Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[United Muscovite Nations]

I did, I just didn't comment. It's a dead meme though.

Memes are never dead, as long as they live on in our hearts.

Fair. I just hope Baneposting never dies.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

My family are for the most part are deeply involved with the practices that are Catholicism. I'm also not accusing individual Average Joe Catholics themselves of attempting to protect pedophiles, I'm accusing your church as an organization of doing so. Considering the fact that a Catholic party would be very close to the clergy and quite possibly taking orders from them, it is not far fetched for them to assist in obfuscating criminal investigations. Law enforcement and the government should not have to deal with a conflict of interest when investigating a religious organization, and that is why church and state must remain separate.

I'm not saying all of your religious leaders are bad, but you have enough to cause a problem.

Proof that elements inside the Church hierarchy protected pedos.

You provide no evidence whatsoever that future or current Catholic parties and politicians have been obfusticating investigations on child abuse and covering them up, and then proceeded to slander them all as possible or future pedophile enablers. Do you have no shame? One can support the separation of state or church, or even oppose Catholic political parties without insinuating they're going to cover up pedophilia.

I said they "might," not that they will. I just don't want to take that chance. I have nothing to be ashamed about.

[Kowani]

Oh, this is peak hypocrisy right here.

Nihilism isn't useful as a philosophy because it explicitly has no answers.

Actually, it has the answer-that there are no answers.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

I said they "might," not that they will. I just don't want to take that chance. I have nothing to be ashamed about.

You're not taking any chances. You're using an unlikely event, to the extent of my knowledge hasn't happened even with the existence of numerous Catholic parties across the globe (many of them decades old), to comprehensively vilify Catholic politicians and political parties. If you don't want religious people or parties in politics, surely there's a better reason you can use than "they might cover up pedophilia".

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

Nihilism isn't useful as a philosophy because it explicitly has no answers.

Actually, it has the answer-that there are no answers.

A pitiful and useless philosophy, then

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Nihilism isn't useful as a philosophy because it explicitly has no answers.

Actually, it has the answer-that there are no answers.

Which completely eliminates any reason for you to post.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Actually, it has the answer-that there are no answers.

This is exactly why political nihilists are obnoxious. It's one thing to deny all principles and move on, it's quite another to make it part of your identity and go out of your way to say "no u" constantly.

[Totally Not OEP]

Reminder to always hate Neoliberalism:

Although both Reagan and Carter took steps to protect domestic steel producers from foreign competition, they ruled out much more interventionist and costly schemes that would have transformed the industry. The Carter administration, for example, refused to provide financial support to a group of community leaders in Youngstown, Ohio who were attempting to buy mills that America’s largest steel corporations had abandoned. Convinced that plant shutdowns were inevitable and that the nation’s largest steel corporations needed to tackle their own problems Carter also dismissed a US$10 billion publicly funded modernisation plan that was suggested by a government taskforce.

Adopting a similar hands-off approach, the Reagan administration also refused to bail out the steel industry, allowed two of America’s largest steel makers to declare bankruptcy and rejected calls for further protection from imports.

Unable to count on the government for direct financial support America’s largest steel producers were left with no choice but to resolve their economic woes and competitive problems on their own. Setting about saving the companies that they led, steel executives closed factories that they regarded as uncompetitive or too expensive to modernise, slashed their workforces, and demanded that their remaining workers take wage and benefits cuts.

The massive restructuring campaigns that America’s largest steel producers undertook in the 1980s proved successful, at least from the perspective of the business community. Companies that had spent most of the 1980s struggling survived the deep industrial depression of the late 1970s and early 1980s. Indeed, in 1987 the largest steel producers even reported profits and business analysts started to study the industry’s remarkable rebirth.

Yet, the steel industry’s rejuvenation was not a straightforward story of success. The reality of the US steel industry’s reinvention was that employment and production were slashed dramatically. In total, nearly 300,000 steelworkers lost their jobs between 1976 and 1986. In places like Youngstown, and Gary, Indiana, whole communities were left devastated by plant closures. As such, while the US steel industry did survive the crises of the 1970s and 1980s it did not do so unscathed.

[Jolthig]

Nihilism isn't useful as a philosophy because it explicitly has no answers.

Actually, it has the answer-that there are no answers.

That's quite a contradictory statement.

[Kowani]

Actually, it has the answer-that there are no answers.

A pitiful and useless philosophy, then

Useless? Perhaps, if only in that it sets no guidance for life. Yet in doing so it liberates the self from untrue dogma and ignorance. And in that is it’s value.

Actually, it has the answer-that there are no answers.

Which completely eliminates any reason for you to post.

There also happens to be no reason not to post, and a great many to do so.

Actually, it has the answer-that there are no answers.

This is exactly why political nihilists are obnoxious. It's one thing to deny all principles and move on, it's quite another to make it part of your identity and go out of your way to say "no u" constantly.

Oh. Oh, that’s interesting.

[Nakena]

Actually, it has the answer-that there are no answers.

Which completely eliminates any reason for you to post.

Added this to favorite exchanges/quotes.

Reminder to always hate Neoliberalism:

Although both Reagan and Carter took steps to protect domestic steel producers from foreign competition, they ruled out much more interventionist and costly schemes that would have transformed the industry. The Carter administration, for example, refused to provide financial support to a group of community leaders in Youngstown, Ohio who were attempting to buy mills that America’s largest steel corporations had abandoned. Convinced that plant shutdowns were inevitable and that the nation’s largest steel corporations needed to tackle their own problems Carter also dismissed a US$10 billion publicly funded modernisation plan that was suggested by a government taskforce.

Adopting a similar hands-off approach, the Reagan administration also refused to bail out the steel industry, allowed two of America’s largest steel makers to declare bankruptcy and rejected calls for further protection from imports.

Unable to count on the government for direct financial support America’s largest steel producers were left with no choice but to resolve their economic woes and competitive problems on their own. Setting about saving the companies that they led, steel executives closed factories that they regarded as uncompetitive or too expensive to modernise, slashed their workforces, and demanded that their remaining workers take wage and benefits cuts.

The massive restructuring campaigns that America’s largest steel producers undertook in the 1980s proved successful, at least from the perspective of the business community. Companies that had spent most of the 1980s struggling survived the deep industrial depression of the late 1970s and early 1980s. Indeed, in 1987 the largest steel producers even reported profits and business analysts started to study the industry’s remarkable rebirth.

Yet, the steel industry’s rejuvenation was not a straightforward story of success. The reality of the US steel industry’s reinvention was that employment and production were slashed dramatically. In total, nearly 300,000 steelworkers lost their jobs between 1976 and 1986. In places like Youngstown, and Gary, Indiana, whole communities were left devastated by plant closures. As such, while the US steel industry did survive the crises of the 1970s and 1980s it did not do so unscathed.

Duly noted.

"B-but muh free trade..."

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

A pitiful and useless philosophy, then

Useless? Perhaps, if only in that it sets no guidance for life. Yet in doing so it liberates the self from untrue dogma and ignorance. And in that is it’s value.

Which completely eliminates any reason for you to post.

There also happens to be no reason not to post, and a great many to do so.

This is exactly why political nihilists are obnoxious. It's one thing to deny all principles and move on, it's quite another to make it part of your identity and go out of your way to say "no u" constantly.

Oh. Oh, that’s interesting.

The purpose of Philosophy is to determine what’s valuable and how those values are achieved. Being a nihilist is irrelevant because it tells us nothing about your hermeneutic situation or epistemology. You can say “nothing is ultimately any way”, but that’s not how any of us live, so it’s bullshit, and it’s lazy.

[United Muscovite Nations]

A pitiful and useless philosophy, then

Useless? Perhaps, if only in that it sets no guidance for life. Yet in doing so it liberates the self from untrue dogma and ignorance. And in that is it’s value.

It's not liberating anything? You can do whatever you might want? Okay, so what? If you're right, then we're all in a free for all and might as well just struggle for control to eliminate each other forever. If anything, it turns us from rational creatures into nothing more than savages looking for our next meal.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Oh. Oh, that’s interesting.

No, it's really not. I can't keep track of the number of discussions where you snidely inform us that as a nihilist you don't believe in any principles, ergo any arguments based on principles of immorality, wrongness, badness, etc are a waste of time. It adds nothing to the discussion and begs the question why you got into the discussion in the first place.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

Oh. Oh, that’s interesting.

No, it's really not. I can't keep track of the number of discussions where you snidely inform us that as a nihilist you don't believe in any principles, ergo any arguments based on principles of immorality, wrongness, badness, etc are a waste of time. It adds nothing to the discussion and begs the question why you got into the discussion in the first place.

It’s like arguing with an anarcho-egoist.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

No, it's really not. I can't keep track of the number of discussions where you snidely inform us that as a nihilist you don't believe in any principles, ergo any arguments based on principles of immorality, wrongness, badness, etc are a waste of time. It adds nothing to the discussion and begs the question why you got into the discussion in the first place.

It’s like arguing with an anarcho-egoist.

Well, time to play Devil's Advocate... Kowani isn't an anarchist, if anything his political philosophy is quite the opposite, being a sort of "totalitarian utilitarianism".

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

It’s like arguing with an anarcho-egoist.

Well, time to play Devil's Advocate... Kowani isn't an anarchist, if anything his political philosophy is quite the opposite, being a sort of "totalitarian utilitarianism".

I’m talking about his personal philosophy. “Ya so it’s basically ok if u steal things”

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Well, time to play Devil's Advocate... Kowani isn't an anarchist, if anything his political philosophy is quite the opposite, being a sort of "totalitarian utilitarianism".

Why do you feel the need to consistently argue for or explain Kowani's views? Especially since Sartre was only comparing Kowani to anarcho-egoists, not that he is one.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Well, time to play Devil's Advocate... Kowani isn't an anarchist, if anything his political philosophy is quite the opposite, being a sort of "totalitarian utilitarianism".

Why do you feel the need to consistently argue for or explain Kowani's views? Especially since Sartre was only comparing Kowani to anarcho-egoists, not that he is one.

If I may I'm mildly perturbed by your statement that I argue in favor of Kowani's views, especially since epistemically, metaphysically, and (especially) ethically Kowani and I are thoroughly opposed... although in the realm of aesthetics our viewpoints are eerily similar. Do I make sense, mate?

[Kowani]

Useless? Perhaps, if only in that it sets no guidance for life. Yet in doing so it liberates the self from untrue dogma and ignorance. And in that is it’s value.


There also happens to be no reason not to post, and a great many to do so.


Oh. Oh, that’s interesting.

The purpose of Philosophy is to determine what’s valuable and how those values are achieved. Being a nihilist is irrelevant because it tells us nothing about your hermeneutic situation or epistemology. You can say “nothing is ultimately any way”, but that’s not how any of us live, so it’s bullshit, and it’s lazy.

Hmm. We ascribe different purposes to Philosophy, then.

M

Useless? Perhaps, if only in that it sets no guidance for life. Yet in doing so it liberates the self from untrue dogma and ignorance. And in that is it’s value.

It's not liberating anything? You can do whatever you might want? Okay, so what? If you're right, then we're all in a free for all and might as well just struggle for control to eliminate each other forever. If anything, it turns us from rational creatures into nothing more than savages looking for our next meal.

Nah. It is in our self-interest to not devolve into that.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

If I may I'm mildly perturbed by your statement that I argue in favor of Kowani's views, especially since epistemically, metaphysically, and (especially) ethically Kowani and I are thoroughly opposed... although in the realm of aesthetics our viewpoints are eerily similar. Do I make sense, mate?

No, you don't. If anything it only makes me more confused. Why do you explain and argue for Kowani's views if you strongly oppose them?

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

The purpose of Philosophy is to determine what’s valuable and how those values are achieved. Being a nihilist is irrelevant because it tells us nothing about your hermeneutic situation or epistemology. You can say “nothing is ultimately any way”, but that’s not how any of us live, so it’s bullshit, and it’s lazy.

Hmm. We ascribe different purposes to Philosophy, then.

M.

Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom. I’d love to hear what’s wise about saying there’s no value we can adhere to as individuals or even as family groups.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The purpose of Philosophy is to determine what’s valuable and how those values are achieved. Being a nihilist is irrelevant because it tells us nothing about your hermeneutic situation or epistemology. You can say “nothing is ultimately any way”, but that’s not how any of us live, so it’s bullshit, and it’s lazy.

Hmm. We ascribe different purposes to Philosophy, then.

M

It's not liberating anything? You can do whatever you might want? Okay, so what? If you're right, then we're all in a free for all and might as well just struggle for control to eliminate each other forever. If anything, it turns us from rational creatures into nothing more than savages looking for our next meal.

Nah. It is in our self-interest to not devolve into that.

You're misinterpretting what I mean, I don't mean primitives, I mean savagery in terms of only pursuing our self interests. It produces a problem because everyone's self interest is different and some are conflicting, and in this, nihilism contributes nothing to the discussion. The fundamental question of ethics and political philosophy is "what should we do?" Nihilism can't answer it, so it's useless to the discussion of politics.

[Totally Not OEP]

Duly noted.

"B-but muh free trade..."

It becomes especially rich, given that in 1982 Reagan bailed out the banks during the Savings and Loan Crisis.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

If I may I'm mildly perturbed by your statement that I argue in favor of Kowani's views, especially since epistemically, metaphysically, and (especially) ethically Kowani and I are thoroughly opposed... although in the realm of aesthetics our viewpoints are eerily similar. Do I make sense, mate?

No, you don't. If anything it only makes me more confused. Why do you explain and argue for Kowani's views if you strongly oppose them?

I believe that somewhere you may have misinterpreted either the content or intent of my posts. I explain Kowani's views, yes, but only to save us all from page after page of philosophical faffing about that will ultimately lead nowhere. I've resigned myself to the fact that I can't change Kowani's viewpoint in these matters. None of us can. It's like... I dunno, talking to a brick wall, perhaps? An act of futility; no matter what arguments we present, Kowani will go "no, u" or "I don't want to" (albeit in detail). Does it make any more sense than before, Mr... may I call you Mr. Lang, by the way?