Conversation

Notices

1. augustus pugin ? (augustus@shitposter.club)'s status on Thursday, 22-Jul-2021 08:03:14 JST augustus pugin ?
   >1848 revolution in Germany fails>German radicals immigrate en masse to USA>USA attracts all revolutionary potential to it like a magnet>USA becomes dominant world power>demands revolutions all across the world>still doing it today>mfw USA is actually a Trotskyist megastate pushing permanent revolution
   • lain (lain@lain.com)'s status on Thursday, 22-Jul-2021 08:03:10 JST lain

     in reply to

     • sage
     @augustus @mono I don't see many people who are even remotely in power saying "war bad". They'll say "aggression Bad" and then will start preemptive wars to end some guy's aggression. Even the green party in Germany (woke-ish left) thinks that Germany has to take "military responsibility" against Russia or whatever.
     バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;; likes this.
   • sage (mono@shitposter.club)'s status on Thursday, 22-Jul-2021 08:03:11 JST sage

     in reply to
     @augustus i unironically believe the present is a lot better than the past for most humans and that total war should be avoided at all costs.:jokersmoking2: i just haven't seen any framework put up a coherent defense against liberalism and back it up with results.
   • augustus pugin ? (augustus@shitposter.club)'s status on Thursday, 22-Jul-2021 08:03:11 JST augustus pugin ?

     in reply to

     • sage
     @mono i don't even know what total war would look like in present day. i don't think you can get rid of war, but i also don't know if letting some regional war exist will necessarily end up always with global total war. i'm really deeply suspicious about that as a liberal teleology. i see those arguments as "shh, war bad, just let us be in charge, let everyone submit to us and we will end war forever" in the same way as Islam demands submission etc. i see it as a Machiavellian political formula. but also being wrong about this question means i'm gambling with all human life everywhere so it's a pretty big limb for me to go out on
   • augustus pugin ? (augustus@shitposter.club)'s status on Thursday, 22-Jul-2021 08:03:12 JST augustus pugin ?

     in reply to

     • sage
     @mono i hate this whig history Last Man bugman argmax peace optimizer piece of trash with a divine fury >quoting de Tocqueville>quoting HobsbawmAbserlutely ORTHODOX.
   • sage (mono@shitposter.club)'s status on Thursday, 22-Jul-2021 08:03:13 JST sage

     in reply to
     @augustus https://youtu.be/CH1oYhTigyA fun vid but probably stuff u already know
   • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;; (shmibs@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu)'s status on Thursday, 22-Jul-2021 08:08:37 JST バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;

     in reply to

     • lain
     • sage
     @mono @lain @augustus alternative is "oligarchy and restrictions and censorship and suppression and centralised allocation"?
   • sage (mono@shitposter.club)'s status on Thursday, 22-Jul-2021 08:08:38 JST sage

     in reply to

     • lain
     @lain @augustus i mean post napoleonic "democracy and rights and representation and freedom and trade is cool and we should spread it" liberals
   • sage (mono@shitposter.club)'s status on Thursday, 22-Jul-2021 08:08:40 JST sage

     in reply to

     • lain
     @lain @augustus libs believe war is justified and based and great against non liberal states. they believe peace can be achieved as long as everyone is operating under the same government type.
   • lain (lain@lain.com)'s status on Thursday, 22-Jul-2021 08:08:40 JST lain

     in reply to

     • sage
     @mono @augustus so you mean AOC liberals
   • sage (mono@shitposter.club)'s status on Thursday, 22-Jul-2021 08:08:43 JST sage

     in reply to

     • lain
     @lain @augustus Faraway forever wars against backwards non-libs are fine for libs. That's kind of the point. They (and a vast majority of civilized people are libs) see war between powers that can put up a fight to be all consuming and A Objectively Bad Thing which is true. You don't have to be a lib to agree with this but when your other options are all about perpetual revolution then what can you do?A new framework/ideology has to acknowledge the current distribution of power and be compatible with the current human. Nothing built by beardy germans from the 19th century is going to deliver what the human of 2020 really desires from their masters.
   • lain (lain@lain.com)'s status on Thursday, 22-Jul-2021 08:08:43 JST lain

     in reply to

     • sage
     @mono @augustus I still don't know what you mean.
   • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;; (shmibs@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu)'s status on Thursday, 22-Jul-2021 08:19:21 JST バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;

     in reply to

     • lain
     • sage
     @mono @lain @augustus well, not sure what you mean, so maybe it is better to actually spell things out?the opposition to that "enlightenment now, reason-über-alles, let's reduce all the things, bertrand russell and stephen fry think you're cool" "classical liberal" is usually seen as the counter-enlightenment, "romantic, postmodern, cultural relativism, continental philosophy, critically woke, we will assimilate you"but whenever i see people complaining about "liberals" they seem to conflate these opposing factions into a single unit, and then group in some random unaffiliated politicians who don't care and just wanna bomb places and get moneyso it's confusing
   • sage (mono@shitposter.club)'s status on Thursday, 22-Jul-2021 08:19:22 JST sage

     in reply to

     • lain
     • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;
     @shmibs @augustus @lain there's usually more than one way to skin a cat.I personally think rule by popularity contest is not the best way to do it though.
   • sage (mono@shitposter.club)'s status on Thursday, 22-Jul-2021 08:45:58 JST sage

     in reply to

     • lain
     • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;
     @shmibs @augustus @lain >Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), democracy, secularism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and a market economy.[2][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Yellow is the political colour most commonly associated with liberalism.[11][12][13]>Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy and the rule of law. Liberals also ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other barriers to trade, instead promoting free trade and marketization.[14] Philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct tradition, based on the social contract, arguing that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property and governments must not violate these rights.[15] here's a small list of things all liberals at least pretend to agree with that other ideologies take issue with.* absolutism is bad* church and state should be separate* the state should assume citizens have equal value (no state sanctioned castes)* citizens have unalienable rights * one of those rights is some kind of representation for decisions that effect them* individual freedoms should be maximized* as a consequence, economic freedom should also be maximized* states that do not align with this are doing something terribly wrong and should be stopped either "peacefully" through economic or cultural means or violently (in a tragic self defense scenario) :samhyde: .why is this last bullet point in here even though it's not mentioned in the definition? because it is the logical conclusion to assuming universally applicable values unto all human beings. this is the secret sauce that is the reason why the entire world sans north korea operates under one big liberal framework for better or worse.
   • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;; (shmibs@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu)'s status on Thursday, 22-Jul-2021 08:45:58 JST バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;

     in reply to

     • lain
     • sage
     @mono @lain @augustus mmm, okjust in practice the things i see people labelling as liberal though (discluding the random politicians) only hold together on points 2, 3, and ~usually~ 4 and 5. all the rest are very hotly contested
   • sage (mono@shitposter.club)'s status on Thursday, 22-Jul-2021 08:55:11 JST sage

     in reply to

     • lain
     • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;
     @shmibs @augustus @lain i have not singled out any politician or political party because all politicians in liberal states are liberal (or wearing liberal skin). you have to be one to participate in government. all these cool new ideas that seem to be wildly different from each other like nationalism, free markets and rights originated from the same big bang in 18th century europe that spooked the fuck out of the powers that be and forced them to justify themselves under the new paradigm.
   • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;; (shmibs@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu)'s status on Thursday, 22-Jul-2021 08:55:11 JST バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;

     in reply to

     • lain
     • sage
     @mono @lain @augustus ok, that's false, though. modern politicians in the states you're talking about cannot be successful while believing in points 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7, point 2 is up for grabs, as it's a matter of "where do i get my funding", and the final point 8 is only true insofar as "they need to align" means "we want stable life and pretty things and you're in the way"
   • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;; (shmibs@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu)'s status on Thursday, 22-Jul-2021 08:56:12 JST バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;

     in reply to

     • lain
     • sage
     • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;
     @mono @augustus @lain the rhetoric they use has nothing to do with how they actually behave
   • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;; (shmibs@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu)'s status on Thursday, 22-Jul-2021 09:47:56 JST バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;

     in reply to

     • lain
     • sage
     @mono @lain @augustus these things can be different sometimes in very low-level, local contexts, though usually not, but:politicians (even in places that pretend otherwise) do not represent people who elect them but rather people who give them money or privileges. once in the door, the opinions of the electorate are entirely irrelevant. same to all the others, on the list. rhetoric and actions are entirely dissociatedfor actual citizen-government interaction, since we're talking u.s. now, take a look at policing and justice-system as the most common interface. private property? police confiscate more every year than all robberies combined (and then there's *eminent domain*, just in case). caste system? try going through courts as binbou vs celebrity and see how differently things turn out. constitutional rights and permissive legality? try qualified immunity and intentional suppression of evidenceand for absolutist politicians, try mr. biden and mr. trump. a pair of people who believe in two absolute goods, money and attention, and for whom everything else is a don't-care about which it's ok to bullshit in service to those two universal goods
   • sage (mono@shitposter.club)'s status on Thursday, 22-Jul-2021 09:47:57 JST sage

     in reply to

     • lain
     • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;
     @shmibs @augustus @lain i'm talking about ideology. i know what happens in practice. rhetoric matters because it is the framework for which every decision is justified. ideology has a set of core values and objectives that are terminally good.1. show me a mainstream politician that supports absolutism. 3. there is no politician that supports formally reinstating a caste system. maybe in india, i guess. the very notion that a humans immutable characteristics have an impact in their value to society is so controversial that the question can't even be researched without serious consequences. 4. some politicians might support repealing certain enshrined rights, but the very fact that they have to repeal something instead of just saying it doesn't exist at all is acknowledgement of the states ability to decide these things5. what politician supports the abolishment of politicians lol6. our legal system is already built around the assumption that things are legal unless they aren't. 7. economy can be highly regulated but permissiveness and respecting ownership of property as something even the state has to begrudgingly respect is not controversial to anyone except socialists. you can come up with exceptions to everything but the fact that disagreeing with even one or two of these assertions makes you incompatible with power shows how utterly dominant liberal ideology is. these assertions are so universally agreed upon that it is just enough to attack someone as anti-liberal without having to explain why it's bad. when a red team blowhard attacks president sleepy for tyranny (nooooo the government can't just do things without the approval of representatives) or when a blue team bluehard attacks orange man for border camps (nooooo the government can't just treat humans differently based on citizenship), they are operating under the mentality that these things are bad because they violate a core tenet of liberalism.for an example of what a different ideology looks like, see China which adopted some tenets over time but thoroughly rejects others. speaking to a mainlander is like talking to an alien that sees literally nothing wrong with being unable to vote or participate in government or do things without state permission.
   • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;; (shmibs@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu)'s status on Thursday, 22-Jul-2021 09:51:13 JST バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;

     in reply to

     • lain
     • sage
     • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;
     @mono @augustus @lain it's true biden has gone senile, trump has been rapidly going, and both are at a "used as a pawn for other people" stage now, but look at them when they were younger.
   • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;; (shmibs@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu)'s status on Thursday, 22-Jul-2021 10:07:49 JST バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;

     in reply to

     • sage
     @mono whether caste is informal or formally recognised doesn't matter when the difference in outcome is still always present and no one cares to work against itgovernment freely taking and redistributing whatever they want with no recourse is a rejection of property rightsabsolutism is the counterpart of relativism, and is a personal-scale belief about appropriate surety. extreme relativists (like niels bohr) look at counterfactuals equally and don't try to resolve them. absolutists (nothing to do with maximising power; not sure where you read that at all?) are absolutely sure about the coherence and truth of what they know (in this case "money and attention for me, personally, is good. it is good to do what's necessary to get those")
   • sage (mono@shitposter.club)'s status on Thursday, 22-Jul-2021 10:07:50 JST sage

     in reply to

     • lain
     • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;
     @shmibs @augustus @lain you keep calling things different things.judicial inequality from wealth is not a formalized caste system. police confiscating property is not a rejection of property rights. maximizing the power of the federal government is not absolutism. just because two bad processes have similar results does not make them the same process. it reeks of "thing i don't like is bad because it's not actually liberal".please don't abuse words like this.
   • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;; (shmibs@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu)'s status on Thursday, 22-Jul-2021 10:11:33 JST バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;

     in reply to

     • sage
     • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;
     @mono ...and something that allows any government employee (police, teachers, whatever) to violate any constitutionally-guaranteed right whenever they want, without recourse, invalidates claim that those rights are somehow government-recognised
   • sage (mono@shitposter.club)'s status on Thursday, 22-Jul-2021 10:25:05 JST sage

     in reply to

     • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;
     @shmibs >whether caste is informal or formally recognised doesn't matter when the difference in outcome is still always present and no one cares to work against itI DONT CARE ABOUT THE OUTCOME it's not what i'm talking about.i am talking about processes. the justifications and reasoning for actions. ideology.>government freely taking and redistributing whatever they want with no recourse is a rejection of property rightsthe government does not freely take and redistribute. it has to have a reason to do these illiberal things. states are not ideologically bound but they need to have a reason when they do something that contradicts the official ideology. the chinese state can do basically anything already approved by its official ideology but still needs to publish literature about how a market economy is just communism with chinese characteristics. >absolutism is the counterpart of relativism...i'm referring to absolutism the political word as in absolute authority of a single person over law and state. you had to scroll down past that definition to get find the philosophical term. did you really think i was talking about trump or bidens views on epistemiology?
   • バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;; (shmibs@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu)'s status on Thursday, 22-Jul-2021 10:25:05 JST バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;

     in reply to

     • sage
     @mono well, i don't care about the processes when the outcome is identical and don't see why they matter at all? isomorphismand the "reason" is "i want" or "i'll help my friend". of course everyone needs some reason to act, butand yes, thought you meant that absolutism, because it was discussed already earlier in the thread