American Politics: The Speaker's Cornered

[Khurkhogur]

Sure. Those states are also backwaters and are in the absolute minority population-wise. Meanwhile, even in the Russian metropole gays are treated with distaste to this day.
And this isn't an argument about homosexuality, it's an argument about progress vs. conservatism in socialist and capitalist societies. Let's focus on the broader question.

Do you think Tucker Carlson is a socialist? Do you think trump's base is socialist? Because you claiming that american conservatism was leaning towards socialism is what STARTED this argument.

I think Tucker Carlson's rhetoric depicts a departure from free market capitalism into the welfare national-capitalism of the 30s-60s, which is much more like socialism than free market capitalism is.
His debate with Ben Shapiro on the purpose of the economy says it all.
And I imagine the majority of the conservative base in this country agrees with Tucker's rhetoric on the subject. He was the most-watched anchor on Fox by a mile.

[Pizza Friday Forever91]

Do you think Tucker Carlson is a socialist? Do you think trump's base is socialist? Because you claiming that american conservatism was leaning towards socialism is what STARTED this argument.

I think Tucker Carlson's rhetoric depicts a departure from free market capitalism into the welfare national-capitalism of the 30s-60s, which is much more like socialism than free market capitalism is.
His debate with Ben Shapiro on the purpose of the economy says it all.

I don't think Tucker fucking Carlson supports the new deal or social security.

[Khurkhogur]

I think Tucker Carlson's rhetoric depicts a departure from free market capitalism into the welfare national-capitalism of the 30s-60s, which is much more like socialism than free market capitalism is.
His debate with Ben Shapiro on the purpose of the economy says it all.

I don't think Tucker fucking Carlson supports the new deal or social security.

Regardless of what he personally believes, it's basically what he says he believes.

[San Lumen]

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2023/05/2 ... 0he%20says.

Cleveland Heights Mayor Khalil Seren issued an executive order to promote "No-Mow May," to let grass grow and help pollinators. "What we've created culturally is this weird monocultured grass lawn that provides very little with the exception of the aesthetic sensibility that we have," he says. "Biodiversity is something that is important for the survival of all species."

[Umeria]

You're moving the goalposts here. First it was socialism and personal freedom are naturally opposed to each other, now it's socialism with personal freedom would collapse. Those are two very different statements. Like, plenty of capitalists argue that any form of socialism is doomed to failure, does that mean that there's no such thing as socialism in their conception of things? Of course not.
Also, why are you conflating all forms of personal expression with refusing to work?

Yes, clearly I'm shifting the goalposts. It doesn't logically follow that if two things are naturally opposed, one hinders the other. That's absurd. It's me shifting goalposts. You're just grasping at straws to make me look bad because you haven't thought of a response. I don't know what you're going on about with capitalists claiming socialism can't work or whatever, that's completely tangential and has nothing to do with my argument.
And on the last point, it's because I hate working.

It logically follows that if two things are naturally opposed, one hinders the other. It does not logically follow that if one thing hinders the other, then the two things are naturally opposed. Do you get it now?

Lol, talk about being tangential. What does you hating working have anything to do with conflating all forms of personal expression with refusing to work?

[Bienenhalde]

It's not, I agree with you on that. But still, I maintain that Cuba is a more conservative society than the US for reasons I just laid out. Basically, politics does not dominate public life in Cuba, at least not to the same extent as it does in the US.

I don't think a very conservative society would legalize gay marriage via Referendum, and if you want a look at a very conservative society you have Russia, which is actively making life worse for LGBT people.

The fact the Russians are anti-LGBT does not necessarily mean they are very conservative. Russian society and culture has changed drastically since the time of the Tsars, and I don't necessarily get the sense that there is a meaningful movement to try to undo those radical changes.

[Bienenhalde]

Grinding government to a halt is not things working as they should. As I've said before why not write into their platform and campaign on elect us and the majority won't be able to get anything passed because the evil people in the Valley outnumber us?

Yes it is. That is exactly what a filibuster is. For the same reason you would not write on your platform that you support the Thanos snap.

So they want to make a terrible decision that most people hate and lying to the voters so they can get elected anyway? That doesn't sound like a very convincing defense of their actions.

[Khurkhogur]

Yes, clearly I'm shifting the goalposts. It doesn't logically follow that if two things are naturally opposed, one hinders the other. That's absurd. It's me shifting goalposts. You're just grasping at straws to make me look bad because you haven't thought of a response. I don't know what you're going on about with capitalists claiming socialism can't work or whatever, that's completely tangential and has nothing to do with my argument.
And on the last point, it's because I hate working.

It logically follows that if two things are naturally opposed, one hinders the other. It does not logically follow that if one thing hinders the other, then the two things are naturally opposed. Do you get it now?
Lol, talk about being tangential. What does you hating working have anything to do with conflating all forms of personal expression with refusing to work?

Except I was saying that personal freedom would always undermine socialism. Hence "naturally opposed," Because it's unconditional. Do you get it now?
And the other guy put the personal freedom vs. socialism situation much better than I could do. I was being a little facetious with the "I hate work" (which I do) because you were annoying me.

Re: Conflation of personal expression with refusing to work
I am not the person to whom you are replying, but refusing to work, take a bath, neither cut nor groom one's hair; and live off of love, hope, peace, joy, gasoline fumes and the charity of others in a VW minibus is the best form of personal expression when sticking it to the man -- especially if the man is a stateless state that expects everyone to work according to their abilities but can only receive from that stateless state merely what that stateless state deems that someone needs. The stateless state gets beleaguered, and the vanguard testy/cross/homicidal when their non-serf serfs that actually can work don't make quota (especially because they refuse to do so as part of their self-expression) as it disrupts all of society. When the man being stuck are free and open markets of free and self-interested individuals following (at the very least) the non-aggression principle it harms nobody. The resale value of the VW minibus is destroyed but that is a thing (not a VW Thing but a thing thing) and not a person.

But let me add to this. When a government provides its people with all manner of social support and fulfills their fundamental needs, there is an incentive to not work or contribute to society. Therefore, a socialist society needs discipline and standards to maintain itself, unlike a capitalist society.

[Umeria]

It logically follows that if two things are naturally opposed, one hinders the other. It does not logically follow that if one thing hinders the other, then the two things are naturally opposed. Do you get it now?
Lol, talk about being tangential. What does you hating working have anything to do with conflating all forms of personal expression with refusing to work?

Except I was saying that personal freedom would always undermine socialism. Hence "naturally opposed," Because it's unconditional. Do you get it now?
And the other guy put the personal freedom vs. socialism situation much better than I could do. I was being a little facetious with the "I hate work" (which I do) because you were annoying me.

Re: Conflation of personal expression with refusing to work
I am not the person to whom you are replying, but refusing to work, take a bath, neither cut nor groom one's hair; and live off of love, hope, peace, joy, gasoline fumes and the charity of others in a VW minibus is the best form of personal expression when sticking it to the man -- especially if the man is a stateless state that expects everyone to work according to their abilities but can only receive from that stateless state merely what that stateless state deems that someone needs. The stateless state gets beleaguered, and the vanguard testy/cross/homicidal when their non-serf serfs that actually can work don't make quota (especially because they refuse to do so as part of their self-expression) as it disrupts all of society. When the man being stuck are free and open markets of free and self-interested individuals following (at the very least) the non-aggression principle it harms nobody. The resale value of the VW minibus is destroyed but that is a thing (not a VW Thing but a thing thing) and not a person.

But let me add to this. When a government provides its people with all manner of social support and fulfills their fundamental needs, there is an incentive to not work or contribute to society. Therefore, a socialist society needs discipline and standards to maintain itself, unlike a capitalist society.

Socialists don't agree with you. They think that the incentive structures in a socialist society will cause people to contribute of their own accord, with no need to force it. The idea that it requires a restriction on personal freedom is something you made up, with no bearing on the actual ideology. To go back to what you somehow think is a tangent, people also conceptualize socialism as failing whenever humans are involved, but that doesn't mean that socialism requires the extermination of all humans.

Narland gave one example of a form of personal expression that involves refusing to work. That doesn't answer the question, which is why all nonstandard forms of personal expression are anti-work.

[Khurkhogur]

Except I was saying that personal freedom would always undermine socialism. Hence "naturally opposed," Because it's unconditional. Do you get it now?
And the other guy put the personal freedom vs. socialism situation much better than I could do. I was being a little facetious with the "I hate work" (which I do) because you were annoying me.
But let me add to this. When a government provides its people with all manner of social support and fulfills their fundamental needs, there is an incentive to not work or contribute to society. Therefore, a socialist society needs discipline and standards to maintain itself, unlike a capitalist society.

Socialists don't agree with you. They think that the incentive structures in a socialist society will cause people to contribute of their own accord, with no need to force it. The idea that it requires a restriction on personal freedom is something you made up, with no bearing on the actual ideology. To go back to what you somehow think is a tangent, people also conceptualize socialism as failing whenever humans are involved, but that doesn't mean that socialism requires the extermination of all humans.
Narland gave one example of a form of personal expression that involves refusing to work. That doesn't answer the question, which is why all nonstandard forms of personal expression are anti-work.

Yeah, well socialists are fucking wrong aren't they. Incentives work as they're characterized by liberal thinkers. If laziness is punished and labor is rewarded, people will be incentivized to work. If not, then labor has to be induced by disincentives and upbringing. Marxist claims that everyone will see the light and build socialism/communism of their own accord are one of the major weak points of the theory, because that is not grounded in reality in the slightest.
Also I've never said that socialism will always fail because of human faults. I said socialism fails when people are allowed to do as they will. And the specific reason socialist countries failed in the 20th century is precisely because they were conservative and progressive forces wore down their insulated economies and cultures.

[Umeria]

Socialists don't agree with you. They think that the incentive structures in a socialist society will cause people to contribute of their own accord, with no need to force it. The idea that it requires a restriction on personal freedom is something you made up, with no bearing on the actual ideology. To go back to what you somehow think is a tangent, people also conceptualize socialism as failing whenever humans are involved, but that doesn't mean that socialism requires the extermination of all humans.
Narland gave one example of a form of personal expression that involves refusing to work. That doesn't answer the question, which is why all nonstandard forms of personal expression are anti-work.

Yeah, well socialists are fucking wrong aren't they. Incentives work as they're characterized by liberal thinkers. If laziness is punished and labor is rewarded, people will be incentivized to work. If not, then labor has to be induced by disincentives and upbringing. Marxist claims that everyone will see the light and build socialism/communism of their own accord are one of the major weak points of the theory, because that is not grounded in reality in the slightest.
Also I've never said that socialism will always fail because of human faults. I said socialism fails when people are allowed to do as they will. And the specific reason socialist countries failed in the 20th century is precisely because they were conservative and progressive forces wore down their insulated economies and cultures.

So you admit that restriction of personal freedom isn't part of the theory.

[Khurkhogur]

Yeah, well socialists are fucking wrong aren't they. Incentives work as they're characterized by liberal thinkers. If laziness is punished and labor is rewarded, people will be incentivized to work. If not, then labor has to be induced by disincentives and upbringing. Marxist claims that everyone will see the light and build socialism/communism of their own accord are one of the major weak points of the theory, because that is not grounded in reality in the slightest.
Also I've never said that socialism will always fail because of human faults. I said socialism fails when people are allowed to do as they will. And the specific reason socialist countries failed in the 20th century is precisely because they were conservative and progressive forces wore down their insulated economies and cultures.

So you admit that restriction of personal freedom isn't part of the theory.

Is that what you thought I was arguing?? I was never discussing theory dude. I only care about practice, and socialism in practice cannot work without the restriction of personal freedom.

[Umeria]

So you admit that restriction of personal freedom isn't part of the theory.

Is that what you thought I was arguing?? I was never discussing theory dude. I only care about practice, and socialism in practice cannot work without the restriction of personal freedom.

You said:

The logic of socialism totally breaks down if one part of society works to uphold the system while another part are allowed to live however they see fit.

Pretty clearly referring to socialism as a theoretical concept.

[Khurkhogur]

Is that what you thought I was arguing?? I was never discussing theory dude. I only care about practice, and socialism in practice cannot work without the restriction of personal freedom.

You said:

The logic of socialism totally breaks down if one part of society works to uphold the system while another part are allowed to live however they see fit.

Pretty clearly referring to socialism as a theoretical concept.

No, I wasn't. Don't tell me what I was trying to say. The "logic of socialism" refers to the functioning of the system and how/whether it makes sense, which is a practical matter.

[Umeria]

No, I wasn't. Don't tell me what I was trying to say. The "logic of socialism" refers to the functioning of the system and how/whether it makes sense, which is a practical matter.

Whether something "makes sense" is a completely abstract concept.

[Khurkhogur]

No, I wasn't. Don't tell me what I was trying to say. The "logic of socialism" refers to the functioning of the system and how/whether it makes sense, which is a practical matter.

Whether something "makes sense" is a completely abstract concept.

Ok buddy.

[Umeria]

Whether something "makes sense" is a completely abstract concept.

Ok buddy.

"It just naturally makes sense for socialism and conservatism to align themselves!"

After being shown how that's nonsense: "Well, what I meant is that I can't conceptualize socialism working if it doesn't clamp down on personal freedoms, even the ones that don't have anything to do with work. Because otherwise no one would work."

[Khurkhogur]

Ok buddy.

"It just naturally makes sense for socialism and conservatism to align themselves!"
After being shown how that's nonsense: "Well, what I meant is that I can't conceptualize socialism working if it doesn't clamp down on personal freedoms, even the ones that don't have anything to do with work. Because otherwise no one would work."

You didn't demonstrate that anything I said was wrong, you just responded to the stuff about incentives with references to Marxist theory, which only demonstrates that you're committed to some dogma. The fact is, when people are allowed to live well without working, a large number of them will choose not to work. You haven't demonstrated how socialism would handle that issue, and neither does Marxist theory.

[Umeria]

"It just naturally makes sense for socialism and conservatism to align themselves!"
After being shown how that's nonsense: "Well, what I meant is that I can't conceptualize socialism working if it doesn't clamp down on personal freedoms, even the ones that don't have anything to do with work. Because otherwise no one would work."

Except you never responded to the stuff about incentives except with references to Marxist theory, which doesn't really demonstrate anything except that you're committed to some dogma. The fact is, when people are allowed to live well without working, a large number of them will choose not to work. You haven't demonstrated how socialism would handle that issue, and neither does Marxist theory.

How do you get from "Marxism doesn't explain how people will voluntarily work" to "socialism has to restrict personal freedoms in order to get people to work". Not working is only one form of personal expression, there are plenty of others that have nothing to do with work.

[Shrillland]

Two more measures joining the Plaza today:

Texas: The sixth amendment would ban wealth or net worth taxes in Texas.

The seventh amendment would allow partial(no less than 50%) or total property tax exemptions for child care facilities.

[Khurkhogur]

Except you never responded to the stuff about incentives except with references to Marxist theory, which doesn't really demonstrate anything except that you're committed to some dogma. The fact is, when people are allowed to live well without working, a large number of them will choose not to work. You haven't demonstrated how socialism would handle that issue, and neither does Marxist theory.

How do you get from "Marxism doesn't explain how people will voluntarily work" to "socialism has to restrict personal freedoms in order to get people to work". Not working is only one form of personal expression, there are plenty of others that have nothing to do with work.

Narland and I already specifically explained how refusal to work would specifically pose a problem for a socialist system. But I also brought up contribution to society, which implies a much wider range of issues. When people have personal freedom, they are free to act in ways that undermine the state/society's authority. In a society where public institutions are responsible for all aspects of public life, that would be debilitating. You can't shoulder all the responsibilities while your authority is regularly questioned and weakened.

[Neutraligon]

Two more measures joining the Plaza today:

Texas: The sixth amendment would ban wealth or net worth taxes in Texas.

The seventh amendment would allow partial(no less than 50%) or total property tax exemptions for child care facilities.

NO to the former, what is the reason for opposition t the latter? What counts as a child care facility?

[Shrillland]

Two more measures joining the Plaza today:

Texas: The sixth amendment would ban wealth or net worth taxes in Texas.

The seventh amendment would allow partial(no less than 50%) or total property tax exemptions for child care facilities.

NO to the former, what is the reason for opposition t the latter? What counts as a child care facility?

Up to the legislature to decide:

Section 1-r. The governing body of a county or municipality may exempt from ad valorem taxation all or part of the appraised value of real property used to operate a child-care facility. The governing body may adopt the exemption as a percentage of the appraised value of the real property. The percentage specified by the governing body may not be less than 50 percent. The legislature by general law may define "child-care facility" for purposes of this section and may provide additional eligibility requirements for the exemption authorized by this section.

[Umeria]

How do you get from "Marxism doesn't explain how people will voluntarily work" to "socialism has to restrict personal freedoms in order to get people to work". Not working is only one form of personal expression, there are plenty of others that have nothing to do with work.

Narland and I already specifically explained how refusal to work would specifically pose a problem for a socialist system. But I also brought up contribution to society, which implies a much wider range of issues. When people have personal freedom, they are free to act in ways that undermine the state/society's authority. In a society where public institutions are responsible for all aspects of public life, that would be debilitating. You can't shoulder all the responsibilities while your authority is regularly questioned and weakened.

How does being gay, for example, undermine the state's authority

[Khurkhogur]

Narland and I already specifically explained how refusal to work would specifically pose a problem for a socialist system. But I also brought up contribution to society, which implies a much wider range of issues. When people have personal freedom, they are free to act in ways that undermine the state/society's authority. In a society where public institutions are responsible for all aspects of public life, that would be debilitating. You can't shoulder all the responsibilities while your authority is regularly questioned and weakened.

How does being gay, for example, undermine the state's authority

Exactly. In 1200, when states were still basically just revenue extraction organizations with armies, nobody cared if commoners were gay (though it was taken more seriously when it came to the nobility). With progress came the idea that people's personal lives should be governed, and that's when being gay became a threat to the state's authority. Because now the state's authority extended itself to how you live your personal life. Legalizing gay marriage is the next step of that progress, because by legalizing it, the state becomes responsible for homosexuality as well.
Homosexuality only ever turned into an identity when the state decided to categorize and govern people based on personal identity. I would say that in the eastern bloc, homosexuality was in many cases not even considered as a separate identity.