If you liberals were truly honest with yourselves just say that you hate all white people where you think white people shouldn’t be a population majority anywhere on the face of the entire earth.
Be honest with yourselves at least, don’t sugar coat the bullshit.
Nausamedu:
If you gonna tell me that america has a non adequate social welfare system, im gonna throw you in a lake. American citizens dont need to work and the state is still going to feed them. There is also everything from cash assistance to housing benefits, medicaid and more.
K: factually not true… clearly, you are not an American, because if
you were, you would know that if you don’t work, you don’t eat or
have medical care or have many options… for example, roughly
48 million Americans live in a food-insecure household… and that
includes over 14 million children…and out of this group, over 7 million
Americans face ‘‘very low food security’’ meaning they have to
reduce food intake or disrupt eating patterns due to a lack of food…
and as far as homes goes, a million people in America is homeless…
and as far as health care goes, roughly 27 million Americans live without
health insurance… of those lacking health insurance, over 85%
of uninsured individuals are in families with at least one worker,
but many jobs don’t have health care… that every year, medical
debt cause roughly 50% of all personal bankruptcies…
about 300,000 people a year go bankrupt from medical bills…
instead of making shit up, how about doing some research…
Kropotkin
We really don’t have much of a public welfare system and what little bit of a one we did have prior the Trump administration has gutted most of it.
Republicans here speak of a welfare system here when in reality there isn’t much of one at all anywhere. For them socialism is the political boogeyman that they blame everything on.
I respect your opinion.
I really do. But i cant contend with “magic”.
Maybe i am a cunt. Maybe i lack your vision and imagination.
But these words dont mean jack shit to me because there is no way to guarantee perfect equality no matter what you do. And when that hits. You are facing the EXACT same problem and question all over again: What do you do?
What do you do with the people who INEVITABLY WILL fall through and just exploit the system and the kindness they are being given? Like they do right now?
My position is not against those who can be helped.
Who can be helped should be helped.
There is no question about that.
But im asking about the rest. And there is a shitload of “the rest”.
What do you do with the rest?
My only response to that is: Do you notice the slight difference between “food-insecure” and “you are going to starve to death because you got no money for food”?
Because i do not care about comedy concepts like “well its free food but it could be better”. The f does insecure mean?
Do you know what “insecure” i get after 3 months of joblessness? The public trashbins.
Look, no matter what i google or how i look it up, the results give a plethora of help, programs and free shit if you are in need.
Could it be better? Im sure it could be, but the thing all of you are describing is essentially nirvana compared to what we got in east europe.
So its really hard for me to relate to it.
Like… the trump administration denying SNAP to be used for junk food… holy fucking shit i wish i had it so bad i could only get free vegetables, dairy and other basic ingredients.
You know what? Maybe its cynicism.
But someone who’d actually dumpster dive in the same position, its pretty fucking hard for me to relate.
That wasn’t the only thing Trump did.
He also reduced the total amount of dollars to Foodstamps, WIC, and other food public assistance venues. He also made it harder to apply and qualify for all of that stuff as well.
Yes, compared to Canada, Europe, Australia, or New Zealand our variation of public welfare is a joke.
Also, I have been homeless living off of nothing where I know what it is like living like that. I would argue a majority of people don’t choose to be homeless.
And i have no problem with saying that those who are willing to improve their lives, should get the help to do so.
I am not arguing against that in any shape or form.
Inside of the United States there really isn’t a lot of programs to help the homeless where if people find themselves in homelessness it is extremely difficult and almost impossible to get out of.
Im pretty sure thats the case. Especially nowdays, there is probably not a single place on planet earth where it’d be simple to get a home of your own.
My point was simply that there are a plethora of places, including my country, which have it worse than americans do. So naturally its a bit hard for me to relate to the problems of someone who has it better than me.
But that is not to say that they dont have problems of their own. Of course they do.
The other was the group which does in fact refuse to help itself.
Because look, im a utilitarian.
I do not believe in free shit solving anything. I believe in opportunity.
You do not give fish to people, you teach them how to fish. Thats how you solve a problem.
My personal opinion is that instead of welfare, the state should provide everyone with opportunity to maintain their own lives. The simplest of which is work. Doesnt matter what the fuck it is, whether its street sweeping or building washing, the state should give people work and pay them for their work.
You do not create a system that encourages dependency and “freeloading”, you actually address and resolve the problem.
Thats my “in an ideal world” bs TED talk.
Now to continue on…the fact of the matter is that we/the universe
travels from order to disorder… and it takes energy to maintain
order in the universe…one of the best examples of the movement
from order to disorder is old age… and in old age, we travel
from order to disorder… old age is the loss of energy, or the
movement from order to disorder… when I was young, back in
the stone age, I could run, in both cross-country and track,
ok times, I could easily do 15 miles a day running, today, as a 67 year old,
not so much… because of multiple surgeries, I can’t run at all today…
(I must admit, I really miss being able to run, it was something I like
doing)
and when we die of old age, it is strictly from the movement of
disorder… too much disorder and the body dies… it’s as simple
as that…
and every aspect of the universe engages in this ongoing battle
between order and disorder…Greek Dionysian festivals are
one attempt to balance the order with the disorder…as is
the holiday of Mardi Gras… balancing order and disorder…
these two holidays show us the reality of the balance between
order and disorder… the fact is that disorder is a part of our lives…
whether we decide to admit it or not…our very life is one long
battle between order and disorder… and within the universe itself,
the daily battle between order and disorder goes on, forever as it
has since the big bang…
the real question comes, what exactly is the balance point between
order and disorder? How much disorder should exist within
human existence? where is the line? and just as important,
who makes that line?
We cannot exist within total order or total disorder…
we must be able to balance out between the two…
so, how exactly are we to work out this balance?
it is pretty clear that by disenfranchising many groups,
gays, trans, minorities, women, we are increasing disorder within
America… we have disenfranchised by taking away rights from
those groups that other groups have… for example, by
disenfranchising trans or gay people from proper medical care,
we are creating disorder…by not allowing gays the same rights
as straight people, we are creating disorder… by removing the
ability to vote from people, we are creating disorder…
My message is that we must have some sort of disorder, but
a limited amount of disorder… think of the Scots that have,
in a disordered way, ‘‘invaded’’ Boston for the World cup…
it is very disorderly, but still it’s done in good, clean fun…
it is view by everyone as a good thing… unless you’re a
MAGA person, in which case it is too much disorder…
and must be stopped… disorder can be and could often
be considered, to be a good thing… human beings function
better within some line between order and disorder…
but Kropotkin, how do we decide where the line between
order and disorder land? that is done on a case by case basis…
there doesn’t seem to be, at least right now, of some law or
rule dictating where the line between order and disorder land…
The search for order is going to fail… the search for total
disorder is going to fail… we have to learn to balance out
these two fundamental aspects of the universe…
Kropotkin
Really? Then why does everything tend towards ordered coherence? There is a battle between order and “disorder”?
What is “disorder”? Or are you just talking about the human lifecycle?
Kropotkin, one man’s entropy is another’s negentropy. If I leave my dishes so long that mould grows on the plates (I don’t, I hasten to add), then is that disorder? Not for the mould it’s not…
Nausamed:
I dont know… is it hard for people to understand that everything is harmful in excess?
Is that really such a high strung and out of reach concept?
This being put in front of 10 year olds is also “change” Kropotkin. Change bought forth by the “woke” you speak of.
Does this look like a good idea to you Kropot?
Would you like even more change? Like for instance legalizing fucking children?
That too would be a change.
Change is good, right?
I am so tired of having to look at a position that is so tone deaf, so fundamentally wrong and misrepresenting everything held within… misrepresents static, dynamic, maga, woke, change, values, virtue, order, stability, society
You made a post one could write a f-ing BOOK just about correcting the basic principles such as how conservativism does not create static structures and neither does nationalism, how “woke” is change not for the benefit of anyone, but just for mentally retarded whims farted out in momentary fashion by leftist ego without regard or safety of anyone.
K: I am not really surprised that you are unable to understand my points…
as your post, as sorry as it is, fails to address a single point I made…
but it does say plenty of your mindset… I speak of order and disorder
and you jump to naked men… I would say that your mind, again such
as it is, is bound by your need to live within static and being inflexible…
I heard something once, that I think describes you…
a mind, like a parachute, only works when it is open…
your mind is closed off to any concepts that lie outside of your very, very
limited mindset…I see order and disorder, and you see naked people…
I had intended to make a very long post in opposition to your post,
but I realized that you lack the capability to understand what I write,
so, I will leave it here…
Kropotkin
Logic works regardless of whether or not a mind is open.
Try that instead of requiring other people to take politicized jumps of faith for the sake of your argument.
But if thats the game you want to play, then the ball can be thrown right back. Try opening your mind a little bit and figuring out how those naked men are a critique of your idea of order.
as naked men don’t do it for me, I am guessing they work
for you… and I say, whatever floats your boat…
Kropotkin
They do it for the kids according to your woke friends tho, so you might want to familiarize yourself with the subject.
.
Kropotokin lacks/has zero compassion.
Well, in the OP liberals were identified with the latter and conservatives with the former. So, if we want balance, it would seem like we need some of both.
At once point you spoke about how the liberals want internal and national diverity, including the diversity of ideas. But not conservative ideas, even though those ideas might lead to stability, even the survival of the country, given that you mentioned dynamic societies don’t last long.
You spoke very positively about ancient Athens. This was a very dynamic society and one you claim led to nearly everything of value we have now. They were also a very conservative society by today’s standards. Patriarchal, only adult males could vote, there were slaves, women were considered minors, foreigners were completely banned from politics and land ownership, could never become citizens, no matter how many generations their family was in Athens and there was widespread legal slavery.
Now in a certain, very restricted sense, they were very liberal for their time. But if we read your OP, it is as if a state could not be both conservative and dynamic. Yet, you use Athens as an example and despite what would considered extreme right reactionary policies, Athens managed to be dynamic.
greenfuse:
You spoke very positively about ancient Athens. This was a very dynamic society and one you claim led to nearly everything of value we have now. They were also a very conservative society by today’s standards. Patriarchal, only adult males could vote, there were slaves, women were considered minors, foreigners were completely banned from politics and land ownership, could never become citizens, no matter how many generations their family was in Athens and there was widespread legal slavery.
K: and therein lies your problem… a quite common problem but a
problem in which you view the past by today’s standards… yes,
the Greeks did have a patriarchal society, and did have slaves
and women were second class citizens, all of that is true…
by today’s standards… but what would the Athenians called it?
Tuesday…that was the milieu they lived in… it wouldn’t have
occurred to them for the society to be something different…
exactly as Spartan Children wouldn’t have thought any different
about being raised into a military state… that was their milieu
or social environment… and exactly as every society/state
has its own social environment… but that doesn’t change what
I am saying… their state was dynamic because of a small
group of individuals were challenging some of the assumptions
that drive the state of Athens… so let us explore this a bit further…
we often hear of people demanding to some return to the past,
to listen to authorities that have become ignored… This call
to realign ourselves with past authorities is a common
conservative theme… for example, the call to return to god
in America is a return to authorities for the rules and path
of human existence… the cry for authorities is a static
call… in other words, those who demand a return to god,
are calling for a return to the past… the past is static…
it doesn’t move or change… it is fixated on the past being
a fixed, set, unmoving state/society… which explains the love
that conservatives have had for the last 200 years for the
Medieval world… and the Medieval world stood for, at least for
conservative, a Hierarchal world, where everyone knew their place
within the state/society and the world was determined…
it was clearly, for over a thousand years, a static place…
very little movement… it was rare for an average person to
go more than 50 miles from where they were born, their entire
life… books and reading barely existed and then only
existed in Monastery’s… it was a rural, unmoving society
and that is what excites the conservatives…
conservatives believe in having authorities hover over us…
be it god, the pope, the police, the state…the authority
of Aristotle over the Middle Ages was quite clear
and even today, the appeal of Aristotle in conservatives
is quite strong… and it is this one trait, appeal to
the authorities, is what drives conservatives…
and the entire point of the Enlightenment… for the entire
point of the Enlightenment was to lessen the effects of
authorities… or as the Enlightenment itself said:
Sapere aude… which literally means ‘‘dare to be wise’’
or ‘‘dare to know’’ which is a rejection of the ancient
path of following authorities… which includes beyond
Aristotle, the church and the pope, and later in the
Enlightenment was turned into a political belief,
which became the American Revolution… a rejection
of the authority of the King of England…
A static state holds to the conservative ideals of authorities,
and hierarchy, and as little changes as possible in the state…
a static society/state where very little changes, if at all…
and that is the state/society that conservatives attempt to
revisit even today…a static, stationary, unmovable state/society…
that is what is called for when a conservative demands a return to
the past…
but what about a dynamic state? what does that look like?
Kropotkin
You don’t need to personalize this.
Sure, but in your schema conservative politics cannot lead to a dynamic society. And yet it did. A society much more reactionary than Republican dreams was nevertheless dynamic. We know that.
Then we could have a conservative society with a small number of people challenging its values and it would be dynamic.
Sure, I’m not doing that, but in a sense you did, however as a liberal lefty. I don’t want to go back to Athens in law or policy. Nor would I want the anti-democratic, elitist Platonic state either.
Well, that would make all liberals and concervatives calling for the static. Most lefties also.
Yes, conservatives can be strange. Though we should confuse romanticism with policy. Conservatives would balk at losing the right to bear arms - for private protection - the right to vote, the meritocracy (being able to succeed based on skills), free enterprise and basically capitalism, and so on. People contradict themselves. What this has to do with what I said, I have no idea.
What you’ve done is pointed out a period of time where it was less dynamic. This doesn’t counter the fact that a time and place where very conservative values were in place a society had extreme dynamism. So, it’s not the politics of the time that lead to dynamism. You can have either conservative politics or liberal politics and have a static state or a dynamic one. And then: is the dynamism a good one? Are the static aspects good? Nazi Germany was extremely dynamic. It just wasn’t a good dynamism, for anyone it turned out.
In your OP sometimes you have statis as good and attribute this to liberals. But earlier you identified the liberals with dynamism and then that was good.
The problem with this is that the current left is very much in support of authorities. It was during Covid. It has little problem with big government. It works well with corporations and supports a larger state than conservatives do. Also, it has authorities, just different ones.
So, what is the balance point between the static and the dynamic? You think that if the state supported liberal policies, liberals would want these to be changed so that things are dynamic? One of the things that Trump ran on and utterly betrayed was an isolationist stance. That got overwhelming support from the right and conservatives. And that aspect of Trump should have gotten support from liberals and the left, but everyone is so much more interested in teams than in values. Trump was also openly against a kind of Nafta treaty with Europe that would have reduced local control of all sorts of things. That also should have beens supported by the left, as they fought against Nafta, but teams again. Are these dynamic changes is it going back in time?
It would be dynamic change all sorts of laws that liberals would fight against changing and good for them on many of those. IOW they would instantly become conservative and fight to maintain the past on voting rights, discrimination laws, right to an attorney, a separate judiciary and so on. Does that mean they live in the past?
It matters what the dynamism is and how it affects things. Not change is good, staying the same is bad. So there is a real sleight of mind here.
Currently corporations and government are moving into nanotech, AI, GM organism at a rapid rate. This is extremely dynamic. Is it good?
I don’t notice the liberals raising much cry for caution here but they are more slow down on these things then liberals. With your broad tools we could say - oh they hate dynamism, they are wrong. When in fact those things all offer extremely rapid dynamism, potentially completely catastrophic dynamism. And transhumanism is not a hearing aid or a wheelchair. To be concerned about transhumanism is not a demand for the end of medical intervention.
I don’t think your (contradictory) oversimplification is helpful.
Is it possible that some of the critique around trans-issues that comes more from but not only from conservatives has some merit? Is it possible that children having the power to decide they will get hormone treatments and even surgery - but are not trusted for a huge range of choices otherwise - might be a problem? Is it possible that transwomen participating in women’s sporting events is problematic? Or is it all binary? All dynamism is good when it is framed as giving rights, when it could be framed in other ways. Is it possible that the books being presented to children are not appropriate for their ages? Is it possible? Can one have a discussion of that, or is the best response to imply the other person is gay, hoping that will bother them? The LGBTQ community has mixed reactions to that kind of rhetorical ploy. Also note that the left appeals to authority on all aspect of this.
Trump is hyperdynamic. He has changed foreign relations, political rhetoric, on what grounds a war is started, what status civil servants have and many more things. Many of these changes have no past precedent. They are not a return to past policies. They are new. But this doesn’t make them good.
a static state, such as Sparta, has no means of challenging
authorities… for the state demanded complete and total control
over the lives of individuals… Which was exactly what
Sparta was…all plans revolved around continuing the military
state that was Sparta… now having made Athens the dynamic
state, and not Sparta, what does that mean?
again, a small group of individuals, one’s we call Philosophers,
challenged the authority of social beliefs…the very act of voting,
that is a rejection of the authority of having a king… recall that
Athens ended the rule of kings roughly around 500 BC or before
the birth of Socrates… that is a direct challenge of that type
of authority… but later Philosophers advocated many different
types of political structure… including some Athenians advocating
the Spartan style of political structure… but that type of advocation
of the political structure wasn’t available to those in Sparta…
there was no criticism of the state in Sparta… that is being static,
so, we can think about static and dynamic in terms of criticism
possible… if there is no criticism allowed, that is a static state,
if there is criticism allowed, then that is a dynamic state…
and that is one reading of what it means to be a static state vs
a dynamic state… the amount of criticism allowed within the state…
and this particular reading is supported by the lack of or limit
of criticism allowed in the state or at other example of authorities,
like criticism of god, religion or Jesus… a state, like the Soviet Union
and modern day Russia, don’t allow criticism of it, and in America,
criticism of the state is a protected right under the American constitution…
but increasingly, IQ45 and his band of criminals, have increasingly
prohibited any criticism of either IQ45 or America… and that drive
is the drive to static and not to dynamic…
other examples of a dynamic state/societies are for example,
the Renaissance, the age of Enlightenment, and America during
the 50’s-70’s… for example, look at what came out of the
that time period… we have various right movements, civil
rights, women’s rights, gay rights… and all of these right
movements were not static in nature, but dynamic in nature…
and every single right that was promoted, was rejected by
the authorities of the times… the promotion of the status quo
is a promotion of the continuation of the static society…
for example, civil rights are a direct attack on the authorities,
in defiance of the authorities… the promotion of civil rights
is part of the dynamic society/state that America has been in
over the last decades… and the MAGA/conservatives are
trying hard, very hard to return America back into the static
nature of bowing down to the authorities…
one way to look at the idea of static and dynamic, is the idea
of the future… what future do you want? one that is a return
to the past, the past of Ronald Raygun of the 50’s that never
actually existed… or even further back into, as MAGA seems
to want, a return to slavery and women being second class citizens…
as I mentioned, a return to the past is static in nature because
there is no path forward, not being open to the possibilities of
tomorrow… and this being open to possibilities is part of
being a dynamic state/society…the conservative/MAGA always
talks about the past, but never the future…and there is
no going home again, thus there is only one path, and that
is forward, toward tomorrow… and that is a dynamic aspect
of our lives… for the future requires us to make our own
decisions about who we are and who we are going to be…
in other words, if we engaged with choices, we are being
dynamic, if we are engaged in being settled or having our
choices made by authorities, that is being static…
or thought of another way, being human is about the choices we have,
being animal means we have limited or no choices in our future…
and choices are dynamic and having no choices is static…
Kropotkin
And Socrates wanted to have Kings. Yes, they would be philosopher kings, but with absolute power, nonetheless. Is that static or dyanmic what he wanted?
So, how do you feel about cancelling? I do remember what it was like when conservatism was the source of the then political correctness - not that it was called that. And that was extremely harsh. But now you can be destroyed for your political beliefs via cancelling from the liberal/Left.
Did you know that Obama was the harshest president when dealing with whistleblowers? The Obama administration prosecuted more national security whistleblowers and leakers under the Espionage Act than all previous U.S. presidential administrations combined.
I mean, there are hundreds of ironies here, like, the 50s also had incredibly powerful unions,- and there are a number of other ironies - and both conservatives and liberals forget that. It’s so much more complicated than you present, and you regularly create an atmosphere of us-them. They are the enemy. Yes, conservatives do this also. I react to them also. If we read your posts there is nothing to the other side. It’s very binary. It’s very us-them. And I don’t see that helping things. I think having more nuance and more respect, and perhaps even inviting some clarification in that interaction with NAUS. You find a new concept. Static/dynamic. And Lo, it proves conservatives are bad.
The people that Epstein could blackmail and had strong ongoing relationships with even after his conviction, they are from across the political spectrum. They all show up in the Trilateral Commission, The Bilderberg Group, and every other non-democratic often secret meeting convention and make decisions. Not just Republicans.
