Teh Official OMG WTF thread.

[Shade]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGTLNHlyXKA

 

[BloodyAng3l]

Epic 5 chars foker restriction

 

[BloodyAng3l]

http://imgur.com/gallery/XvqZmta

 

[Shade]

Well this year was fucking insane.

I used to be a leftist; moderate leftist, but still a leftist. I thought anyone who was right-winged subscribed to an ultimately harmful ideology and that it was in humanity's best interest to let go of it.

This year, I saw the left being taken to the extreme and used for all sorts of bullshit. I saw the right start talking sense.

What the fuck happened? In any case, my political alignment took a nose dive. Literally. I'm more of a libertarian now than I ever was.

 

[Bavanai]

Ok, I'll bite

I used to be a leftist; moderate leftist, but still a leftist. I thought anyone who was right-winged subscribed to an ultimately harmful ideology and that it was in humanity's best interest to let go of it.

This is my exact case as well. Honestly, when I started seeing past the bullshit... It's just feelgood shit which you can't really apply in the real world with the same results that it has in theory. It's an ideology for the weak-willed, for the people who would always rather give up their free will to have someone take care of them instead of taking care of themselves. Everything, from the authoritarian political correctness apparatus to its ignorant understanding of economics is flawed when applied beyond theory.

This is the kind of shit you can expect in the future stemming from leftist thought:

In California they already started enacting such laws.

The "crazies", the rightists, the stereotypical ones we used to laugh at years ago like Palin and shit - still populist idiots, but you start to understand some of the general sentiment of people who vote for such politicians. Personally though, I also see libertariansm as the most down-to-earth solution for us to live peacefully. The ideal realist government for me would be a "night-watchman state."

A night-watchman state, or a minimal state, is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it is a form of government in political philosophy where the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from assault, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts.

 

[Sere]

There is no left or right wing in politics. It's a sham. They're all making deals behind closed doors, regardless of the so-called "doctrine". They're all crooks.

 

[Bavanai]

Taxation and individual freedom are two things which will always be worth fighting for regardless of how you see the political scene because of how strongly they affect your day-to-day life. Even if you see it as some sort of cabal of sneaky men making shady deals.

Or even simpler shit like increasing the minimum wage, with the lefties think will magically decrease poverty, when in actual practice it will only make those minimum wage jobs more difficult to get and to hold, actually increasing poverty among the unskilled and disadvantaged. Guess what, even if the politics game is rigged by forces much greater than you, this is the kind of issue you DO have a voice for with your vote.

 

[Sere]

You (we) don't make real decisions with our vote. Neither do the politicians. The only thing left up to them is how much they're gonna steal and how badly they're going to fuck us.
Issues like the minimum wage are decided by the IMF, the World Bank, not politicians.

 

[Shade]

The "crazies", the rightists, the stereotypical ones we used to laugh at years ago like Palin and shit - still populist idiots, but you start to understand some of the general sentiment of people who vote for such politicians. Personally though, I also see libertariansm as the most down-to-earth solution for us to live peacefully. The ideal realist government for me would be a "night-watchman state."

We agree on the consent issue. The more feminism I see in my left-wing ideology, the more I stray away from it. I'm not against the idea that people should be mindful of other people's feelings, but forcing people to be like that is absolute madness. Especially when there's no scientific justification, just "it's better because it feels like it is, trust us, we're idiots with no credibility".

The right still has a tendency to be religious and enforce tradition, which doesn't sit right with me. Economy-wise, I don't know enough to have an opinion - I stay out of it.

Under my protection, Dex was an authoritarian state of sorts. But the only thing I did was apply simplistic solutions to "crime" (unfair pk), "fraud", and behavior. In such a simplified system that is in itself a luxury, an utopia is achievable by these means. In real life, however, you cannot ever fully trust who is in power, you cannot trust yourself if you are in power, and you cannot give more power to whom you cannot trust.

 

[Bavanai]

Meh that's just the vocal Christian right which isn't libertarian but populist.

Take the issue of businesses discriminating against gays for example - the leftist response to that is to fine or punish the business and force it to serve whomever. Compare to the libertarian thought on the issue: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NBJ2e5f62Co

This is an instance where you can clearly see the difference of mentality.

 

[HellFire]

actually /edit,becoming a drama lama

 

[Bavanai]

Pussy

 

[Shade]

Take the issue of businesses discriminating against gays for example - the leftist response to that is to fine or punish the business and force it to serve whomever. Compare to the libertarian thought on the issue: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NBJ2e5f62Co

I don't really agree, actually. Sure, you're likely to not suffer much as a gay person in the US, but countries like Uganda and some backwater african states would really need some anti-discrimination laws.

Equality of opportunity and all that. Sometimes our past prejudice clouds our ability to apply reason to the present.

 

[Bavanai]

I don't really agree, actually. Sure, you're likely to not suffer much as a gay person in the US, but countries like Uganda and some backwater african states would really need some anti-discrimination laws.

But that means they need to actually enforce existent laws, not that we need to create "anti-discrimination" laws. If a group kills a gay dude because he's gay and get away with it like it happens so often in backwards countries, that's not because of the lack of anti-discrimination laws, that's because there's no rule of law. The law "don't fucking kill people, mkay?" already exists in every country. You don't need more laws. You need education and the rule of law.

Equality of opportunity and all that. Sometimes our past prejudice clouds our ability to apply reason to the present.

But any kind of "equality of opportunity" law discriminates other people - here's how: "equality" of opportunity laws usually consist of government-mandated quotas for universities and workplaces or schoolarships based on race, sex or sexual orientation instead of merit. For example the government mandates that a certain workplace is required by law to have at least 20% of their employees female. If you're a well-qualified and experienced male applicant to that job, you will be discriminated against BY LAW to be brushed aside in favour of any less qualified female applicant simply because she has a vagina and the state dictates that vaginas > dicks.

Prejudice isn't fixed with laws but with education. The laws will only make people hide their prejudice when necessary, nothing more. And they will disadvantage other people for "equality" (ain't that some hypocritical shit?).

 

[Shade]

But that means they need to actually enforce existent laws, not that we need to create "anti-discrimination" laws. If a group kills a gay dude because he's gay and get away with it like it happens so often in backwards countries, that's not because of the lack of anti-discrimination laws, that's because there's no rule of law. The law "don't fucking kill people, mkay?" already exists in every country. You don't need more laws. You need education and the rule of law.

What you're talking about here is equality of rights. Killing isn't the only result of discrimination. Some of these results aren't protected by law.

So no, we don't need extra laws against killing. Killing is already covered. Ostracism, prejudice, bigotry.

But any kind of "equality of opportunity" law discriminates other people - here's how: "equality" of opportunity laws usually consist of government-mandated quotas

No, that's equality of outcome, a concept I am not in support of and will never be.

Equality of opportunity just means not cutting people's paths off before they had the chance to prove themselves. Give them all equal chances, and it's on them whether they fuck up or succeed. It means not discriminating based on arbitrary factors such as race, gender or sexuality (in fields where they aren't needed). It means making sure everyone's chance of success is determined based on their own actions, not outside interference. Government quotas work against that, because they ARE outside factors. Whether they influence success or failure doesn't matter.

 

[Bavanai]

Imagine that Bob owns an apartment complex down the street from you, and decides that he wishes to no longer rent his property to a homosexual individual. Do you, as his neighbor, have the right to impose a fine upon him? Do you have the right to lock him in a cage or use violence against him in any way? In other words, are you morally justified in using coercion against him as a result of his discriminatory action?

You would not be justified—not at all. You may strongly disagree with Bob’s action, but it is his property, and those choosing to rent from him have no right to use his property (apart from any binding obligations that may exist from a contractual agreement to which both parties had previously agreed).

Because you and I lack the authority to dictate to property owners to whom they must offer rent, and because we likewise lack the authority to tell business owners who they must employ, we cannot delegate that authority to the government to exercise on our collective behalf because it's the same thing as doing it ourselves.

 

[Shade]

Because you and I lack the authority to dictate to property owners to whom they must offer rent, and because we likewise lack the authority to tell business owners who they must employ, we cannot delegate that authority to the government to exercise on our collective behalf because it's the same thing as doing it ourselves.

Aaaaaaand you lost me.

Imagine someone is shooting and killing innocents. Do you, as a citizen, have the right to take his gun away, tie him up and put him in a cell for 20-50 years?

No you fucking don't. Let's not put anyone in jail then, herp derp.

Look, the government is there because it governs. Citizens don't govern. You can't say I'm not justified to fine anyone therefore the government isn't justified to fine anyone. I don't govern. THE GOVERNMENT DOES

 

[Bavanai]

Aaaaaaand you lost me.

Imagine someone is shooting and killing innocents. Do you, as a citizen, have the right to take his gun away, tie him up and put him in a cell for 20-50 years?

No you fucking don't. Let's not put anyone in jail then, herp derp.

Look, the government is there because it governs. Citizens don't govern. You can't say I'm not justified to fine anyone therefore the government isn't justified to fine anyone. I don't govern. THE GOVERNMENT DOES

The police is there to intervene for theft, violent crime, fraud, etc. Not because I hurt your feelings.

 

[Shade]

The police is there to intervene for theft, violent crime, fraud, etc. Not because I hurt your feelings.

Discrimination hurts more than feelings. I don't care about feelings. Equality of opportunity.

That image. Can you notice the similarities between it and your line of thinking? To discriminate means to express different feelings towards different kinds of people. So in a way, their rights end where your feelings begin.

"let people discriminate if they want to" is a rationale that can be used both for negative and positive discrimination. What's the difference between a male store owner refusing to let blacks in his racist store, and a female store owner refusing to let white male shitlords in her feminist store?

 

[khaled]