Are people seriously doubting that Trump is sexist, racist and all other kinds of discriminating?
Yes. I give zero credibility to anything that social justice warriors say.
I just love how the alt-right crowd made social justice a bad thing. So how do you call someone opposed to it, social injustice crusader? This is just like the German word "Gutmensch", that right-wingers use to mock the left, you can look it up if you want.
But okay, I admit that some people go too far and cry about ridiculous things, so you may call them names, I don't care. If someone complains about the skimpy outfit of a female character in some fighting game for example, yeah, that obviously annoys me just as much as you, since it's irrelevant and takes the focus away from the real problems. But the social injustice crusaders (I'll just go with that), they don't really care about that, that's not their point. They just want to ridicule any protest against discrimination whatsoever, no matter how justified it might be. And thus, we're back at the same conclusion, that the alt-righters and SICs are trying to make discrimination acceptable again.
Current project: Gex 3 any%
Paused: Gex 64 any%
There are no N64 emulators. Just SM64 emulators with hacky support for all the other games.
And thus, we're back at the same conclusion, that the alt-righters and SICs are trying to make discrimination acceptable again.
Discrimination is a wonderful thing, because for example if a pedophile would want to work at a kindergarten, it might be a good idea to discriminate against him. All living beings discriminate all the time. Even in this thread the lefty liberals are discriminating against the righty conservatives and the righty conservatives are discriminating against the lefty liberals, so everybody unconsciously thinks that it's acceptable, even though they say they're against it.
Discrimination is true equality, because people are different, so they have to be treated differently in order to achieve real equality. Conservatives for example don't want to be treated like progressives and vice versa. Some people mostly want to progress. Some people mostly want to conserve.
You can't make both sides happy, because both sides are different and they have different opinions, and you can't conserve and progress at the same rate at the same time.
The good thing about Trump is that he will slow down the rate of progression, which is too fast according to many. If you progress too fast when you're travelling with your car, the grim reaper will cut your head off, because you won't have enough time to turn right-wing when you have to turn. But if you conserve too much, your rate or progression will be too slow, which is also a problem.
But of course, nobody knows the future, so who knows what will happen and what is the right choice in every situation.
The point is there was moderation intervention, so it would be good if it was equal on both sides.
It can never be equal, because nobody is unbiased and neutral. To think that somebody is unbiased is bias. Just like with conservatives and progressives, male and female, there will always be bias and imbalance between the Yin and Yang forces, like this thread and the presidential election proved.
I'm also biased, so don't trust me. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about.
Discrimination is a wonderful thing, because for example if a pedophile would want to work at a kindergarten, it might be a good idea to discriminate against him. All living beings discriminate all the time. Even in this thread the lefty liberals are discriminating against the righty conservatives and the righty conservatives are discriminating against the lefty liberals, so everybody unconsciously thinks that it's acceptable, even though they say they're against it.
Yeah of course, that's totally the same thing. There is literally no difference between calling all Mexicans rapists and banning convicted pedophiles from working with children.
Current project: Gex 3 any%
Paused: Gex 64 any%
There are no N64 emulators. Just SM64 emulators with hacky support for all the other games.
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
I think nfq is confusing discrimination to intrinsic characteristics with ''discrimination'' to people that committed immoral actions (such as heinous crimes). There is a big difference there.
I just love how the alt-right crowd made social justice a bad thing.
No, the social justice warriors managed that perfectly well all by themselves.
They constantly want to stifle, impede, silence and ban the peaceful free expression of opinions that they don't like, and they often do this via intimidation, harassment and even illegal vandalism. They are utterly intolerant of any differing opinion (which is, by the way, the exact dictionary definition of "bigot".)
They constantly engage in vigilante justice against any man accused of rape, no matter how much evidence there is of his innocence. They want to reverse the fundamental principle of our judiciary system that a person ought to be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Not only that, but they actually continue their vigilantism even after the man has been proven innocent beyond reasonable doubt.
They divide people into groups based on things like race, gender and sexual orientation, and assign rights, privileges, responsibilities and guilt onto every member of those groups completely regardless of personal actions, merits, or content of character. For example, some people have more rights to certain things (like certain cultural norms) than others, based on their race. They want people treated differently, even before the law, based on those characteristics. They judge people based on what they are (race, gender, sexual orientation) rather than who they are (actions, merits, content of character), which is the textbook definition of racism and sexism.
They want favoritism and discrimination, based on race, gender and sexual orientation, in things like hiring.
All of those things, and many other things, are quite blatantly unconstitutional (in basically any country that has a constitution), against universal human rights, and oftentimes even outright illegal in most countries.
So no, the "alt-right" didn't make social justice a bad thing. Social justice made social justice a bad thing.
Those people you describe, I see them as nothing more than the typical "loud minority" you always have. I can ignore them and still consider myself, for example, a socialist or feminist, I don't care about the few idiots that also happen to use those terms for their terrible ideology.
I wish conservatives could do the same thing, ignore Trump and all the alt-righters / right-wing populists and just stay true to their original beliefs, instead of trying to mimic the "loud minority". Because that never works.
Current project: Gex 3 any%
Paused: Gex 64 any%
There are no N64 emulators. Just SM64 emulators with hacky support for all the other games.
Those people you describe, I see them as nothing more than the typical "loud minority" you always have. I can ignore them and still consider myself, for example, a socialist or feminist, I don't care about the few idiots that also happen to use those terms for their terrible ideology.
It would be really nice if they could just be ignored. Unfortunately this "loud minority" has too much power to be ignored. They cause changes in policies, official stances and laws. They make institutions of education, corporations, the justice system and even entire governments change their policies to placate to them. They are in real life affecting, for example, the deterioration of freedom of speech, at a legal level, and the proliferation of discrimination in hiring. They have affected police officials, eg. in the UK, to ignore teenage girl grooming gangs because it was deemed "politically incorrect" to investigate too deeply, because the perpetrators were immigrants. They are psychologically abusing and discriminating against children with their racist rhetoric. The list could go on and on.
I wish they could just be ignored. Unfortunately they have too much influence for that.
Are people seriously doubting that Trump is sexist, racist and all other kinds of discriminating?
Yes. I give zero credibility to anything that social justice warriors say.
I'm curious as to why you opt to form your opinions based solely on what other people say when there's plenty of evidence on the subject readily available for you to view and make your own appraisals from.
Also, friendly reminder that social justice warriors are not exclusive to one party. Let's not forget about all of those "oppressed christians" who enjoy pretending there's a "war on Christmas" any time somebody wishes them happy holidays.
I agree with the majority of what you're saying about SJWs, Warp, but you seem to have a predisposition to want to give a pass to one side and not the other when both have people who are guilty of bigotry, generalizing, pigeonholing, and using hacky arguments to push their agendas.
I say both sides are guilty, but I should clarify that they are not equally guilty. Liberalism at its core dismisses the authoritarian nature of SJWs whereas conservatism embraces it(but only when the message aligns with their beliefs).
There are no claims you can do on the subject specified here in this thread without them being classified as attacks,because we're part of the groups mentioned on them.
When i say lefties look away from the racism,bigotry and sexism promoted by leftists,it's insulting to the lefty itself to be identified as a person which promotes these evils.So it's correct to identify yourself with them and feel offended by the comment,but if we just keep trying to not offend anyone all the time by any means necessary,we'll just have nothing to say in any subject whatsoever.To be fair,sometimes you can't be able to even know what's offensive until you said it.
I completely understand the censoring of curse words,they promote nothing but negative emotion through language but complaining about the fact I think you're a hypocrite because of X,Y and Z?I remember a similar dialogue in the movie Pulp Fiction,i can't find it and i'd appreciate if someone did,it's something like:
A:can i say something?
B:as long as it doesn't offend me.
A:well,then i won't be able to say it,i can only find out if i offended you after i say it.
I do think it's ridiculous the person that demonizes "happy holidays" as well,but haven't people demonized "merry christmas" for being an assumption that everybody is christian?The fairer thing thing would be to do neither,but i definitely believe both things happened at some point.You reap what you sow.
Link to video
TAS i'm interested:
megaman series: mmbn1 all chips, mmx3 any% psx glitched
fighting games with speed goals in general
(MOD note: Post split off from Thread #19417: History -Mothrayas)
I do wish more was taught about the history of communism at school, but the problem is since most of the people who set the syllabus in our schools are sympathetic to the ideals of communism. They simply just avoid it altogether. Which then leads to looking at alternative sources, which tend to be rabidly anti-communist.
I do wish more was taught about the history of communism at school, but the problem is since most of the people who set the syllabus in our schools are sympathetic to the ideals of communism.
You can be sympathetic to the ideals of communism while reviling what Stalin did - such a position is called socialism. In practice the socialist/communist divide is a pretty grey area, and the water is muddied further by the large number of people around these days calling themselves socialists who are really social democrats.
The problem with communism is that the enormous level of control a government requires to enact it takes away nearly all of its people's freedoms, including their right to resist. People in capitalist societies may sometimes find themselves oppressed by market forces, but at least they have some collective agency. They can join a union, they can campaign for a better society, they can use their ballots to vote for change; but people oppressed by their own governments have no such power. There is a great anti-authoritarian tradition in left-wing thinking, of which I guess George Orwell is the most recognisable figure. Sadly, the modern left is rather more sanguine about totalitarian regimes as long as they come from the left. Just the other day I read an article pinning all the blame for the current tragedy in Venezuela on the west, which had been supposedly working to undermine Venezuela's sovereignty and bring down the Chavista revolution - all the usual tropes of the far-left conspiracy theorist were there, at one point it even called one of the Venezuelan opposition leaders a Zionist. It was all a pretty disgusting denial of the inconvenient truth.
/rant over
Just the other day I read an article pinning all the blame for the current tragedy in Venezuela on the west, which had been supposedly working to undermine Venezuela's sovereignty and bring down the Chavista revolution - all the usual tropes of the far-left conspiracy theorist were there, at one point it even called one of the Venezuelan opposition leaders a Zionist. It was all a pretty disgusting denial of the inconvenient truth.
Curiously, that's exactly how the state-controlled Russian mass media (read: the vast majority of it, even counting internet outlets) has been explaining the downward spiral of Russian economy and foreign relations. Except the ruling party in Russia is nowhere far-left. In fact, it's been steadily going far right like there's no tomorrow, civil rights be damned.
The dominant rhetoric is that, apparently, the depraved and resource-hungry West wants to bring the sacred sovereign nation of Russia and its strong-spirited people down. They attack it by oppressing Russians living in other countries, instituting harmful sanctions, dropping the price of oil, and sabotaging democratic elections by finding and sponsoring traitorous stooges who would instantly sell the country and its people out to the West the moment they come to power. Nearby countries have all gone through incredibly harmful revolutions, by which greedy, good-for-nothing, pro-Western politicians have taken power and ruined whatever remained good in their homelands. Russia, on the other hand, remains the unyielding stronghold of spirituality and traditional values, and its noble, strong, smart, and generous leaders will surely return prosperity to people as soon as the rotten West stops interfering with Russian affairs. All hail President Putin—the only true political leader currently in the world, etc.
I mean, a modicum of factual knowledge about the situation and its circumstances would destroy this rhetoric completely, but who wants knowledge, right? It's so much easier to believe in what's convenient. At this point history of propaganda should become a legitimate branch of history as a scientific discipline. Almost feels like history is only being kept to be perverted later.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
People on the left that try to defend any totalitarian regime that happened to use the terms "socialism" or "communism" are incredibly frustrating. I consider myself a socialist and yet, I have absolutely no problem admitting that the Soviet Union or even the regime in Venezuela are nothing but dictatorships. I just don't get it.
This really seems to be mostly a problem of the left. I can't remember hearing a neoliberal of today defending the Pinochet regime in Chile (please, if I'm wrong and people actually do that all the time, feel free to correct me).
Current project: Gex 3 any%
Paused: Gex 64 any%
There are no N64 emulators. Just SM64 emulators with hacky support for all the other games.
You can be sympathetic to the ideals of communism while reviling what Stalin did - such a position is called socialism. In practice the socialist/communist divide is a pretty grey area, and the water is muddied further by the large number of people around these days calling themselves socialists who are really social democrats.
/rant over
The people who say that are usually the ones that say "that wasn't real communism/socialism". Which ignores the fact their ideas have been tried and failed 100's of times over throughout history and across various different cultures, which shows there must be some fundamental flaw behind their ideas. Heck, even the resource based economy that's been popularized online has been tried a few times throughout history and that's probably been the biggest failure of all. It was tried by Lenin, and even he abandoned the idea after four years, and ironically it was tried in America as well. Which was ended due to it leading to starvation. The fundamental reason why a resource based economy fails is that it leads to misallocation of resources and creates a culture where everyone is entitled to everything, but are responsible for nothing.
That is missing the big picture. Planned economy can work, and it can even work well, just not in the scope of a large country.
In fact it's still used to this day—one example is the ISS. The astronauts all have different tasks requiring different training, expertise, effort, skill, what have you. In an open market their ability to amass a surplus of resources (disposable income, in other words) would inevitably differ. But since they aren't in an open market, and their resources—most notably food and water—are inherently limited and not easily replenished, it is far more effective to poll them and plan their consumption. Somehow this doesn't lead to misallocation nor lack of responsibility. The same is the case for military missions, sea trips, and all similar situations.
It's when you attempt to stretch such a situational concept over millions of people and sustain it indefinitely that things quickly go awry.
We will likely see a resurgence of socialist ideas in the next decade or two, when it dawns on everyone that the pool of jobs only humans can do is shrinking far faster than new jobs can be created. The stronger the focus on capitalism, the sooner humans get replaced at their lines of work. Where the situation will go from that point is anybody's guess, but mine is UBI, because at some point it will be cheaper for the economy to pay people to stay home and not drag the GDP down by inefficient labor. Whether this would be a sustainable model, I don't know.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Come on guys, if old ideas were good they'd already have worked out. So far any idea that looks shiny when you first know of it, turns into a disaster in some areas when you apply it without full understanding. And with full understanding, why would you use someone else's idea in the first place?
Linus Torvalds got tired of others' ideas and implemented his own. Look at Linux now. Look at open source now. There's no need to switch entire countries to some model. Such model can be developed on-site if you define the criteria. Jeez, there's so many people that earn their living by designing how things should work in practice: all sorts of hardware/software engineers. These guys know how to set rules that will work, and they don't get paid if they do it poorly.
So on a scale of the whole country, if the entire population gets involved into defining the best requirements, and some people design rules that would meet these requirements, there'd be no need to use any of the existing systems to rule the country. Note: this shouldn't be a blind voting for something esoteric, but an actual discussion, with rules also set for it to make it more productive. Sounds like rewriting a country from scratch? Aye.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
That's true Feos, but that's due to generational cycles. Meaning no matter how good a system you implement and checks and balances you put in place. It will inevitably get corrupted over time.
That's true Feos, but that's due to generational cycles. Meaning no matter how good a system you implement and checks and balances you put in place. It will inevitably get corrupted over time.
I'm not wishfully thinking here. Does tasvideos get corrupted over time? Is that because of some magic? Or maybe there's some real reason behind it, that people barely know and that might be discovered sometime later, like it happened to the game theory?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
That's true Feos, but that's due to generational cycles. Meaning no matter how good a system you implement and checks and balances you put in place. It will inevitably get corrupted over time.
I'm not wishfully thinking here. Does tasvideos get corrupted over time? Is that because of some magic? Or maybe there's some real reason behind it, that people barely know and that might be discovered sometime later, like it happened to the game theory?
I thought we were discussing political systems; not some obscure online community.
I thought we were discussing political systems; not some obscure online community.
We were discussing principles of how things should supposedly function on a scale of a country. You don't improve upon the known ones if you don't consider the experience of some unrelated, but successful spheres. My point is, if you organize things right, they will work for a long time. If you organize them better, they will work for longer. No matter what you attempt to organize.
TAS teaches one thing: there's no problem that's completely unsolvable. You just need to sort things out and it becomes just hard. You analyze it harder and it becomes easy. Only a matter of research and effort. And that leads to another TAS rule: anything can be improved. But that also only needs research and effort. So yeah.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
I won't even try to go into the precise definition of "socialism", those terms are a mess to work with. A lot of people still use it to describe their politics, which can range from the "socialist" party of France with their neoliberal free-market politics, all the way to radical parties far left of your average social democrats. For example: The social democrats of Switzerland, who completely avoid the term "socialist", are way more on the left than any mainstream party in Europe who call themselves "socialist".
Current project: Gex 3 any%
Paused: Gex 64 any%
There are no N64 emulators. Just SM64 emulators with hacky support for all the other games.
TAS teaches one thing: there's no problem that's completely unsolvable. You just need to sort things out and it becomes just hard. You analyze it harder and it becomes easy. Only a matter of research and effort. And that leads to another TAS rule: anything can be improved. But that also only needs research and effort. So yeah.
I wouldn't quite go that far in relation to TASes. Every game has it's theoretical limits, and most games have rules which cannot be broken. Unfortunately, finding that theoretical limit is hard, and is something no super computer is likely to do.
We will likely see a resurgence of socialist ideas in the next decade or two, when it dawns on everyone that the pool of jobs only humans can do is shrinking far faster than new jobs can be created. The stronger the focus on capitalism, the sooner humans get replaced at their lines of work. Where the situation will go from that point is anybody's guess, but mine is UBI, because at some point it will be cheaper for the economy to pay people to stay home and not drag the GDP down by inefficient labor. Whether this would be a sustainable model, I don't know.
This is the key point to me - Capitalism assumes that there are more jobs available to do than there are people to do them. Once automation and AI is in full swing, there will be LESS jobs available than they are people to do them. Either we make up nonsensical, unproductive jobs for people to do just so we can be able to pay them, or we move to something like universal basic income and actually reap the rewards of creating such an efficient and productive society that doesn't need everyone to work at all times.
