"Of all the terrible batponies in the world, you're the least terrible."~PresentPerfectđŽPonk & GlimGlam are best poniesđŽText 714-496-3119 with the name of an MLP character to get a cute picture!
Like please help me understand. How can someone super nice and sweet and compassionate can have such ghastly political views?
Page generated in 0.035 seconds
Total duration
877 users online
545,389 hits today, 2,054,621 yesterday
My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic Fanfiction
Designed and coded by knighty & Xaquseg - © 2011-2024
Support us
SubStar
Chat!
Discord
Follow us
Twitter
MLP: Friendship is Magic® - © 2024 Hasbro Inc.®
Fimfiction is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Hasbro Inc.®
Tribalism, propaganda, social pressure, lack of knowledge, lack of empathic connections to the people affected by their ideas (not lack of empathy,âjust missing specific personal connections that help them to understand).
There's a science behind convincing people about certain issues, and the methods have nothing to do with facts or logic.
And likewise, those same sciences are used to sow division and advantage political benefactors. By both sides.
What is Conservatism again?
Why
aredo other otherwise intelligent, seemingly kind peopleconservativehave different political views from me?Fixed it for ya.
~Skeeter The Lurker
5288125 âIf youâre not a liberal when youâre 25, you have no heart. If youâre not a conservative by the time youâre 35, you have no brain.â
-- incorrectly attributed to Winston Churchill, but similar quotes abound.
In short, children (and as I age, that category gets larger) think with their emotions and impulses, while adults have learned to actually consider the consequences of their actions. Admittedly, some adults are still children in that regard (and I'll place drunk drivers, big lottery ticket purchasers, and boat owners in that category), but in short, as you age, you think more rationally. Has something to do with brain development, I think. Now culture and experiences as a child has a lot to do with that. For example, I was driving at about eleven. (tractors, mostly) We had a gal in Driver's Ed who had never been behind the wheel of even a riding lawnmower when she started (and nearly drove into a gravel pile during our first outing since she didn't know which way to turn the wheel). In that regard, our culture places more responsibility on people as they age. At the age of eighteen, you are considered mature enough to vote. (personally, I'd make it 25, but...) We have entire aircraft carriers full of multi-million dollar fighters and crewed by kids who can't even buy booze in the states.
Quick example: Universal Basic Income
Kids (and certain wings of the Dem party) - Cool! Free money! Where do I get it?
Adults (and practically every Republican) - Where does the money come from, and what effects would that have on civil society?
5288138
Good info, but I was more pointing to how anyone can have horrible political views.
~Skeeter The Lurker
5288138
I was upset at you for not making better arguments. Then I remembered we're on ST's blog. sighs. We're all just trash doves on the landfill of life.
5288145 Self-delusion, combined with proactive narcissism. "I care about you so much that I'm doing this terrible thing for you, despite your protests, and when everything is done, you'll appreciate it, and if you don't, you're a terrible person and deserve it, while I'm an even better person for my effort either way. Next!" I think every cult leader has followed that terrible path, along with more than a few parents.
You know those times when you do something to help people, and it blows up in your face, and it doesn't help that much and screws up your life?
You know those times when it seems like doing something should be the obvious solution to a problem, but when you do it not only is the original problem still there, but it made a bunch more problems too?
You know when you have to deal with the government over something, and there are a million hoops, and/or they screw everything up and you spend hours fixing it, possibly worrying about owing all the money you have or going to jail?
Conservatives mostly just want to avoid those things happening on a national or global scale, so they try to keep things mostly the same (or go back to things that mostly worked before), try to get rid of things they think didn't work or cause too many extra problems, and try to avoid involving the government in fixing problems where they can.
They're mostly just people with that voice of restraint towards government that you complain that you don't have in your personal life. (I mean no offense there. You talk about it publically pretty often.)
5288138
See I would see things the opposite way. Iâm a utilitarian, and consider it an extremely logical way of thinking, whereas I see a lot of more conservative thought built heavily on emotions and feelings, especially those of fear and anger and mistrust.
Mate, these aren't the kinds of questions to ask on this site. The peeps here are astonishingly reactionary, tbqh.
5288194
You're funny. Non-sarcastically.
5288192 Well, once you hit *politics* all that logic and thinking goes south. Take for example the situation of illegal aliens who happen to have been smuggled into the US after their birth in a foreign country. (For Libs, we're talking DACA) These are (for the most part) teens and twenties people who speak English, may have gotten married, and may have not even realized they were Mexican citizens until they tried to do something official with their 'genuine' social security number. They are (for the most part) educated in US schools, engaged in US commerce, and otherwise functionally identical to their legal counterparts who were born after their mother made a brief swim across the river. They'd make great citizens, right?
Couple of problems with that. First, most of them have no way of proving where they were born at all in Mexico, and that scotches up any citizenship application. Second, you can't apply for citizenship *while* you're breaking the law. They'd have to go back 'home' where they don't speak the language or a dozen other issues. Third, they would have to prove they've been in the US since the age of X, and that's a royal pain, sometimes impossible for migrants. Last, there's a limit on the number of immigrants Mexico is permitted to send to the US every year, and to fling these people in *front* of law-abiding people who have filled out their forms, gotten their proof of birth, paid their fees, etc... is an abomination. Last, we have 'chain' migration, so any of them who are accepted are then permitted to 'chain' older and younger relatives through the system as well, overloading it further.
*Both* parties are using them as clubs. The Dems are weeping and wailing about the poor 'children' (most of which are a lot older) and declaring their intention on 'comprehensive immigration reform' which can be summarized as 'throw out all the rules and let them in as citizens and oh by the way voting Democrat to tilt the electorate that way for the forseeable future.' The Republicans are harumphing about 'law and order' and 'playing by the rules' which doesn't help a few million Mexican citizens stuck in the middle of the US where they can't apply for citizenship without leaving, and they don't want to leave or they wouldn't be here in the first place. Both of these are emotional arguments, with the Dems crying for the 'children' and the Republicans (accurately) labeling 'comprehensive immigration reform' as Amnesty. (which will then open a massive flood of Mexicans across the border with forged papers et al...) The days of sensible debate based on facts and real history (i.e. Buckley vs Baldwin 1965)
5288189
Mostly this. Their notional job in the balance is to go "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and they don't necessarily realize when things are broken. In fact, I don't think anybody really understood the scale to which the modern US isn't functioning, not even the actual black people witnessing their own get murdered. Some people may think this is absurd. Allow my rebuttal: the cop who was recorded murdering George Floyd for no reason other than the fact that he could has been fired, but faces no criminal charges. From what I've heard, there isn't even anything stopping him from being rehired other than the obvious outrage, which is why that outrage needs to keep being obvious until the government realizes that continuing on their current course will result in full-scale revolution. As for what they decide to do about that realization... the current administration seems more likely to go for attempted military intervention than basic human decency.
(Note: Again, current administration. Removing Trump won't actually change anything on his own, because he actually had more political power as a random rich dude than he does now as the President)
5288221
Two things:
First, it's not just a matter of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." It's realizing that sometimes trying to "fix it" fails, makes it worse, or causes other problems worse than your original one. Most of the worst things you can find in history were someone's attempt to fix a problem. Wanting to fix problems isn't enough, the only thing that really matters is the exact way you go about fixing them and whether it will actually do what you hope it will do without making worse problems.
This is why conservatives are very, very careful about fixing problems. Not because they don't see the problem, but because history has shown that there are things even worse than this that could happen.
And second, George Floyd's murderers have all been charged with murder. They might have been overcharged (not morally, but based on what the prosecutor can prove beyond a reasonable doubt), but we'll see at trial. They do get to keep their pensions, even if they go to jail, but that's due to police union negotiations.
5288206
Right, but border shouldnât exist outside ceremonial reasons anyway. Why should what side of an imaginary line you are born on determine your life and your future? All these problems you have mentioned are artificial problems.
For perspective:
American politics are skewed, and liberalism and conservatism aren't used correctly. If you think people like Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, et al are far-left, man do I have a bridge to sell you. It's true they're to the left of the current Republican party , but still very-much right-wing. Bernie Sanders? Barely left of center. I've heard British people argue Bernie would be a Tory over there... while I'm not sure about that, I can tell you that everything Bernie advocated for, the UK and most of Europe has in some form or another. Even their "far-right" Boris Johnson is about even with Joe Biden on the spectrum (give or take).
Liberalism is a movement that started during the Enlightenment period. America's very roots are forged in it. The Declaration of Independence borrows words directly from John Locke, who is considered the founder of Liberalism. Locke believed all men were created equal under God and therefore had the right to life, liberty, and property, and governments couldn't violate those rights. Which was pretty radical stuff at the time, coming from the idea that nobles owned land, monarchs and religious leaders had the divine right to rule, and common people's interested weren't really represented in government at all.
Current day liberalism is about being open to new ideas and a willingness to discard traditional values in the name of progress; really not much different than John Locke's liberalism, considering his ideas left behind the aristocracy for a more egalitarian society. Of course that's still a work in progress, see the entire US history for more details.
Conservatives on the other hand are all about holding on to traditions and usually oppose change or innovation, and they usually support political ideas of the same nature. They also like the ideas of, free trade or laissez faire, and private ownership of businesses as opposed to collectively owned businesses, i.e socialism.
Usually a person isn't solely in one camp or the other, although it seems like there is a growing divide... but like I said, American's ideas of these two seemingly opposed ideologies is skewed.
5288244
Oh, I know, and I have plenty of other bones to pick with liberals.
TBF, being conservative is kind of spectrum on its own. One can be socially liberal, but economically conservative
5288243
Yup, and, by all rights and purposes, they are American citizens. Hell, from what some Mexican friends have said about Mexico, I can kind of understand why some of them would want to leave as fast as possible, legal orotherwise
God damn it, Tramp. How many times do you have to ask this stupid question? You're a fucking communist! You're in no place to be calling other people's political opinions 'ghastly.'
5288125 <- This.
5288177 Exactly! That accurately describes Super Tramp, communism, and modern liberals! Speaking of cult leaders, I love how ST has yet to learn the lesson taught by the show, about our favorite communist cult leader: Starlight Glimmer.
5288192 Well of course you think you're following logic. You believe that based on things you've been told. Formed opinions based on half truths and other people's skewed opinions, in the name of the greater good. You never stop to think that the things you might sound good on paper, perhaps are even irrefutably logical on their own, but that others have attempted these things, and we now know that they do not have the intended results in practice. This is why history exists, to learn from the mistakes of the past.
5288221 All of the officers involved in George Floyd's death have been charged with crimes, and that happened within one week of the incident. Ignorance of things like this only helps drive people to more extremist political positions, and outrage that leads to catastrophic civil unrest, like we have now. Speaking of truth, about black Americans getting murdered - in 2019 American police officers killed more white people than black people (so this whole current racism thing is objectively bullshit) and of the black people they killed, only 10 were unarmed. Of those 10 incidents, 4 have had the offending officer charged with a crime. A whopping grand total of 6 unarmed blacks were killed by cops that may or may not have been justified. In a country of 300 million people... six. Six. Meanwhile, 3000 blacks were murdered by other blacks in 2019. My point is that the US is functioning fine. It's not perfect, as nothing is, but it's a lot better than some people are trying to make it seem...
5288243 As soon as CHAZ came into being, it had borders. It had to, to maintain its sovereignty. Otherwise, it would cease to exist. While we're talking about CHAZ, I'd like to note that they tried communism and it immediately went as predicted - a bunch of homeless people took all their food. Communism leading to starvation - not big surprise.
5288247
Certainly. Also not all of these liberals or conservatives 100% aligned with each other either. They are on their own spectrum, and there are libertarians which could also be on either side of the spectrum.
5288276
ChAZ (Now CHOP) needed borders to protect itself from capitalist powers coming in and crushing it, the number cause of death for leftist movements. And the tweet you are referring to was false; I hope as stupid as you are when it comes to politics, no offense, you would be able to recognize that with something like this there is going to be tons of counter propaganda, right?
Also dude, the only time I see you and other conservatives ever care about or bring up "black on black" crime is when you're trying to justify police murdering people. But when we put forward poverty-reduction and free education and free healthcare and other measures that would reduce those numbers, you call us communists or just remain silent.
ALSO, is your grasp of statistics really that grossly dismal? By your logic cops could shoot a FAR greater percentage of Native Americans than whites, but since there are far fewer Native Americans (since us whites killed most of them over the previous 500 years), them killing more whites means racism is over.
ALSO you act like I don't give a fuck when cops kill or maim or assault or abuse non-blacks. But how often do I see you protest or otherwise fight police brutality?
ALSO, everyone being forced to do something they don't like isn't inherrently communist. Some Roman emperors implemented similar policies, are you going to tell me that the Romans were sometimes communist? Elements of our town that were closest to Communism where the collectivist nature. But socialist and communist recognize that everyone has unique skills and needs. "Thus the famous phrase: From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs."
ALSO You have things backwards. When I was younger, I was very conservative, because I only listened to what my parents told me. They told me that unions are bad and being gay is wrong. But getting a good high school education and then going off to a great Christian liberal arts college that emphasized the humanities and Christian Compassion helped me pull my ass out of my had and realize that conservatism is really really selfish and evil and dumb. Then I became a commie, Not because I was just a brainwashed sheep, but because I actually thought about things and did research and whatnot.
5288297
This is probably a bad idea, but I just need to fact check you here:
Prior to COVID-19, Trump literally would not shut up about lowering black unemployment, and school choice is a ballot issue for conservatives. Both of these are aimed at poverty reduction in the black community. Everyone agrees that reducing poverty will reduce crime, and everyone wants to do that.
You can argue that conservative policies won't work, or won't work as well as your ideas, or will make things worse. They can argue the same about your ideas.
If you want to be uncharitable, you can argue they really, secretly want these because they benefit them in some way. They can argue the same about your ideas.
But it's unfair to accuse them of ignoring the issue. I think if you're honest, and listen to what people are saying instead of trying to read their minds, you will find a lot of issues that you accuse conservatives of cruelly ignoring are places where you just don't like their proposed solutions to the problem. Not every time, but an awful lot.
That's probably the answer to the question you posed in your blog post.
5288364
I appreciate your nuanced and measured responses and that's a point in probably willing to concede oh, it just seems like any conservative Solutions I usually solutions that look past the fundamental problems. Like for example, reducing unemployment isn't super useful if the jobs that are available don't even pay enough to survive. Like the federal minimum wage is insanely low; it should be at least $20 an hour, but even 15 an hour would massively help. I mean it's literally been sitting at 7:25 an hour for I think like a decade now which is just completely insane. And school choice usually seems to just be a way to allow rich people to go to nice schools and poor people to be be shuffled into the remaining now less funded ones.
I think the problem is that ultimately most of the problems we face on a national and Global level are directly caused by capitalism, white supremacy, imperialism, patriarchalism and other deeply enmeshed fundamental issues that when you point out the path to getting rid of them, but most people don't really like you because they are so deep in the brainwashing and propaganda that they can't imagine a world without these things or think it would be horrible.
5288412
Against my better judgement, here we go again.
I think it's even deeper than that. It's in the very nature of conservatives. To conserve. Progressives are very good at changing, at progress. Conservatives are very good at not changing. I agree that tradition for tradition's sake is dumb--you should know why you believe what you believe, and that's one of the major shortfalls of the conservative, religious culture that I, like you, grew up in. But a pendulum swing to the other side is just as foolish. To say you are Politically Correct, that you know now finally the correct way to do politics, no really, we've got it right this time, I think is a bit shortsighted. These things are extremely nuanced, and must be given the time and careful consideration they require.
Ever since I played Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II, I've been something of a dialectic. For those not familiar, basically you start with an idea (a thesis) and its opposite (an antithesis). These two are both incomplete solutions to a problem. The best parts of the thesis and antithesis are taken together to form a synthesis, a better solution to the problem. This synthesis becomes its own thesis, and when it is found to be flawed or obsolete, a new antithesis will be raised and the process begins again. In this manner, positive progress is made. To bypass this process is unthinkable not only to conservatives, but to many moderates. And above all else, even if bypassed, that would just create a new thesis which would in time be challenged by a new antithesis, at which point its supporters which refuse to move on would become conservative in nature. Or, it will at some point be thrown out entirely if that's what suits the leaders of tomorrow. That's why I, as a moderate, believe the past should be considered when changing for the future.
I am aware there are more than a few people who are conservative for innumerable selfish reasons, but you asked about the ones who aren't. Politics is complicated, and those people may just be looking for answers. You must remember that ignorance is not an insult, but merely the lack of knowledge. Just the other day I had to have someone explain universal basic income to me, because I didn't know what it was. Curiously, they couldn't believe I didn't know what it was. If you have the ability to recognize ignorance, but lack the patience to teach, then you have lost a follower, not just to yourself, but to your cause.
Another quirk of human behavior I've noticed is that once someone forwards a solution, no matter how unattached to it they claim to be, they are still biased towards it. The more times someone repeats something, the more they get it stuck in their brain that their way is the best and only way. Their ego drives them to make sure their solution is implemented.
And then there are those who genuinely believe they are doing the right thing. "I know you think you want wages to go up to $20/hr, but you don't. Not only will your burger spike from $1 to $5, but those cashiers will be replaced with kiosks. They've already started. And other industries can go further. What do you think will happen to the transportation industry when self-driving cars and trucks arrive? Usually, 33% of a company's overhead is just personnel. That's the first thing they'll cut when wages go up by more than double. I know you can't see it, but this will hurt people's ability to find jobs as companies will have to cut employees just to stay out of the red." etc.
The truth is, no side has a monopoly on logic. If they did, there wouldn't be intelligent people on the other side. There wouldn't even be a debate.
5288276
If you look at the numbers of White and Black people killed by police and claim that disproves racism within police forces, you're not looking close enough. the numbers are actually quite close yet Black people make up a MUCH smaller percentage of the population, which mathematically indicates Black people are disproportionately killed by police compared to White people. Is this due to racism? Perhaps. Is this due to other factors? Perhaps. What matters though is that it doesn't DISPROVE the claim that police are generally racist.
Also, the numbers for armed Black people only take into consideration whether or not a firearm was found by the police on the individual and doesn't actually take into account whether or not the individual attempted to draw it, nor does it take into account the fact that police HAVE in fact been caught planting firearms on individuals after shooting them (which while rare still skews numbers and needs to be taken into account in these situations).
More importantly, the 3000 black on black deaths are irrelevant in this particular conversation and is frankly a form of whataboutism. Murder and Manslaughter more often are committed by (or done to) people of lower socioeconomic status in terms of the raw numbers, and even BRINGING up that statistic makes some very unkind assumptions about Black people as a whole in terms of their character rather than actually getting to the heart of the matter which is a huge disparity of opportunities and general wealth in the United States, of which Black people are ESPECIALLY disadvantaged.
Well I could explain my reasoning for how they do but just watching Captain America Civil War is a much better example. It's one of the few times I'm almost leaning towards a not liberal view. I wouldn't call Cap a conservative necessarily, but in that movie he sort of was?
Edit: I know technically he was Libertarian not Conservative but if I had to say his actions were either left or right they'd be right.
5288705
His actions were neither left nor right. Only libertarian.
5288809
Well conservative ideals focus on individualism while liberals focus on everyone right? And Tony was focused on the great many people that could be protected and allowing everyone input by signing the accords and getting Bucky, while Cap wanted the Avengers to be a private individual force and wanted to save Bucky despite the fact that it might've been better for the greater good if he didn't.
5288138
To claim that liberals are naĂŻve romantics and conservatives wizened rationalists is not only an old trope and an oversimplification, but itâs also a obvious failure in logic. Both of these groups have specific beliefs and dogmas that they follow blindly and that their opposition consider illogical, and there most certainly are more than enough old liberals and young conservatives.
Iâll give you a specific example: conservatives in the US claim to be fiscally conservative, but the plain fact is that socialized medicine ends up not only in improved health longer life spans, and happier individuals, but it also cost less per capita to the taxpayers of the nations that engage in it. As a Canadian and fiscally conservative, I am aghast at American conservatives complete disregard of the economic arguments In favor of socialized medicine.
My advice to SuperTrampoline is that the political beliefs and dogmas that any individual holds is very much like their religious belief: as much the result of their social environment, the community where they were raised, and their family, than any exercise in logic. You canât blame them for these beliefs, and if you sincerely value and respect their rights as an individual, then do so by respectfully agreeing to disagree. That they hold values that are different from your own does not make them evil, nor does it mean that you could not engage in a mutually satisfactory relationship. For genuine democracy to exist there has to be civil discussion of these differences. Intolerance only leads to polarization and conflict that doesnât resolve anything. And that doesnât mean that you give up defending the things that you believe in, but lighten up and show that you can see the person on the other side of the political divide as a fellow citizen even if you disagree with their views on things that are very important to you.
5288297
Stop it with your doublethink! It's really sickening to see people do this shit. You can't have it both ways! Pick one. What the fuck gives a leftist movement the right to sovereignty and borders, but not America or any other country? You claim to think logically, and say that I don't, yet you're the one thinking two completely different and opposite things are true simultaneously. That's the opposite of logic.
See, you're conflating conservatism with selfishness. Those are two very different things. I could easily argue that communism is selfish and evil - forcibly taking the fruits of my labor and giving it to someone else is practically the definition of evil and selfish. I'm sorry that your parents gave you the wrong impression of conservatism. Now that I know that, your atrocious political views make perfect sense. You're still rebelling. That's understandable. I hope that one day you understand enough about conservatism to know that selfishness and hating gays isn't part of it.
5288687
That probably has something to do with the fact that black people commit 50% of the crimes despite being only 13% of the population. Yes, I went there, because facts are not racist, and facts don't care about your feelings. Given that they commit 50% of crimes, it stands to reason that 50% of the people killed by police would be black, yet here we are, it's less than that. You could argue that the numbers are within the margin of error of 50%, ok, fine. But that still shows that cops kill people equally regardless of race, so the numbers STILL prove that police are not inherently racist (at least when it comes to them killing folks).
Jesus, you sound like a bible basher trying to tell me that something doesn't disprove the existence of god. That's a bullshit counter argument and you know it. If you want to counter with something, counter with some facts, maybe?
5288899
Except people can freely come and go into CHAZ, borders are only for protection against aggression, not people walking in or going through it. Arguably, it's much different to how current borders of countries function.
That is not communism, that is capitalism. Communism is a system where there is no money, no class, and no state. People are supposed to be truly free there and not being afraid of starvation, dying of preventable disease, or being homeless, all of which are a looming threat above everyone who's not ultra-rich in capitalism. If you do not work, you lose your home, you lose access to healthcare (In the US), you lose the ability to properly feed yourself. Under communism - actual communism and not state capitalism that USSR and China used - such things would not be possible.
You earlier said that Starlight Glimmer is communist. That couldn't be further from the truth - taking everyone's individuality, making them all equally terrible and miserable is nothing like communism. Especially when the individuality of a leader, a dictator remains untouched. Sure, there are parallels to be made with USSR, but as I said before, USSR was never communist or even socialist. People never controlled the means of production and distribution democratically, thus failing to meet the basics of socialism.
If anything, Starlight Glimmer was a fascist. Just like Hitler, she was what he hated (Hitler was partially a Jew, Starlight Glimmer didn't get rid of her own cutie mark), and her oppressive settlement has way more in common with what would happen under fascism.
Fascism, according to Merriam-Webster, is a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
Starlight Glimmer exalted the absence of cutie marks above the individual, her little village was a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader (which is herself), regimentation was in place to ensure "equality"), and the episode clearly showed that the opposition was forcibly suppressed.
Conservatives conserve. If you're a social conservative, you must follow the tradition of hating gay people, maybe women, definitely non-binary and transgender people. If you're a fiscal conservative, you want to mess the poor people up because you don't want to change the economical system to make it better for the people to rise up and earn some wealth. Conservatives are all about how things either were or currently are, they adhere to traditions, so I fail to see how they can change any issue they talk about. Sure, they do talk about limiting the government, but too often only about where it limits the conservatives themselves and not everyone else, thus making conservatives selfish.
5288899
Except you're using two interrelated pieces of information to attempt to prove something that is completely and utterly unrelated. Police shooting X amount of people from X amount of crimes does match up, but guess what? 50% of crime simply takes ALL acts of crime and lumps them together, no matter how serious or minor they may be.
Cute how you hide behind facts when you're literally cherry picking your information and like I said in my original reply, NOT GETTING AT THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM. Do you know what happens when you place people in situations of extreme socioeconomic disparity where black people are disproportionately on the bottom rungs of the wealth and power ladder? They turn to crime. This is actually a pretty well documented phenomenon and is not unique to the US, nor is it unique to black people. Interestingly enough it actually occurs disproportionately to groups that historically have been targeted as inferior for varying reasons. This includes Indians with their Caste system with those at the bottom ending up committing more crime in order to get by, usually more theft. It also includes, ironically enough based on my previous example, the Romani people.
If you think that the 13/50 argument makes it NOT racist when police use deadly force, you should examine the disparity of force used in situations that are almost the same besides the color of an individual's skin. With the death of George Floyd as an example, they had him in custody without an issue, yet multiple officers did nothing but stand by when a cop kneeled on his neck long enough for that to lead to his death through varying health complications. If he were a white guy they'd probably not even have immediately gone with arrest to begin with and would have taken different action. In fact, I have good reason to believe that based off of existing patterns of behavior if George Floyd were white there would have been a MUCH lower chance of the $20 bill he was using to pay for his purchase being suspected as counterfeit. I also believe that the methods of confirming the authenticity of the bill in question were insufficient but that's something else entirely.
Kinda funny that I never once called you names but you have the audacity to try to compare me to a bible basher in a derogatory manner. If you really care about the facts of the situation mattering the most, why do you resort to thinly veiled insults? Is it that you're so sure you're right that nothing could "disprove" your argument(s) and beliefs? Because if so, it is in my own opinion that you need to reexamine your own inherent biases before taking part in serious discussion like this, as it may lead to you participating in bad faith subconsciously.
5288921
Hmm, not really. Though their borders are akin to swiss cheese, they did/do still have people making sure no unwanted people enter. Often the media or anybody they perceive as a threat. That's the exact same thing as a country's borders. The exact same thing. They are 'open' and most people may come and go, but the undesirables are kept out. So no, that's exactly the same thing.
Unfortunately that's exactly how communism has always turned out in the real world. The utopian communist ideal is a great idea on paper, that has never worked in practice. Realistically, we'd have to be a post-scarcity society for it to work. So you're bringing this argument to semantics, really. In your mind, communism is actually utopianism, and real-world communism (USSR, for example) is state capitalism. However, you know very well what I mean when I say 'communism,' I mean the Marxism-based political systems that have been long tested by many societies in the world. We can argue about how they didn't implement it correctly, but the hard truth is that they were all implemented about the same. That makes a pattern. You don't just dismiss a pattern of empirical data, there is something about communism that leads to misery and suffering. Your utopian ideal may be just that, but the experiment has proved the hypothesis false, I'm afraid.
I'll also mention that Marx himself said that things like gender roles and the concept of a nuclear family must be broken down so that everyone can be truly equal. So perhaps your utopianism is not communism or Marxism at all.
Boy you and Tramp are very confused. Let me define conservative and liberal for you. Liberals believe that a country's prosperity can be achieved by the liberal application of government control. Conservatives believe the opposite. That's it. They both (traditionally, anyway) have the same end goal. They want prosperity. Any other strings attached to either are not a part of the core value, which I just described. People who happen to be conservatives are/were sometimes racist and bigoted, but that doesn't mean their political views were a part of that. Though I'm sure those particular people used their political views to support that. If you want to talk about horrible political views, I can just as easily point you to all the many democrats who vehemently supported segregation. Besides JFK, the most of the rest were quite literally white supremacists. Even well after JFK, hell, Joe Biden himself passed legislation in the 70s that kept schools segregated. Yet you propose to tell me that conservatives hate people by definition? How extremely absurd. Both of you truly are ignorant of what conservatism is. How dare you tell me that I must hate someone just because I'm a conservative.
5288925
Well we weren't talking about the source of the problem, now where we? We were talking about police shootings. I'm not going to disagree with you about the source of the problem, though I bet we'd disagree on how to fix it.
You did behave like one. There was nothing thinly veiled there at all. You say I am 'hiding behind facts,' yet they are at least facts. I am making a debate and supporting it with facts, and then you say something so irrelevant and emotional like 'you can't DISPROVE it!' That's bad form. You accuse me of making a poor argument, but at least I am making one. That statement you made was not an argument, it was an irrational outburst. You're welcome to try and disprove my beliefs, that's what I'm trying to do to you, but it doesn't appear that either of us has succeeded yet.
Don't talk to me about biases. You obviously think the police are racist and kill a disproportionate number of black people, and wouldn't dream of killing a white guy in the same manner as George Floyd. That sounds like inherent bias to me. I'm the one using numbers to support my opinions, but the more you talk about it, the more you sound like you're just inherently biased. The cops are racist, the 13/50 argument is racist, cops kill black people. You've yet to give me any kind of facts to support these opinions, other than that you think so. (Though I will admit, you at least raised a good point about cops planting weapons on people they kill, I honestly think we should hang any cop that does that.) In my opinion, then, you've got your own inherent biases. Not to say that I don't, I think everyone does. But there's no need to chide me for taking part in an intelligent discussion, basically just because you believe I am wrong. That's also poor form, you're basically saying I should just shut up because I'm wrong and you're right.
That's not how this works.
5288964
I don't understand how you wrote a bunch of great well-crafted stories and seemed very aware and intelligent when we met in person at BronyCon can be so incredibly utterly daft when it comes to nearly ever sing facet of politics. Like I'm not trying to be rude; I'm legitimately confused.
There really isn't a way to answer this without sounding blunt or standoffish, so with that being said, I will give my answer.
Conservatism is not evil. The fact that you ask this question tells me that you want to understand, but it has never made sense to you. Find someone who has all those qualities and ask them the same question, but not to make them change their ways. Ask so that you can understand their ways.
Once you do that, one of two things will happen; either you will find out that you were wrong, or that you were right. The only way to know is to ask.
5289418
See, we agree on something lol. Look, I know you don't want to believe my definition of liberal and conservative, but I promise you that it's the truth. Their definitions are literally the names themselves - 'liberal' application of gov't and 'conservative' application of gov't. (I don't really like that definition of conservative as 'conserving,' because that makes me think more about 'preserving' than being restrained.) Neither political view point - as only a political viewpoint and nothing else - is 'evil' or anything like that. The people holding that viewpoint may or may not be, or more specifically the politicians. Personally I believe most, if not all, liberal politicians really are evil and selfish (recall the gov't shutdown when most of the democrats were partying in Puerto Rico, when they should've been doing their jobs - for which they are handsomely paid - trying to help the American people, their constituents? Now that's what I'd call selfish), but I don't think ordinary liberal people are usually that way. I just think their opinions are... very sadly misguided, but usually with the best intentions. Wouldn't you say communism is much the same, as a political viewpoint? It's the application of gov't to distribute wealth equally (to put it very briefly), with the theoretical end goal of the prosperity of the nation's people?
(Also, thank you for the compliment
[Even if you are basically calling me evil, racist, and bigoted out of the other side of your mouth lol])
5289606 He's asked this several times. He doesn't understand, I don't think he wants to understand. He wants conservatives to be evil. The world must be black and white, it cannot have shades of gray.
5289418
5289632
Just out of curiosity, Trampoline, do you post things like this when you think "man, I haven't had a four day long argument with theRedBrony in a while! I really miss that guy..."? Because that would make sense of a lot of things.
5289680 LOL I mean, he's a self-admitted troll, so...
5288964
I will believe that if you provide proof. Because, as I said before, I heard otherwise.
As I said, it wasn't communism. It was state capitalism. So, arguably, the way to communism through state capitalism is what failed, not communist itself.
I would argue USSR and China both went against Marx in many ways. For once, Marx argued that workers are not to be disarmed. As you can see, in USSR and China, owning weapons was and is (former USSR and modern China) very difficult unless you serve the countries in question. And next thing, workers never got control over the means of production and distribution, the main thing about socialism. For all the touting of Marxism at the time, it wasn't followed that much.
As I said, we can't argue about communism since it was never tested in practice (and, as you pointed out, it very likely requires a post-scarcity society), but we can discuss the methods of getting to communism. There are different methods of achieving communism, and one of them is taking control of the state to become state capitalist first, which is what utterly failed. The other method is abolishing the state right away, i.e. anarchist method. There were attempts at it in many parts of the world, but this is arguably the hardest thing to accomplish, although not impossible.
I don't see anything wrong with that, so props for Marx for being so progressive all that time ago. Nuclear family is an outdated concept that oftentimes brings misery, and gender roles were historically used to put down women or anyone who didn't strictly adhere to those rules.
I'm not quite sure that's how it actually works. At the very least, not in practice. In practice, I see conservatives use government power where it suits them (pushing religion into schools and government, denying lgbt people their rights, etc) and deny that power to groups they dislike.
Liberals... I'm not even sure what to say about them. Some of them are fairly progressive on the issues I outlined above, some of them just want deregulation.
To be honest, that's the goal of any political ideology, as far as I'm aware.
Both Democrats and Republicans in the US are conservative. Republicans more than Democrats, perhaps, but my point stands. I don't think the two-party system of the US will ever solve anything, so to me, Democrats is a better choice of two really crappy choices. Not equally horrible, but horrible nonetheless.
The answer to this is simple - the stereotype of gay-hating, bible-thumping, racist conservative exists for a reason. Perhaps you're not one of them, but a lot of them are at least one in the three big hate groups.
As for myself, I'm not quite sure. I'm definitely left-wing, that's what I can say with absolute certainty. But, to be frank, I don't know how I feel about the government. There are points that support reforming it, there are points that support abolishing it altogether. I've not yet decided which points make more sense to me.
5289680
5289720
See now Iâm trying to figure out what our ship name would be.
5289754 Oh boy...
5289753
Yeah, I'll repeat myself: you're getting into semantics. You know what I mean when I say 'communism.'
So hate groups are bad, and racism is bad, and all that jive, but YOU can stereotype me and an entire group of people because we're conservative?
Excuse me, how is that different from literally EVERY political party? They all do that shit. That's politics. You don't get to cherry pick conservatives as en example, when liberals are just as guilty.
Compared to you, perhaps. But in reality, no. Democrats are constantly trying to push through new legislation and regulations, specifically those that are liberal about government control and influence. For example, the CARES act, in which the democrats kept putting a bunch of stupid shit that would require more affirmative action and give money specifically to the DC Center for Performing arts, and the second bill that had the word 'cannabis' more than either 'covid-19' or 'jobs' despite being like 4000 pages long. That's the definition of liberal as I keep trying to tell you: the LIBERAL application of government. LIBERALLY making new laws and regulations. LIBERALLY providing subsidies and such. These modern democrats are very much liberals. Just because they're not quite as far left as you are does not change the fact that they, in general, believe in the LIBERAL application of government. Hence: Liberals. It's literally in the name.
https://www.facebook.com/prntly/photos/gm.742947443180748/2620998851473776/
I'll admit, as evidence it's a bit thin. And it doesn't help that CHAZ is not a cohesive organization, so it's hard to pin them with something. Also it's late and I don't feel like looking any further. You can seek the truth on your own, you know.
5289778
Using words incorrectly is, well, incorrect. We need to operate facts, not what someone may feel is a fact. The facts are clear: that was not communism. You cannot criticize communism if you're not actually addressing it.
My experience and experiences of plenty of other people paint the picture of conservatives being bible-thumping, racist, and homophobic. If the majority of your group is like that, then it's not incorrect to say that they are what I say they are.
I suppose you do have a point.
Liberalism isn't left, however. But yeah, I see your point.
The one who recorded videos didn't blur the faces of protesters and he did ask questions such as "where are you from?", making himself suspicious. These videos can be accessed by the police who could later find out who the protesters are and arrest them for pretty much anything.
People, unfortunately, need to be careful. We've seen what the police can do to people who aren't breaking laws, so we have no reason to give them any fuel to use against the protestors.
5289811
I suppose it's not incorrect, but if you said the same nasty things about a race of people, wouldn't that be racist? Even if it were true by your personal experiences? Yet I highly doubt you'd dare to stereotype a racial group, at least not out loud in a public place. What's the difference? I'll ask again, what gives you the right to stereotype me? I mean, you practically told me that I have to be that way... why? Because of your personal experiences? If I had stereotyped you, wouldn't you be as offended as I am?
Hey, I got you on something, at least.
I suppose we can compromise on that point.
They are not mutually exclusive.
5289754
Red Trampoline. The alternative (Super Brony) is too generic.
5290109
It would be. People of one race do not need to have the same ideals at all, so stereotyping them on the basis of how they were born would be completely unfair just like stereotyping red-haired or black-haired or left-handed people.
Conservatives follow certain ideas, and that necessitates commonality in the said ideas. If a lot of conservatives are racist and homophobic, I think that does say something about conservatism as a whole. Why does it attract such people? People on the left side of the political spectrum tend not to be racist or homophobic or Bible-thumping. Considering that leftist ideas are equality for all regardless of race or sexual preferences or even gender, that makes sense. Conservatives, who are pretty much exclusively right-wing, oftentimes do not share such ideals.
No, I didn't tell you how you have to behave if you consider yourself conservative, I'm telling you how the majority of conservatives act, and thus when you say you are in the same group of people as them, assumptions naturally arise. As I said before, you can be a conservative and not be racist or homophobic or Bible-thumping or transphobic or even against people who say they're of a gender you've never heard of before. You can be fine with all those people a lot of conservatives aren't alright with and still call yourself conservative, but when you do say you're a conservative, you should ask yourself what you share with the people who also call themselves such.
Depends. To some things, I would probably say "Yes", but to others I would likely be offended, especially if it has nothing to do with ideals but everything to do with race or where I was born and live or how I look.
5290498
I would answer that I share the opinion that government control and interference should be kept to a minimum in order to secure the prosperity of our nation and the freedom and liberty of our people. Simple.
Trying to get me to change my political viewpoint because of how YOU perceive others who share my views is ridiculous. I'm not about to bend over backwards to appease you or anybody else because of your slanted opinion. 'Yeah, I think I'll become a communist because all conservatives are racist bigots.' Does that sound like the thinking of a logical intelligent person? No. That sounds like an emotional response from an imbecile who cares not for the consequences of their support for any given political party, someone who cares more about virtue signalling and appearances than they do for the well-being of their own country. I am not that person. Maybe try to look at it from this point of view: Would you really consider changing your political ideology if I told you that all the other lefties/commies like you are racist bigots? (I mean, they are. Look at Tramp with all of his white guilt.) You wouldn't even believe me, let alone make a serious consideration. Why the hell would you expect me to be any different? Because of your opinion? Because your opinion is right and mine is wrong? Please.
No, that's how YOU perceive the majority of conservatives. There's a big difference. Just because that's your opinion of how these people behave does not make it factual.
Why does communism attract a bunch of hippie college students with massive student debt and no jobs? Because they think it's all about peace and love and they get free shit.
Nope. Conservatives, almost all of them, support individual freedom and equality promised by our constitution.
5290509
So, do you think that businesses should be free to exploit people however they like? Your position is contradictory. You can't stand up for the freedom and liberty of people if you're against regulating things that take freedom and liberty away. In any case, if that is your position, why do conservatives rally behind the Republican party which did the exact opposite of what you claim your position is?
You're assuming that was my reasoning. It's not. I'm not a conservative because I disagree with conservatism and deem it ineffective in achieving what conservatives claim is their goal.
I think we do owe to make everyone's lives better, especially people that were historically oppressed and are still oppressed by our kind. However, it doesn't mean that people who did not partake in the oppression are guilty, but standing aside and letting people suffer is not acceptable either.
Then I will ask you who voted someone like Trump into office. Was it liberals or conservatives? Actions speak louder than words, and apparently many conservatives are fine with a racist rapist running the country with a religious idiot as a VP and the administration and courts comprised of corrupt, selfish individuals.
That's a very bad take. I doubt many people ever think there's free stuff in communism. Aside from that, why do you think poor people support communism, maybe it would benefit them?
Your constitution promises no such thing. In its original form, it excluded the majority of population from even being able to vote. To this very day, the constitution allows slavery and does not recognize the struggles of atheists or workers or LGBT people.
On top of that, as I said before, actions speak louder than words, and conservatives voted in Bible-thumping, racist, science-denying people into power. It requires a considerable amount of people to do that, so I see no reason to believe that the majority of conservatives follow what you claim they follow.
5290523
lol you believe that MSM crap? I bet you think Biden doesn't touch little girls. That 'racist rapist' actually applies pretty well to a guy who's touched many women inappropriately - on camera, and who supported segregation in schools. Interestingly, Donald Trump is the single biggest employer of black people in NYC, but the minute he ran for president he became racist.
You're one to talk, buddy. After all that BS about racist conservatives. Seriously? That's some pretty bad hypocrisy. Not to mention willful ignorance of plain facts.