. Governments are not capable of fixing these kinds of problems, all they can do is to deal with it as best as they can for the benefit of all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Ekster posted:Socialism is nice and all but how do you discern between helping those who truly 'deserve' it (because they can't help it) and people who are in a lovely situation because they are drunks/addicts/make lovely life decisions at every turn/are just plain lazy? With socialism. If you more economic and political power into the hands of WORKERS which they are entitled to being to engines of production. It's written that "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain", workers are entitled to the fruits of their own labor. Social safety nets are good but should be tied to community service or community education requirements for everyone who is able to work. quote:You're always going to have people that work harder, are more competent and are more ambitious and chances are that they're going to be richer than people who don't have their drive/competence. You'd have to go full literal communism if you want to prevent that. Of course people will be differently skilled and driven, but in a community of mutual respect and shared control, merit based pay is still possible. If the workers of a cooperatively owned business decide that a particular job require specialized skills nothing prevents them from rewarding that position with higher pay. Workers would be less selfish and more concerned with what's good for the company as a whole if they were not alienated from their labor and actually had a stake in it. Co-owners have greater responsibility and greater reward for putting the company first, wage slaves only care about themselves and will undermine each other and cause group dysfunction in an attempt at winning a rat race. quote:Ofcourse those people are eventually going to have children and, as any parent would, they want their kids to have the best chance possible. Unfortunately this creates trust fund babies who have an 'unfair' advantage in society, just like people who make lovely decisions in life are going to have children who will have to work (a lot) harder to get anywhere. People often think socialism means no personal property exists or no difference between anyone exists, that's totally false. At the heart of Marxist theory is a distinction between personal and private property. Private property refers to means of production which are worked by people to produce goods or services, but owned by others who control and appropriate the products of that labor. The Soviet Union did this wrong by using the State as a vehicle for the people to collectivize their interests and actions but modern technology makes this possible with less state control If you want to enjoy your toys and your cool new camero no one is gonna slap your Doritos out of your hand and make you share. Commie NedFlanders fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Sep 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 02:18 |
|
|
Ekster posted:I agree, bridging the gap between rich and poor as best as you can prevents a ton of problems. I never said governments shouldn't try. But you are going to have a difference no matter what. Governments are not capable of fixing these kinds of problems, all they can do is to deal with it as best as they can for the benefit of all. Governments can provide structures which allow people to do it themselves, look at how much government funded internet development helped create the space for people solve the problems freely
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 00:29
|
|