Became a rebellious randist late HS for 5 years, now am a staunch liberal...

[Naer]

Progressive socialist. Pretty damn lefty now. Wonder where I'm gonna go from here. Tbh, I don't see my position changing from here. If someone wants to point me in another direction, be my guess. I've pretty much calibrated myself toward an altruistic naturalistic stance. I just don't see the infinite growth paridyme of the right helping the stability of the group as a whole as well as the sustainability of the planet at the speed of which technology is progressing. I also believe multiculturalism is a short term ill with long term greater good benefits. Whether force is involved in getting there is probably inevitable as force is an axiomatic fact of life. It's up to the system to strive for equality and balance to maintain integrity with the environment and it's inhabitants and the coercion will be less of a problem

 

[alien42]

congrats, but please take your meds and use spell check.

 

[Naer]

congrats, but please take your meds and use spell check.

This tablet acts funny

 

[shira]

Progressive socialist. Pretty damn lefty now. Wonder where I'm gonna go from here. Tbh, I don't see my position changing from here. If someone wants to point me in another direction, be my guess. I've pretty much calibrated myself toward an altruistic naturalistic stance. I just don't see the infinite growth paridyme of the right helping the stability of the group as a whole as well as the sustainability of the planet at the speed of which technology is progressing. I also believe multiculturalism is a short term ill with long term greater good benefits. Whether force is involved in getting there is probably inevitable as force is an axiomatic fact of life. It's up to the system to strive for equality and balance to maintain integrity with the environment and it's inhabitants and the coercion will be less of a problem

Congrats on your movement to higher ground. But this information isn't politics and it isn't really news, either.

 

[realibrad]

Progressive socialist. Pretty damn lefty now. Wonder where I'm gonna go from here. Tbh, I don't see my position changing from here. If someone wants to point me in another direction, be my guess. I've pretty much calibrated myself toward an altruistic naturalistic stance. I just don't see the infinite growth paridyme of the right helping the stability of the group as a whole as well as the sustainability of the planet at the speed of which technology is progressing. I also believe multiculturalism is a short term ill with long term greater good benefits. Whether force is involved in getting there is probably inevitable as force is an axiomatic fact of life. It's up to the system to strive for equality and balance to maintain integrity with the environment and it's inhabitants and the coercion will be less of a problem

So a few things. First, let me say I consider myself to lean left, but only because the Right is not really the Right and the Left is not really the Left. The Right does not really represent the supposed ideologies they are labeled with. The right is not really about small government. The left is only sometimes about helping the bottom. The left is far better about social progress and is mainly why I lean left.

AS for the growth point, let me say this. With out the growth of the population we would be far less productive as a world. We would invent less, and that would mean living without a lot of things we have now. I think your point would be that the damage caused for that progress would not likely be worth it. My counter would be that most of the damage done had little to do with the growth. We could have grown and not polluted as much as we did. The innovations of today can give us a lot more people on this planet with far less impact if we were willing as a globe to do something about pollution.

I personally am for something like the carbon tax if not a flat out carbon tax. A big reason why there is so much pollution is because its very hard for the parties who are effected by pollution to collect on their damage. The government could easily play a role here to help.

Last is multiculturalism. Nature a lot time ago started using diversity to protect its creations. There is noting wrong with multiculturalism inherently. The problem is that society for some reason no longer tries to weed out the bad parts of cultures. To many on the left, cultures should not be criticized because what is right and wrong is always subjective. This simply is not the case. I enjoy seeing other cultures and like the influence many have, but, no culture is 100% good and some are worse than others.

Many cultures still see women as second class people. Cultures that view women this way are worse than cultures that do not in that regard. I see no reason that anyone should be willing to accept the anti-female part of a culture. If you believe in multiculturalism and are willing to clean out the bad parts, then yay. If you believe in multiculturalism in that you like all cultures and you think they can all just get along then boo.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Is a Randist anything like a Randite or an Objectivist?

 

[thraashman]

Is a Randist anything like a Randite or an Objectivist?

It's considered impolite to use the "R" word today, you're supposed to say they're "economic knowledge deficient" or "economically challenged".

 

[MagickMan]

The OP is very confused. Collectivism is the damnation of humanity and will destroy individuality, creativity, and liberty, in the fruitless search for universal "comfort". History has proven this time and time again.

 

[MagickMan]

It's considered impolite to use the "R" word today, you're supposed to say they're "economic knowledge deficient" or "economically challenged".

and we can't use Progressive anymore, it's a microaggression, now we just refer to them as "retarded cunts".

 

[fskimospy]

The OP is very confused. Collectivism is the damnation of humanity and will destroy individuality, creativity, and liberty, in the fruitless search for universal "comfort". History has proven this time and time again.

You appear to be the one who is very confused.

You realize that the formation of civil society is a form of collectivism, right? It's not collectivism yes/no, it's how much collectivism. Outside of pure anarchism it is definitionally impossible to not have a society that is at least somewhat collectivist. Far from damning humanity, societies that embrace varying degrees of collectivism have contributed to the greatest expansion of human well being in history.

This thread does remind me of one of my favorite quotes though by John Rogers:

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

 

[glenn1]

Progressive socialist. Pretty damn lefty now. Wonder where I'm gonna go from here. Tbh, I don't see my position changing from here. If someone wants to point me in another direction, be my guess. I've pretty much calibrated myself toward an altruistic naturalistic stance. I just don't see the infinite growth paridyme of the right helping the stability of the group as a whole as well as the sustainability of the planet at the speed of which technology is progressing. I also believe multiculturalism is a short term ill with long term greater good benefits. Whether force is involved in getting there is probably inevitable as force is an axiomatic fact of life. It's up to the system to strive for equality and balance to maintain integrity with the environment and it's inhabitants and the coercion will be less of a problem

I suppose you think we should congratulate you for no longer bothering to improve the world through your own efforts and charity, and simply adopting the leftist "collective action" mindset to force others to do the charity and spare you the need from reaching into your own pockets?

 

[MagickMan]

You appear to be the one who is very confused.

You realize that the formation of civil society is a form of collectivism, right? It's not collectivism yes/no, it's how much collectivism. Outside of pure anarchism it is definitionally impossible to not have a society that is at least somewhat collectivist. Far from damning humanity, societies that embrace varying degrees of collectivism have contributed to the greatest expansion of human well being in history.

No, I'm not. The barest, least amount of "collectivism" necessary to hold the basics of society together is all that should ever be required, because the more that's added, the more you stifle individuality and personal liberty. Universal mediocrity, through forced equality measures, only leads to humanity becoming just another herd animal.

 

[MagickMan]

I suppose you think we should congratulate you for no longer bothering to improve the world through your own efforts and charity, and simply adopting the leftist "collective action" mindset to force others to do the charity and spare you the need from reaching into your own pockets?

It's interesting to note that Progressives love it when others are forced to do more, while at the same time won't budge to make anything better for anyone else until it's mandatory. Compassion forced by a gun or imprisonment (which is what socialism is) isn't compassion, it's tyranny. This country was founded (we went to war with "mother England") over much less than what we tolerate today.

 

[fskimospy]

No, I'm not. The barest, least amount of "collectivism" necessary to hold the basics of society together is all that should ever be required, because the more that's added, the more you stifle individuality and personal liberty. Universal mediocrity, through forced equality measures, only leads to humanity becoming just another herd animal.

Now you're backpedaling.

 

[MagickMan]

Now you're backpedaling.

Fine, zero fucks given. You want to broaden out the term to suit you, be my guest. The amount of "collectivism" we have now is already more than we need. I, and millions of others in this country, aren't going to budge another inch, and if that means fighting, so be it.

 

[MongGrel]

Why do people even come back and revive threads like this when they are a few days dead to begin with ?

Just for the sake of arguing it looks.

 

[MagickMan]

Good question. Maybe WhipperSnapper was bored?

 

[realibrad]

Why do people even come back and revive threads like this when they are a few days dead to begin with ?

Just for the sake of arguing it looks.

Or they wanted to comment and did not have the time, or were away ect. Its not like this thread was weeks old or something like that. A few days seems reasonable.

 

[sm625]

I just don't see the infinite growth paridyme of the right helping the stability of the group as a whole as well as the sustainability of the planet at the speed of which technology is progressing.

Here is the core flaw in your ideology. You believe infinite growth is not possible. Maybe it is, maybe it isnt, but it does not mean we should not strive towards it. Living forever is not possible but people dont kill themselves when they turn 40. Growth and expansion is the natural state of the evolved human in the technological age. I think we can find a way to sustain 100 billion people given even just a few more technological advancements. Controlled electron capture LENR being one of the keys.

But there are other options. Most likely things I've never even conceived of. But you have to believe. If you just surrender to the notion that what we're doing is "unsustainable", then it becomes a no win scenario. There is no hope in that, and without hope, there is no drive for the creation and innovation and all these wonderful features of a free market and free society. When you go down the road of collectivism, it only serves to stunt the creative forces that drive us forward. If we do not drive forward, we perish, often in large numbers like in socialist Stalinist Russia or Maoist China. You do understand the sheer numbers of deaths that occured in those eras?

That is always where collectivism leads, it cannot be otherwise. The only reason European socialism appears to work is because their cultures have a very vivid living memory of how bad things can get. They are the survivors of political systems gone wrong. Once that living memory is gone, they will have to move away from socialism or else they too will fall. It could happen faster than any of them realize.

 

[fskimospy]

Fine, zero fucks given. You want to broaden out the term to suit you, be my guest. The amount of "collectivism" we have now is already more than we need. I, and millions of others in this country, aren't going to budge another inch, and if that means fighting, so be it.

Haha, it's unlikely you won't budge more. You won't have a choice.

 

[TheSlamma]

No, I'm not. The barest, least amount of "collectivism" necessary to hold the basics of society together is all that should ever be required, because the more that's added, the more you stifle individuality and personal liberty. Universal mediocrity, through forced equality measures, only leads to humanity becoming just another herd animal.

This is what most of these people have limited themselves to and doing it as a collective protects them from ridicule. Then they figure out ways to ostracize overachievers.

 

[zephyrprime]

Liberalism is a flawed concept because liberal equality if fundamentally a physical fiction. Allowing liberty causes dysgenesis. You seek balance with the environment through equality and integrity but nature itself is only in balance because of constant strife and amoralism. Nature is in dynamic equilibrium and not static equilibrium.

 

[BoberFett]

Progressive socialist. Pretty damn lefty now. Wonder where I'm gonna go from here. Tbh, I don't see my position changing from here. If someone wants to point me in another direction, be my guess. I've pretty much calibrated myself toward an altruistic naturalistic stance. I just don't see the infinite growth paridyme of the right helping the stability of the group as a whole as well as the sustainability of the planet at the speed of which technology is progressing. I also believe multiculturalism is a short term ill with long term greater good benefits. Whether force is involved in getting there is probably inevitable as force is an axiomatic fact of life. It's up to the system to strive for equality and balance to maintain integrity with the environment and it's inhabitants and the coercion will be less of a problem

I suggest a Nordic country.

 

[werepossum]

congrats, but please take your meds and use spell check.

He can't very well remain a "progressive socialist" AND take his meds.

So a few things. First, let me say I consider myself to lean left, but only because the Right is not really the Right and the Left is not really the Left. The Right does not really represent the supposed ideologies they are labeled with. The right is not really about small government. The left is only sometimes about helping the bottom. The left is far better about social progress and is mainly why I lean left.

AS for the growth point, let me say this. With out the growth of the population we would be far less productive as a world. We would invent less, and that would mean living without a lot of things we have now. I think your point would be that the damage caused for that progress would not likely be worth it. My counter would be that most of the damage done had little to do with the growth. We could have grown and not polluted as much as we did. The innovations of today can give us a lot more people on this planet with far less impact if we were willing as a globe to do something about pollution.

I personally am for something like the carbon tax if not a flat out carbon tax. A big reason why there is so much pollution is because its very hard for the parties who are effected by pollution to collect on their damage. The government could easily play a role here to help.

Last is multiculturalism. Nature a lot time ago started using diversity to protect its creations. There is noting wrong with multiculturalism inherently. The problem is that society for some reason no longer tries to weed out the bad parts of cultures. To many on the left, cultures should not be criticized because what is right and wrong is always subjective. This simply is not the case. I enjoy seeing other cultures and like the influence many have, but, no culture is 100% good and some are worse than others.

Many cultures still see women as second class people. Cultures that view women this way are worse than cultures that do not in that regard. I see no reason that anyone should be willing to accept the anti-female part of a culture. If you believe in multiculturalism and are willing to clean out the bad parts, then yay. If you believe in multiculturalism in that you like all cultures and you think they can all just get along then boo.

Damned well said, sir.

The OP is very confused. Collectivism is the damnation of humanity and will destroy individuality, creativity, and liberty, in the fruitless search for universal "comfort". History has proven this time and time again.

I would agree IF you change that from "Collectivism" to "Collectivism taken too far". Some collectivism is good and necessary for civilization; no collection of fully autonomous individuals can create an interstate highway system or a space shuttle or a long-functioning stock market. Getting the benefits of civilization requires giving up some rights and freedoms as well as wealth in order to gain some benefits and opportunities - there is no free lunch. An individual alone in the wilderness has ultimate freedom, but damned little opportunity; his actions are extremely constrained if he wishes to not starve or die of exposure. An individual within a functioning society has many more constraints on his freedom, but a lot more opportunity. As an example, consider optometry. The individual in the wilderness can simply decide to be an optometrist, but it's not a practical opportunity. The individual within a functioning society has many hoops to jump through to be an optometrist - college, medical school, residency, certification, insurance - but it is a practical opportunity.

 

[realibrad]

...

I always feel like you and I are on the same page about 99% of things. I guess this makes me an old man.

Still enjoy it though