Why are there so many left-wingers on NSG?

[The Nuclear Fist]

The term "liberal fascism" struck a cord with me, sounds interesting

It's because 'liberal fascism' isn't a real thing, nor does it make any sense to the people who aren't ancaps and who don't share their own little vocabulary.

[Kilavesh]

What's this about "Liberal Fascism"? What kind of "Liberal" do you mean? Liberal as in for Libertarian? Or Liberal as in mild leftist? Because I don't think either can be part of Fascism.

[The Nuclear Fist]

What's this about "Liberal Fascism"? What kind of "Liberal" do you mean? Liberal as in for Libertarian? Or Liberal as in mild leftist? Because I don't think either can be part of Fascism.

Neither can, it's just a buzz term.

[North Calaveras]

What's this about "Liberal Fascism"? What kind of "Liberal" do you mean? Liberal as in for Libertarian? Or Liberal as in mild leftist? Because I don't think either can be part of Fascism.

I said I believe in nationalism, pro-capitalism, agressive foreign policy, equal rights, individual liberty and pro-military

[Not Safe For Work]

And porn, apparently.

But you're missing the point. Jesus associated with the whores and the publicans. He said to be selfless, to eschew materialism, to empathize with the forlorn, and to sacrifice yourself for the good of others. He tolerated others, he kept himself from committing their sins, but he tolerated them committing their sins. Indeed, he categorically refused to judge them. That was the line in the sand, so to speak, that he drew.

What you preach, is the exact opposite. Your politics are anti-Christ.

Tell me, what is necessary to be an actual Christian and to go to Heaven?

Irrelevant.

Read through your Bible and find me the bit where Jesus says something like "hey, do the absolute bare minimum. Ignore most of what I've told you, and see if you can't just scrape by on a technicality, because what I really love, man - is when people don't do the things I would have them do, and try to rules-lawyer their way through".

I showed you the sorts of things Jesus called on you to do, if you are a Christian. Your politics are absolutely contrary to what he asked you to do. Your argument isn't with me - it's with him.

[The Nuclear Fist]

I said I believe in nationalism, pro-capitalism, agressive foreign policy, equal rights, individual liberty and pro-military

Define 'aggressive foreign policy' for us, as well as 'pro-military'.

[North Calaveras]

I said I believe in nationalism, pro-capitalism, agressive foreign policy, equal rights, individual liberty and pro-military

Define 'aggressive foreign policy' for us, as well as 'pro-military'.

i think i stated it before, competitive in trade and arms, as for pro-military that would mean support for the military as well as funds going to them.

[Kilavesh]

What's this about "Liberal Fascism"? What kind of "Liberal" do you mean? Liberal as in for Libertarian? Or Liberal as in mild leftist? Because I don't think either can be part of Fascism.

I said I believe in nationalism, pro-capitalism, agressive foreign policy, equal rights, individual liberty and pro-military

Huh, well, I'm no political scientist, but I'd call you an imperialist capitalist.

[Not Safe For Work]

...and since you support giving carte-blanche handouts to those people, they'd be spending their days in leisure...but the service sector will be mostly unaffected. If machines can take over almost ALL jobs then...I might start agreeing. But even then, large scales of unemployment can be prevented by decreasing birth rates and population...

...Which means that the decrease in fertility rate in developed countries is good and rightful...

...Who said people won't have income, if there still are those service jobs? That being said- population should be decreased- too many people could also cause high unemployment...

I've bunched these three responses together, out of their normal order.

You keep saying things like 'population should be decreased'.

How exactly are you going to make that happen?

...Again, the structural unemployment that I've talked about. How about more researchers to improve the machines? How about more people required to maintain them? How about more scientists required?

The researchers and maintenance techs are a fraction of the population. They are a tiny number compared to the number of people automation replaces.

They get jobs from the service sector. Basically, they both provide and consume leisure.

Doesn't that seem ridiculously circular to you? Doesn't that seem like we're faking a demand just to create a supply, to funnel resources to the people that need it?

Wouldn't it be easier to just give them resources?

Personally, I find it insulting that you even consider me a libertarian.

I don't think I claimed that. That was more, I think, a comment on the general trend in the US, and specifically to the rise of Randism.

You really don't think I realize that? You really don't think that I don't know that the top 1% control almost 40% of the wealth? Do you really think that I haven't taken that closer look at the harsh realities of American politics? But how are you going to solve the problem? The future will even contain even more plutocracy, if you're right

Actually, if I'm right, it would create a meritocracy, but plutocracy is a possible alternate route. But then - as I said - plutocracy is what we've already got.

...which you may very well be...but what do you want to do to take care of it?

What is your ideology anyways? What do you support anyways?

My ideology is actually somewhat irrelevant - because I''m not talking about what I believe should happen - I'm talking about what I see as an inevitable aspect of our future - the rise of automation (I expect our energy creation to break it's strict limitations soon, also - which will exacerbate the situation) - and how it's going to massively displace workers.

What I'm really talking about is asking the QUESTION of how we're going to meet this situation head-on. Because our solution to it so far has been to say we think people need to get jobs - even if there are no jobs, and any jobs we create would be wasteful and just pointless busy-work.

We're really going to have to change our mindset in the next few years. We really need to change it now.

And I'm asking 'how'? I'm asking 'what's our new mindset'?

I'm asking those questions - I don't claim to have the answers.

[Aethyopea]

The term "liberal fascism" struck a cord with me, sounds interesting

It's because 'liberal fascism' isn't a real thing, nor does it make any sense to the people who aren't ancaps and who don't share their own little vocabulary.

It's not just ancaps. I think the term was first invented by the American-style conservative Jonah Goldberg (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jonah_Goldberg)

[Zaras]

Being a former libertarian myself (I HIGHLY regret it now), I can see why. The right thinks they are for equality of opportunity and that unequal results, no matter how extreme, are fine. On principle, I actually agree with that- those who work harder, are more innovative, and the more productive to society you are, the more money you deserve. However, in practice, too great of inequality can impede social mobility and opportunity for those left out, and those are the qualities that I look for in a good society. I am highly against everyone being equal or even close to equal in income (so I'm no socialist or even social democrat)- in fact, since not everyone is born equal in abilities, this won't work and is counterproductive. However, if everyone is given the equal OPPORTUNITY to be better than what they were before, I am fine with that. This does involve some wealth distribution and some levels of welfare, but as I've said before, simply giving benefits is a bad idea since it doesn't do anything in bettering the situation of the disadvantaged in the long term. They need access to education, healthcare, etc. in addition to benefits (which shouldn't even be the main focus of welfare) and I do believe that left is willing to provide for those things (in response to your earlier assumptions about me). I'm just not as far left as most of you, because I've seen how being too compassionate to everyone can backfire. That's also why I don't quite believe the Marxist adage "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his need" because in a Marxist utopia there would be no government to prevent that abuse of the system by a few to take more for themselves.

Thanks for the explanation, Reasonable. At least I landed on one that doesn't involve insinuating that people on the right-wing don't care about other people... which is really the conclusion you can draw when you look at their policies...

but free markets don't know all, and government has to be there to regulate and improve the market, and provide for those who are willing to contribute for the system ample opportunity to and take care of their needs while they are struggling.

That's the most reasonable position to take on the economy.

The term "liberal fascism" struck a cord with me, sounds interesting

It's because 'liberal fascism' isn't a real thing, nor does it make any sense to the people who aren't ancaps and who don't share their own little vocabulary.

If you see somebody honestly using the term "liberal fascism", you know right away that they are bugfuck, brain-falling-out-one-ear, IT BURNS stupid.

It's because 'liberal fascism' isn't a real thing, nor does it make any sense to the people who aren't ancaps and who don't share their own little vocabulary.

It's not just ancaps. I think the term was first invented by the American-style conservative Jonah Goldberg (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jonah_Goldberg)

Who, unsurprisingly, is a complete fucking moron who only got his job because of nepotism.

[North Calaveras]

Being a former libertarian myself (I HIGHLY regret it now), I can see why. The right thinks they are for equality of opportunity and that unequal results, no matter how extreme, are fine. On principle, I actually agree with that- those who work harder, are more innovative, and the more productive to society you are, the more money you deserve. However, in practice, too great of inequality can impede social mobility and opportunity for those left out, and those are the qualities that I look for in a good society. I am highly against everyone being equal or even close to equal in income (so I'm no socialist or even social democrat)- in fact, since not everyone is born equal in abilities, this won't work and is counterproductive. However, if everyone is given the equal OPPORTUNITY to be better than what they were before, I am fine with that. This does involve some wealth distribution and some levels of welfare, but as I've said before, simply giving benefits is a bad idea since it doesn't do anything in bettering the situation of the disadvantaged in the long term. They need access to education, healthcare, etc. in addition to benefits (which shouldn't even be the main focus of welfare) and I do believe that left is willing to provide for those things (in response to your earlier assumptions about me). I'm just not as far left as most of you, because I've seen how being too compassionate to everyone can backfire. That's also why I don't quite believe the Marxist adage "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his need" because in a Marxist utopia there would be no government to prevent that abuse of the system by a few to take more for themselves.

Thanks for the explanation, Reasonable. At least I landed on one that doesn't involve insinuating that people on the right-wing don't care about other people... which is really the conclusion you can draw when you look at their policies...

but free markets don't know all, and government has to be there to regulate and improve the market, and provide for those who are willing to contribute for the system ample opportunity to and take care of their needs while they are struggling.

That's the most reasonable position to take on the economy.

It's because 'liberal fascism' isn't a real thing, nor does it make any sense to the people who aren't ancaps and who don't share their own little vocabulary.

If you see somebody honestly using the term "liberal fascism", you know right away that they are bugfuck, brain-falling-out-one-ear, IT BURNS stupid.

It's not just ancaps. I think the term was first invented by the American-style conservative Jonah Goldberg (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jonah_Goldberg)

Who, unsurprisingly, is a complete fucking moron who only got his job because of nepotism.

Why are you calling me stupid?

[Mussoliniopoli]

NSG is also full of fascists, nazis, pedophiles, reaganites, and moderators more than you see in the real world at least. The internet and NSG attracts all kinds of strange.

[New Rogernomics]

NSG is also full of fascists, nazis, pedophiles, reaganites, and moderators more than you see in the real world at least. The internet and NSG attracts all kinds of strange.

Not any I know of. If you find any, you should report what posts determine them pedophiles to the mods.

[Mussoliniopoli]

NSG is also full of fascists, nazis, pedophiles, reaganites, and moderators more than you see in the real world at least. The internet and NSG attracts all kinds of strange.

Not any I know of. If you find any, you should report what posts determine them pedophiles to the mods.

The Mods are the Pedophiles...the things they do in those pews and confessionals.

[Tagmatium]

NSG is also full of fascists, nazis, pedophiles, reaganites, and moderators more than you see in the real world at least. The internet and NSG attracts all kinds of strange.

Not any I know of. If you find any, you should report what posts determine them pedophiles to the mods.

We have had people who have admitted to being paedophiles before.

Well, at least said they were.

[Mussoliniopoli]

Not any I know of. If you find any, you should report what posts determine them pedophiles to the mods.

We have had people who have admitted to being paedophiles before.

Well, at least said they were.

Indeed, we had a spout year or two ago? With a bunch of weird NAMBLA style rantings. Whether serious or not I haven't a clue.

[Capul VI]

Define 'aggressive foreign policy' for us, as well as 'pro-military'.

i think i stated it before, competitive in trade and arms, as for pro-military that would mean support for the military as well as funds going to them.

Hey semper fi man.

[Zaras]

Why are you calling me stupid?

Seriously, Cala, where did I call you specifically stupid?

I wasn't calling you stupid. You didn't use that phrase in a serious context, or a context that'd lead me to believe you actually believe it exists.

Honestly now, when I call people stupid for using certain shibboleth phrases, I have other people in mind, not NSG'ers.

[North Calaveras]

i think i stated it before, competitive in trade and arms, as for pro-military that would mean support for the military as well as funds going to them.

Hey semper fi man.

Technically in my case It will be "This well defend" but yeah

[North Calaveras]

Why are you calling me stupid?

Seriously, Cala, where did I call you specifically stupid?

I wasn't calling you stupid. You didn't use that phrase in a serious context, or a context that'd lead me to believe you actually believe it exists.

Honestly now, when I call people stupid for using certain shibboleth phrases, I have other people in mind, not NSG'ers.

For a second I legitamently thought liberal fascism could exist. I personally don't see why it can't exist, why couldnt a fascist society exist without rascism/homophobia etc etc?

[Tagmatium]

We have had people who have admitted to being paedophiles before.

Well, at least said they were.

Indeed, we had a spout year or two ago? With a bunch of weird NAMBLA style rantings. Whether serious or not I haven't a clue.

Yeah...

I remember one poster saying that he knew what he was, said he would keep away from children and never have kids of his own.

I was never a part of those threads, but I occasionally looked in out of a morbid curiosity.

But, then, as you say, it does depend on whether they were taking the piss or not.

[New Rogernomics]

Not any I know of. If you find any, you should report what posts determine them pedophiles to the mods.

We have had people who have admitted to being paedophiles before.

Well, at least said they were.

Fortunately I have never met any of them here then.

[Capul VI]

Hey semper fi man.

Technically in my case It will be "This well defend" but yeah

Then I guess my statement will be more for me, but thanks for the support. YUT!

[Tagmatium]

We have had people who have admitted to being paedophiles before.

Well, at least said they were.

Fortunately I have never met any of them here then.

I think I can remember the names, but I won't say 'em, as I can't remember if it was them or not.

We seem to have occasionally very odd posters. Like, more so than usual.