Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[New haven america]

This is quite possibly the worst system ever devised by humanity.

No, why?

The explanation would require a 10000 word essay to even begin to describe why it's a bad system.

[Kowani]

This is quite possibly the worst system ever devised by humanity.

No, why?

The supreme unworkability might be a factor.

[Neko-koku]

This is quite possibly the worst system ever devised by humanity.

This^^^^

How is that a problem? Let Catholics rule over other Catholics using Catholic laws, let Haredi Jews rule over Haredi Jews using the Jewish Law and let hipsters rule over other hipsters using soc lib laws. So theocrats will get their theocracies, SJWs will be able to stamp out social injustice in their millet, separatist feminists will never have to see a man and White Nationalists will live in a white-only millet without ever having to interact with non-whites.

Of course I and others in the STEM nerd millet will run our schools according to science, use science-based medicine in our hospitals and permit speech taboo in most millets.

[Washington Resistance Army]

This^^^^

How is that a problem?

Because it's fucking stupid and in case you forgot the Ottoman Empire is most famous for how wildly inefficient and ass backwards it was and how that brought about its downfall.

[Neko-koku]

How is that a problem?

Because it's fucking stupid and in case you forgot the Ottoman Empire is most famous for how wildly inefficient and ass backwards it was and how that brought about its downfall.

We don't have to exactly copy the Ottoman model. The Dutch "pillar" idea is similar. Catholics, Protestants, Socialists and everyone else pretty much have their separate systems of everything.

[New haven america]

Because it's fucking stupid and in case you forgot the Ottoman Empire is most famous for how wildly inefficient and ass backwards it was and how that brought about its downfall.

We don't have to exactly copy the Ottoman model. The Dutch "pillar" idea is similar. Catholics, Protestants, Socialists and everyone else pretty much have their separate systems of everything.

I think this is an even worse idea than Amin's Democratic Theocracy idea.

[Kowani]

Because it's fucking stupid and in case you forgot the Ottoman Empire is most famous for how wildly inefficient and ass backwards it was and how that brought about its downfall.

We don't have to exactly copy the Ottoman model. The Dutch "pillar" idea is similar. Catholics, Protestants, Socialists and everyone else pretty much have their separate systems of everything.

Looking those up, that’s still radically different from what you propose.

[Inkopolitia]

... That sounds disgustingly authoritarian and it's sickening.

I mean, that's the way the most of the West has viewed sexuality for 1000's of years.

Remember, it took until the mid 2000's for public opinion in the US to believe that gay people should be allowed to exist as everyone else does.

That's kinda sad, to be honest. I just want to have a female partner and be able to walk around in peace without the possibility of some religious extremist or conservative telling me that I shouldn't do that because it's "inmoral". :/

[Bienenhalde]

Because a lot of people view forms of sexuality that's non-monogamous, non-heterosexual, and non-cissexual, as perversions that need to be stamped out and dealt with or else risk the destruction of societal morals and standards.

... That sounds disgustingly authoritarian and it's sickening.

Also a complete mis-characterization of my beliefs, seeing as I have said multiple times about supporting same-sex marriage and I do not have anything against trans folk either.

[Inkopolitia]

... That sounds disgustingly authoritarian and it's sickening.

Also a complete mis-characterization of my beliefs, seeing as I have said multiple times about supporting same-sex marriage and I do not have anything against trans folk either.

New haven america wasn't talking about to you, though. They just limited themselves to say "A lot of people"

[New haven america]

... That sounds disgustingly authoritarian and it's sickening.

Also a complete mis-characterization of my beliefs, seeing as I have said multiple times about supporting same-sex marriage and I do not have anything against trans folk either.

I wasn't attacking you or your beliefs... well, mostly. I was more attacking the idea of "Standard/Normal Sexuality" and how it has been used in the past.

Like, you're saying you're okay with LGBT people, but you're against non-monogamy because...? What reason do you have to be against it if it doesn't intentionally harm anyone and is done by consenting adults?

[Bienenhalde]

Also a complete mis-characterization of my beliefs, seeing as I have said multiple times about supporting same-sex marriage and I do not have anything against trans folk either.

I wasn't attacking you or your beliefs... well, mostly. I was more attacking the idea of "Standard/Normal Sexuality" and how it has been used in the past.

Like, you're saying you're okay with LGBT people, but you're against non-monogamy because...?

It is a hindrance to people forming stable, loving marital relationships.

[Inkopolitia]

I wasn't attacking you or your beliefs... well, mostly. I was more attacking the idea of "Standard/Normal Sexuality" and how it has been used in the past.

Like, you're saying you're okay with LGBT people, but you're against non-monogamy because...?

It is a hindrance to people forming stable, loving marital relationships.

I'm not gonna say the merits of a polygamous or monogamous relationships because frankly it's subjective, but, and what if it "hinders" stable relationships? Does it affect anyone else outside of the polygamous relationship?

[New haven america]

I wasn't attacking you or your beliefs... well, mostly. I was more attacking the idea of "Standard/Normal Sexuality" and how it has been used in the past.

Like, you're saying you're okay with LGBT people, but you're against non-monogamy because...?

It is a hindrance to people forming stable, loving marital relationships.

How?

[Totally Not OEP]

I'm in love with a stripper is my mood right now.

[Salus Maior]

I'm in love with a stripper is my mood right now.

That's not advisable.

[Totally Not OEP]

I'm in love with a stripper is my mood right now.

That's not advisable.

Ain't no laws on the Claw.

[Salus Maior]

It is a hindrance to people forming stable, loving marital relationships.

I'm not gonna say the merits of a polygamous or monogamous relationships because frankly it's subjective, but, and what if it "hinders" stable relationships? Does it affect anyone else outside of the polygamous relationship?

It's not, there's plenty of data out there about what effects the longevity of relationships.

[Luminesa]

I'm in love with a stripper is my mood right now.

Is this why the kids' mom ran off?

[Inkopolitia]

I'm not gonna say the merits of a polygamous or monogamous relationships because frankly it's subjective, but, and what if it "hinders" stable relationships? Does it affect anyone else outside of the polygamous relationship?

It's not, there's plenty of data out there about what effects the longevity of relationships.

Does it affect you, though?

[Neko-koku]

We don't have to exactly copy the Ottoman model. The Dutch "pillar" idea is similar. Catholics, Protestants, Socialists and everyone else pretty much have their separate systems of everything.

Looking those up, that’s still radically different from what you propose.

Yes. I do propose almost full automony of millets (or you can call them "communities"). The only job of the state is preventing cross-millet aggression.

[Luminesa]

It's not, there's plenty of data out there about what effects the longevity of relationships.

Does it affect you, though?

If things don't affect you personally, does that suddenly mean they're not important in the larger scheme of things?

[Neko-koku]

Does it affect you, though?

If things don't affect you personally, does that suddenly mean they're not important in the larger scheme of things?

You and she should be in separate millets. Anything that happens in another millet with the exception of cross-millet aggression is none of your business.

[New haven america]

I'm not gonna say the merits of a polygamous or monogamous relationships because frankly it's subjective, but, and what if it "hinders" stable relationships? Does it affect anyone else outside of the polygamous relationship?

It's not, there's plenty of data out there about what effects the longevity of relationships.

Are you planning on becoming polyamorous?

[Inkopolitia]

Does it affect you, though?

If things don't affect you personally, does that suddenly mean they're not important in the larger scheme of things?

I am pretty sure that if we assume that polyamorous relationships DO result in shorter relationships (When it's a case-to-case thing), I am preeetty sure people breaking up would end up affecting you, or Bob that's down the street, or anyone, for that matter.