Lefties are psychos. [Archive]

Silverhandorder

03-15-2010, 02:25 AM

Well the bomb them all to hell right I don't like either.

Speaking of which another interesting headline.

The TSA, when confronted by CAIR in this regard, immediately capitulated, thus giving in in the face of yet another Islamic threat. Simultaneously, the TSA agreed to instruct its security staff, in enforcing the same tortuous security measures for everyone but Muslims, to ‘pat down’ Muslim men and women, with the proviso, of course, that only same gender ‘pat downs’ would be permitted for our Muslim brethren.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35806

Wasn't the point for us to screen Muslims and everyone else was just an excuse not to make them feel bad? So WTF now everyone has to get screened EXCEPT them? Yeah Neo-con stupidity knows no bounds also. Sometimes it makes me feel like all the sane people are held hostages by the morons on both sides.

GFH_Spike

03-15-2010, 02:31 AM

We could always return to loincloths and ramshackle huts.

"Check out my sporty lambskin panties and hardwood floor, bitch. Ain't no dirt in this motherfucker."

StrawberryClock

03-15-2010, 02:34 AM

Wait, why doesn't it make sense?

The study was on the typical overtly consumerist idiot who needs the latest and greatest of everything. It didn't attack wealth in general, it attacked that mentality of needing to buy everything. Its the great totalitarian consumerist dystopia of Brave New World that we all dread and fear.

Perhaps if there is a shift in spending and consuming, then more contentment and happiness can be brought about.

This also solidifies why I believe in libertarian socialism as opposed to the other.

The pair believe their research helps to explain why empirical studies show that levels of happiness and feelings of community in affluent countries have stagnated, despite growth in real incomes.

I'm willing to bet people will feel happier within closer communities, and if they are as productive(I'm not too keen on labeling productivity with wealth) yet shift some of that wealth into the well-being of their community/neighborhood then it would benefit everyone else.

Jedicake

03-15-2010, 02:40 AM

This also solidifies why I believe in libertarian socialism as opposed to the other.

What the fuck is libertarian socialism?

I'm a libertarian but the word socialism makes me cringe

StrawberryClock

03-15-2010, 02:43 AM

What the fuck is libertarian socialism?

I'm a libertarian but the word socialism makes me cringe

Wikipedia it mate.

You also don't know the historical definition of libertarian I assume.

Silverhandorder

03-15-2010, 02:57 AM

Wait, why doesn't it make sense?

The study was on the typical overtly consumerist idiot who needs the latest and greatest of everything. It didn't attack wealth in general, it attacked that mentality of needing to buy everything. Its the great totalitarian consumerist dystopia of Brave New World that we all dread and fear.

Perhaps if there is a shift in spending and consuming, then more contentment and happiness can be brought about.

This also solidifies why I believe in libertarian socialism as opposed to the other.

You being on forumfall is what they suggest eliminating nubcake.

I'm willing to bet people will feel happier within closer communities, and if they are as productive(I'm not too keen on labeling productivity with wealth) yet shift some of that wealth into the well-being of their community/neighborhood then it would benefit everyone else.

Yeah federalism works... Duh...

What the fuck is libertarian socialism?

I'm a libertarian but the word socialism makes me cringe
From what I heard from strawberries is what he thinks will happen if we eliminate government. Aka natural progression to extended family type of units just a bit bigger, big enough to constitute a community. The guy has his heart in the right place.

Jedicake

03-15-2010, 03:00 AM

You being on forumfall is what they suggest eliminating nubcake.

Yeah federalism works... Duh...

From what I heard from strawberries is what he thinks will happen if we eliminate government. Aka natural progression to extended family type of units just a bit bigger, big enough to constitute a community. The guy has his heart in the right place.

wait what, eliminate government?

fine with me. :p

StrawberryClock

03-15-2010, 03:09 AM

You being on forumfall is what they suggest eliminating nubcake.

Veblen said people sought status through conspicuous consumption, which derived its value not from the intrinsic worth of what was consumed but from the fact that it permitted people to try to set themselves apart from others.

I'm willing to bet forumfall has intrinsic worth, whereas a new 2010 Lexus after buying three different cars doesn't. The study attacked the general affluence mentality to acquire more materials that would make them feel complete/whole more so then it did for wealth. It was implying that wealth often=this mentality.

Yeah federalism works... Duh...

I wasn't even implying federalism.

From what I heard from strawberries is what he thinks will happen if we eliminate government. Aka natural progression to extended family type of units just a bit bigger, big enough to constitute a community. The guy has his heart in the right place.

No, I don't believe in extended family types. It will recreate tribalism. What I do believe is councils and communities that administer a certain function and will be large enough so that democracy can be given to all its members.

I'm also being interested in this new idea, where you serve on a council for the place you work, another place where you live and etc. I read about this new economy somewhere, and I'll look it up.

Silverhandorder

03-15-2010, 03:21 AM

I'm willing to bet forumfall has intrinsic worth, whereas a new 2010 Lexus after buying three different cars doesn't. The study attacked the general affluence mentality to acquire more materials that would make them feel complete/whole more so then it did for wealth. It was implying that wealth often=this mentality.
That is very subjective. My family has 4 cars and we use them all. So can forumfall be interpreted as an excess. "You got this government moderated site why would you need forumfall!?"

I wasn't even implying federalism.

You are describing it to a t with your whole community slant.

No, I don't believe in extended family types. It will recreate tribalism. What I do believe is councils and communities that administer a certain function and will be large enough so that democracy can be given to all its members.

I'm also being interested in this new idea, where you serve on a council for the place you work, another place where you live and etc. I read about this new economy somewhere, and I'll look it up.

You are describing federalism. You are also describing something that will never happen. Your small communities will naturally gravitate to allowing bussiness men run their shit.

Communist freaks tried starting Utopian towns. Look up what happened with Ford's town. And that crap had major funding behind it. Think about how it will turn out for avg suburban town.

PirateGlen

03-15-2010, 03:21 AM

Tribalism is possibly among the top 5 evils of the world.

Silverhandorder

03-15-2010, 03:29 AM

Tribalism is possibly among the top 5 evils of the world.

It's a primitive form of organization before division of labor. But to say it is evil...

PirateGlen

03-15-2010, 03:31 AM

It's a primitive form of organization before division of labor. But to say it is evil...

You have no idea what I'm talking about. A clear and easy to understand example of tribalism is the tribalism found in college fraternities. But it permeates all culture and politics.

Edit: So you understand better: An example of the harm of tribalism is when you protect the guilty because of your association to them rather than because you believe them to be innocent.

StrawberryClock

03-15-2010, 03:33 AM

That is very subjective. My family has 4 cars and we use them all. So can forumfall be interpreted as an excess. "You got this government moderated site why would you need forumfall!?"

You are missing my point. Some things in life have value to people. Some things are there just as a "statement" of a sort. The article was attacking these purchases that have no real value to the individual, and serve the purpose of showing off wealth and etc of that individual.

You are describing it to a t with your whole community slant.

Why does federalism imply the community? Isn't someone more willing to donate to a new park for their kids/neighbors kids as opposed to a park in the next city? Wouldn't that overall create more happiness for more people?

You are describing federalism. You are also describing something that will never happen. Your small communities will naturally gravitate to allowing bussiness men run their shit.

Why? The Swedish/Norwegian cooperatives function perfectly well without "levitating" towards businessmen running the entire thing.

Sure, the businessmen may run the financial aspects of the company, but they have as much power on major decisions/revenue as the workers.

Communist freaks tried starting Utopian towns. Look up what happened with Ford's town. And that crap had major funding behind it. Think about how it will turn out for avg suburban town.

That doesn't imply all towns will be that way. The Kibbutz in Israel functioned perfectly well for a number of years until people no longer wanted to farm and went into other practices.

Tribalism is possibly among the top 5 evils of the world.

Indeed. The distinction between tribalism and my libertarian socialist world is that an environment that will allow for the free movement of people and a general socially unified culture/overall society will exist among these communes.

Silverhandorder

03-15-2010, 03:40 AM

You are missing my point. Some things in life have value to people. Some things are there just as a "statement" of a sort. The article was attacking these purchases that have no real value to the individual, and serve the purpose of showing off wealth and etc of that individual.

As I said "showing off" wealth is very subjective. Wanting to live in 2x the living space Europeans live in could be considered showing off wealth. More likely we just feel comfortable living in bigger houses. The whole idea that somehow a society that can not afford luxuries is better off then the one that can is ludicrous.

Why does federalism imply the community? Isn't someone more willing to donate to a new park for their kids/neighbors kids as opposed to a park in the next city? Wouldn't that overall create more happiness for more people?

Federalism in US started out very local, like you describing it.

Why? The Swedish/Norwegian cooperatives function perfectly well without "levitating" towards businessmen running the entire thing.

Sure, the businessmen may run the financial aspects of the company, but they have as much power on major decisions/revenue as the workers.

Their government dictates for them to be like this. If not for that they would be run by the management.

That doesn't imply all towns will be that way. The Kibbutz in Israel functioned perfectly well for a number of years until people no longer wanted to farm and went into other practices.

Yeah never heard of them. Might teach me some history here?

Indeed. The distinction between tribalism and my libertarian socialist world is that an environment that will allow for the free movement of people and a general socially unified culture/overall society will exist among these communes.

GAH FEDERALISM!

PirateGlen

03-15-2010, 03:41 AM

Indeed. The distinction between tribalism and my libertarian socialist world is that an environment that will allow for the free movement of people and a general socially unified culture/overall society will exist among these communes.

I wasn't suggesting that tribalism would be component. I've just been thinking more lately about tribalism and how so many people are attracted to it. It seems attractive in its capacity to cooperate towards noble goals but then fails when the individuals resist their capacity for reason, that which they used to decide to join the tribe but then fail to exercise when the tribe's ambitions grow corrupt.

Silverhandorder

03-15-2010, 03:45 AM

I wasn't suggesting that tribalism would be component. I've just been thinking more lately about tribalism and how so many people are attracted to it. It seems attractive in its capacity to cooperate towards noble goals but then fails when the individuals resist their capacity for reason, that which they used to decide to join the tribe but then fail to exercise when the tribe's ambitions grow corrupt.

Wut?:confused:

StrawberryClock

03-15-2010, 03:56 AM

As I said "showing off" wealth is very subjective. Wanting to live in 2x the living space Europeans live in could be considered showing off wealth. More likely we just feel comfortable living in bigger houses. The whole idea that somehow a society that can not afford luxuries is better off then the one that can is ludicrous.

Comfort living in bigger houses would indicate intrinsic value. That would of course make people much happier. According to the study you linked, when in general, people reach a certain comfort level, and go above that and acquire things that are unnecessary or personal comfort/enjoyment and other uses, they are in general unhappy.

Since wealth is increasing(and obviously consumption too), that would mean that people collectively are purchasing things that do not create pleasure/comfort and buying instead, unnecessary showing off stuff.

The last line is missing the point entirely.

Federalism in US started out very local, like you describing it.

Nice story. That doesn't nullify my argument. I could see the logic being extended out of my idea, but I am espousing for personal choices in giving to their communities/etc. and in no way am I stating that people must be forced to give since that goes against my beliefs.

Their government dictates for them to be like this. If not for that they would be run by the management.

If these cooperatives workers had the choice and will to do so, I'm sure they can replace the government's role.

Yeah never heard of them. Might teach me some history here?

When Israel was being settled, many of the immigrants had leftist/communist ideals. Many banded together and formed various farms that were owned by the community. It was equal democracy among all, and it worked well until everyone left to participate in industry.

GAH FEDERALISM!

I did not mean as in a government framework. I meant a common cultural/relations framework.

I wasn't suggesting that tribalism would be component. I've just been thinking more lately about tribalism and how so many people are attracted to it. It seems attractive in its capacity to cooperate towards noble goals but then fails when the individuals resist their capacity for reason, that which they used to decide to join the tribe but then fail to exercise when the tribe's ambitions grow corrupt.

I think this tribalism you speak of applies to every form of collective, from nations to towns to corporations.

SSguy

03-15-2010, 04:03 AM

The last line is missing the point entirely.

This is silverhand we are talking about here.....forumfall is getting ready to code in a woooooooooooosh sound every time someone screens over one of his posts.

Silverhandorder

03-15-2010, 04:03 AM

Comfort living in bigger houses would indicate intrinsic value. That would of course make people much happier. According to the study you linked, when in general, people reach a certain comfort level, and go above that and acquire things that are unnecessary or personal comfort/enjoyment and other uses, they are in general unhappy.

Since wealth is increasing(and obviously consumption too), that would mean that people collectively are purchasing things that do not create pleasure/comfort and buying instead, unnecessary showing off stuff.

The last line is missing the point entirely.
No you are missing the point that intrinsic value for some is different for others. These researchers claim there is a line. But that is a line they created. Approach another person and they will draw this line in a different place. They also have no way for measuring envy and jealousy or need. Yet they make bold statements.

Nice story. That doesn't nullify my argument. I could see the logic being extended out of my idea, but I am espousing for personal choices in giving to their communities/etc. and in no way am I stating that people must be forced to give since that goes against my beliefs.

Oh no we good here. No government fuck yeah! :) We can disagree on natural outcome all we want if we working for the same goal.

If these cooperatives workers had the choice and will to do so, I'm sure they can replace the government's role.

They have the choice in every single society. They are always missing the will and even when they have the will the fail.

When Israel was being settled, many of the immigrants had leftist/communist ideals. Many banded together and formed various farms that were owned by the community. It was equal democracy among all, and it worked well until everyone left to participate in industry.
Why did it not extend to industry?

Jedicake

03-15-2010, 04:06 AM

Does anyone want to make out?

The only reason I don't contribute to these kinds of topics is that I'm actually a moron with low IQ and I'm not good in arguments

xpiher

03-15-2010, 04:37 AM

socialist libertarianism means libertarianism with a government completely ran by people whose sole job is to stop the interest of the few from dominating the many. Basically, greek democracy or direct democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy)

Jedicake

03-15-2010, 04:45 AM

Grisu

03-15-2010, 05:11 AM

Im left handed and im not psycho.

xpiher

03-15-2010, 05:20 AM

Sweeeeeeeet

It comes in many forms, a referendum is one, but it does require for money to be out of politics (no adds etc). Its how the country was founded essentially well other than the fact that only people who owned property could you know participate

Makgyver

03-15-2010, 12:47 PM

I hate it when the terms left and right is used, there's more too it than a simple black or white statement

Marrik

03-15-2010, 03:14 PM

your choices are:

A) a bunch of pussies, most of whom are owned by the insurance industry, and who dont really give a fuck about civil liberties though they talk an ok game.

or

B) a bunch of less-pussyish guys who dont give a fuck about civil liberties and dont pretend to (except the right to bear arms), ALL of whom are owned by the insurance industry.

America fucking sucks, i wish i could afford to leave. i seriously doubt it will ever suck less either, the entire system would have to change, and even if most Americans WERENT fat, apathetic sacks of shit, theres no way they could take on the US Army

StrawberryClock

03-15-2010, 04:56 PM

No you are missing the point that intrinsic value for some is different for others. These researchers claim there is a line. But that is a line they created. Approach another person and they will draw this line in a different place. They also have no way for measuring envy and jealousy or need. Yet they make bold statements.

I fully understand the subjectivity of value for the individual. However, I am stating that many surpass that subjective value and when they do they acquire materials that have no value that is why the general happiness did not increase.

Oh no we good here. No government fuck yeah! :) We can disagree on natural outcome all we want if we working for the same goal.

Anarchism without adjectives for the win.

They have the choice in every single society. They are always missing the will and even when they have the will the fail.

They miss the will because often nothing existed before it, and the current structure isn't really popular. Public stock corporations weren't popular until the first ones came up and took over the model of economic ownership from private corporations/companies/small-business.

Why did it not extend to industry?

The kibbutzims were not the sole form of ownership. The capitalist ownership model existed in other farms and existed in the cities. Naturally people would flock to the already existent capitalist/corporate forms of ownership instead of creating their own industrial cooperative.

Silverhandorder

03-15-2010, 08:41 PM

I fully understand the subjectivity of value for the individual. However, I am stating that many surpass that subjective value and when they do they acquire materials that have no value that is why the general happiness did not increase.
You can't surpass subjective value by definition. And as I pointed out even gauging happiness is subjective.

They miss the will because often nothing existed before it, and the current structure isn't really popular. Public stock corporations weren't popular until the first ones came up and took over the model of economic ownership from private corporations/companies/small-business.
Actually the current model is dictated by government but it is close enough. Do you have a good source that tabulates all this? I would be interested in reading it.

The kibbutzims were not the sole form of ownership. The capitalist ownership model existed in other farms and existed in the cities. Naturally people would flock to the already existent capitalist/corporate forms of ownership instead of creating their own industrial cooperative.
So let us say in a socialist libertarian anarchism some one starts a capitalist enterprise and all the people will flood to it. Will it still be socialist libertarianism?

generic_user

03-15-2010, 08:54 PM

Im left handed and im not psycho.

That's what I was hoping this thread would be about.

StainlessSteelRat

03-17-2010, 07:17 PM

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10632032

If it was up to these people we would be all playing the equivalent of WoW in real world.

Nothing wrong w/ the Canadian study per se. It's how others, like this:

Last year a bestselling book by two epidemiologists, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, called The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, suggested that Britain and the United States were the countries with the widest gulfs between rich and poor in the developed world and as a result had the most health and social problems.

use the study for social engineering goals; drawing the wrong cause and effect conclusions from the data.

Rokstarr

03-17-2010, 08:58 PM

Personally, I think we need to go back to the start, return the power to the states, and force the federal government to do what they were enumerated to do, not what they decided they wanted to do (even if they thought it was the right thing).

The first perversion of our constitution started during Washingtons presidency. I blame Hamilton.

We no longer have a federal government, we have a national government, and here is the fundamental flaw with our government as it exists today.

Vessol

03-17-2010, 09:11 PM

Sure the "Left" as produced such men as Mao and Stalin. But in the past 50 years, more people have died around the world from Capitalism then Mao and Stalin combined.

Ungraylessness

03-17-2010, 09:34 PM

Oh hey look at me! I hate the government and am politically active! There is a trend in this country that is moving us toward socialism, and that means the government will become larger and more imposing. I don't want to live in a world where the government has a large influence on my life because then I will have fewer choices and less liberty. Oh No!

zato`1

03-17-2010, 10:54 PM

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10632032

If it was up to these people we would be all playing the equivalent of WoW in real world.

lolwut? not really dude.

all this article is saying is that on average, rich people are not smart people.

bad economy means people are forced to think smarter, even rich people. in times of prosperity, the only thing keeping rich people from buying useless shit all day long is the fact that the stores actually close at some point. and now thanks to the internet, when the economy comes back up, the moderately wealthy all the way up to the clown-shoes-wtf-wealthy will be hittin up their favorite online store and buying the bejesus out of everything.

so i don't think lefties are crazy. i think continuing to divide yourself into left or right is detrimental to our future. both sides offer great ideas, and both sides offer terrible ideas.

but to continue to judge people based solely on a general political term makes me think the psycho ones aren't the lefties, but you.

Silverhandorder

03-17-2010, 11:25 PM

lolwut? not really dude.

all this article is saying is that on average, rich people are not smart people.

bad economy means people are forced to think smarter, even rich people. in times of prosperity, the only thing keeping rich people from buying useless shit all day long is the fact that the stores actually close at some point. and now thanks to the internet, when the economy comes back up, the moderately wealthy all the way up to the clown-shoes-wtf-wealthy will be hittin up their favorite online store and buying the bejesus out of everything.

And the message they are sending here is that they can be an authority when someone is wealthy enough.

so i don't think lefties are crazy. i think continuing to divide yourself into left or right is detrimental to our future. both sides offer great ideas, and both sides offer terrible ideas.

but to continue to judge people based solely on a general political term makes me think the psycho ones aren't the lefties, but you.
I like dems for civil rights and social liberalism. I like republicans for fiscal restraint. Unfortunately neither of those are true for both parties.

I naturally attack republicans less because I am working with in this party to change it.