Trump

[Harlequin]

I think that the economic left-right axis should probably be a separate dimension from the social one. The EU, for example, tends to the left socially and to the right economically.

Oddly, the Political Compass puts me quite far left (and rather libertarian) despite me often being irritated equally by the dogmatic, intersectional and censorious liberal-left these days. To the extent that I agree with many of Jordan Peterson's criticisms.

[zip accident]

Because, in a sense, I don't recognise Marxist left / right. Certainly, the grand problem with Marx, straight out of the gate, is that he presents us with a confused paradox - "all men are equal" and yet he immediately says "there's two types of people - the Bourgeois and the Prolateriat - and they must fight an eternal war with each other". So which one is it? Is there only one tribe of man that needs to learn how to live with itself, or are there two tribes of man - good and evil, depending on which side you see yourself as being on - where one tribe needs to defeat the other?

While that's certainly something that Marx got wrong, it's not the main thing.

The main thing that Marx got wrong, was the idea that teleology is a thing, that there is one future, and the universe is moving the Earth inevitably towards it, and we will be there in a few years. It kind of, sorta, maybe, looked like it might make sense in a world were history was a few humdred years and before that there was nothing. In a post Darwinian world, where the history of the Earth is 4 billion years long, and the universe is over three times that age, it is very silly indeed.

This is a world with competition in it, in a universe full of competition, and competition will be until the end of the universe. The end of competition is not a sensible aiming point. Modes of competition can be changed, it's a good thing to compete in less violent ways, but sometimes, for some things, fairly rarely but sometimes, violence is the optimum mode of competition.

[Cloudane]

I think that the economic left-right axis should probably be a separate dimension from the social one. The EU, for example, tends to the left socially and to the right economically.

Oddly, the Political Compass puts me quite far left (and rather libertarian) despite me often being irritated equally by the dogmatic, intersectional and censorious liberal-left these days. To the extent that I agree with many of Jordan Peterson's criticisms.

Probably yeah. Though I seem to recall the compass puts the social side on the up/down authoritarian/libertarian axis. But when it comes to the extreme minority shouty SJW you only see on "SJW cringe" YouTube videos (Hugh Mungus lady springs to mind), I would put them as authoritarian for sure even though it's sort of "authoritarianly libertarian" for what little sense that makes... oddly enough I've never met one in person, have you?

Been there with JP and shifted away from him again now... the thing is - well, Contrapoints does a far better job of criticising him than I could but basically he's very good at talking about subjects he knows nothing about while appearing as if he does and speaking with such certainty. Also while he seems reasonable on Youtube, his Twitter is a whole other level:





Further, his whole rise in popularity is based on his criticism of Canada's Bill C-16, which he claims forces him to use that silly list of ze's and zay's that someone put on Tumblr once. Well here it is, read it for yourself, it's not very long, takes about 30 seconds: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/4 ... st-reading
Says absolutely nothing about compelled speech. All it does is add gender expression to a list of already protected groups for already existing protections against discrimination.

Once I stopped clicking on video after video of his and assessed some of the criticisms against him, I rather thought I'd been indoctrinated into a bit of a cult to be honest.

[Dio]

I think that the economic left-right axis should probably be a separate dimension from the social one. The EU, for example, tends to the left socially and to the right economically.

The EU takes a funny position economically that isn't easily divided into classic left and right, and in many places outright schizophrenic: it isn't low-tax or small government and excepting the CAP frankly the majority of its budget actions that aren't concerned with expanding itself tend towards the redistributive side, but it simultaneously has a tendency to try to limit state intervention and we all saw what it did to Greece; it has probably the world's most aggressive anti-monopoly agency, but is frequently corporatist; etc.

[Little stoned kiwi]

It may seem that way inside the EU. But to the rest of the world it is a monopoly, being a trade bloc.
A lot of what it presents to members are great ideals. As a whole it's a large beast exerting financial and political pressure with the same dirty tricks as lot of other large economies and companies.

[Dio]

To an extent - but in many ways a good way too. The world's biggest trading bloc also having the world's strongest consumer protection laws is surely not a bad thing.

Obviously I understand that in NZ you'd feel a lot of the effects of the CAP, which is one of the dodgiest parts of the whole thing though.

[KlaxonCow]

This TED talk - trying to dig down to the psychological roots of liberal and conservative mindsets - is an interesting one to watch on this general topic:



What I like is that it's nicely unbiased.

The liberal morality of "purity" is one that's not often pointed out - the want for "organic", "natural", "pure" and such - but he's right there, isn't he?

(Also, our own Kemper_boyd's "Jesusland" meme makes the rounds into the video too.)

[Little stoned kiwi]

To an extent - but in many ways a good way too. The world's biggest trading bloc also having the world's strongest consumer protection laws is surely not a bad thing.

Obviously I understand that in NZ you'd feel a lot of the effects of the CAP, which is one of the dodgiest parts of the whole thing though.

Consumer protection laws are a great thing, something I recognise as a great thing about the EU. Trade wise, it's all done with the EU. Not member countries. The EU sets trade barriers on behalf of the member countries.

Such as how the EU will retaliate with tariffs on imports from the US for the US setting tariffs on the EU as a whole. It could be called the United States of Europe.

[merman]

UNITED.

Unlike the British Government right now. Zing.

[RiK]

Funny how it's only 59p on iTunes this week when every other single is 99p too...

[KlaxonCow]

It could be called the United States of Europe.

Which was exactly what Winston Churchill did call it, when he first proposed the idea.

Though, like most everyone, I have misgivings about exactly how the EU is organised and functions, I still think he was perfectly right.

The United States of America. The United States of Europe. The Unites States of Asia. The United States of Africa.

Then the United States of Planet Earth.

The free movement of all people and goods everywhere. A single currency for the planet. An economic "load balancing" for the entire globe. Technological progress to benefit all of humanity. A move to 100% renewable energy - keeping the lights on for the next 5 billion years and bringing clean, free electricity to everyone, rich and poor. No one left behind.

And no religion too.

You may say that I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.

I hope, one day, you'll join us and the world will be as one.

[PFVA]

Boris Johnson has launched a scathing attack on Theresa May's Brexit strategy, saying the "dream is dying, suffocated by needless self-doubt".

In his letter resigning as foreign secretary he claimed the prime minister was leading the UK into a "semi-Brexit" with the "status of a colony".

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44770847

Ah!

He could always immigrate to the States. I think Trump will give him immediate honorary U. S. citizenship

[zip accident]

Which was exactly what Winston Churchill did call it, when he first proposed the idea.

Though, like most everyone, I have misgivings about exactly how the EU is organised and functions, I still think he was perfectly right.

The United States of America. The United States of Europe. The Unites States of Asia. The United States of Africa.

Then the United States of Planet Earth.

The question then is, who will be king.

[funkstar]

Further, his whole rise in popularity is based on his criticism of Canada's Bill C-16, which he claims forces him to use that silly list of ze's and zay's that someone put on Tumblr once. Well here it is, read it for yourself, it's not very long, takes about 30 seconds: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/4 ... st-reading
Says absolutely nothing about compelled speech. All it does is add gender expression to a list of already protected groups for already existing protections against discrimination.

I also looked up the bill, and was rather surprised at just how removed it was from what he claimed . In fact, I used it to deflate an argument about him being so brilliant: brilliant people don’t have to flat out lie to get their points across.

The follow-up stinger: bills exactly like C-16 have been Ontario law for years - C-16 is just the federal version, finally catching up to the territories.

[KlaxonCow]

The question then is, who will be king.

As opposed to now, where we have several hundred bickering Kings and Queens, who continually fuck everything up in their silly little "Game of Thrones" amongst one another?

So how's this one any worse than that?


But, personally, I've never seen the need for any Kings.

It can simply be the collective responsibility of a Parliament and, in the event of a tie, the Speaker has the casting vote.

There. Job done.