Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → Inauguration Day, Inauguration Hooooooraaay!
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401
Inauguration Day, Inauguration Hooooooraaay!
2017-10-14, 5:13 PM #4761
So I hear Steve Bannon is a history junky.

Then again, so was Murray Rothbard ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
2017-10-14, 5:19 PM #4762
But the positive evaluation of history is still crucial in defining right-leaning movements, and there's skepticism about certain kinds of change that is seen to be corrosive to the most cherished and fundamental values or traditions. The fact that in striving to preserve the past change occurs and novelty is introduced inadvertently doesn't undermine the impulse to preserve and value the past. Alternatively, left-leaning revolutionary movements (whether liberal, or socialist, or whatever else) that strive to create an entirely new society fail to create the complete rupture with the past that they intend, and continuities with the system that they sought to replace survive. But still, there is a negative evaluation of history that coincides with affirmation of and optimism about the future (and, therefore, change).
former entrepreneur
2017-10-14, 5:22 PM #4763
You know, that's actually really darn interesting.

Because we've given several definitions of left and right in this thread that all have to do with very different things, and yet most of them seem to describe the same two groups. It's like a change of basis (math).
2017-10-14, 9:29 PM #4764
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
You know, that's actually really darn interesting.

Because we've given several definitions of left and right in this thread that all have to do with very different things, and yet most of them seem to describe the same two groups. It's like a change of basis (math).


Now, I don't know if most rank and file subscribe to consistent choices between left and right across all the definitions of the distinction we've discussed in this thread, but apparently this is true for lefties such as Jeremy Snail:

[quote=The New York Times]
His left-coiled shell wasn’t the only thing making it hard to find him a mate. His organs, including his genitals, also turned counterclockwise. Mating with righty snails was impossible. Last November, two potential partners (Lefty of Ipswich, England and Tomeu of Majorca, Spain) were brought to Nottingham. But they appeared to prefer each other over him, producing more than 300 babies.
[/quote]

Unfortunately, Jeremy the Lefty has died. :(
2017-10-14, 9:30 PM #4765
To Wookie06: It is my sincere desire that you may find this thread 'filled with bizarre content'.

Best,
Jim
2017-10-14, 11:32 PM #4766
And now, for some (and this next phrase only makes sense in 2017) completely ordinary content:

[quote=The Hill]
Hustler Magazine founder Larry Flynt is reportedly offering a $10 million reward for information that could lead to the impeachment of President Trump.

[...]

In the ad, Flynt calls Trump an “illegitimate” president who “was installed only by the quirks of our antiquated Electoral College.”

Flynt cites several reasons he believes Trump should be impeached in the ad, including Trump’s firing of former FBI Director James Comey and his withdrawal of the United States from the Paris climate change agreement.

The adult magazine founder also ripped Trump for his “unconscionable defense of the KKK and neo-Nazis after the Charlottesville riots,” and argued that Trump’s “worrisome” ability to “trigger a nuclear world war” is one of the more “horrifying” reasons Trump should be impeached.

“Impeachment would be a messy, contentious affair, but the alternative - three more years of destabilizing dysfunction - is worse,” Flynt writes in the ad. “Both good Democrats and good Republicans who put country over party did it before with Watergate.”

Flynt writes that impeachment would require “unimpeachable evidence” and said that’s why he is offering a $10 million reward.

“We need to flush everything out into the open,” Flynt wrote.

Flynt has made similar offers in the past, offering up to $1 million in October 2016 for audio or video recordings of Trump “engaging in illegal activity or acting in a sexually demeaning or derogatory manner.”

Flynt also made a similar offer of $1 million in 1998 during former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial and again in 2007, when he offered to pay for “documented evidence of illicit sexual liaisons with a prominent member of public office.”
[/quote]

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/355436-hustler-magazine-founder-offers-10-million-for-info-to-help
2017-10-14, 11:34 PM #4767
Wow.

I had no idea how personal this was:

Originally posted by Wikipedia:
On March 6, 1978, during a legal battle related to obscenity in Gwinnett County, Georgia, Flynt and his local lawyer, Gene Reeves Jr., were returning to the courthouse when they were shot on the sidewalk in front of 136 South Perry Street in Lawrenceville by a sniper standing near an alley across the street. The shooting left Flynt partially paralyzed with permanent spinal cord damage, and in need of a wheelchair. Flynt's injuries caused him constant, excruciating pain, and he was addicted to painkillers until multiple surgeries deadened the affected nerves. He also suffered a stroke caused by one of several overdoses of his analgesic medications. He recovered but has had pronunciation difficulties since.

White supremacist serial killer Joseph Paul Franklin confessed to the shootings many years later, claiming he was outraged by an interracial photo shoot in Hustler. Franklin was never brought to trial for the attempted killing of Flynt, who has made statements indicating he believes Franklin's story. Some police officials also concur. Franklin was eventually charged in Missouri with eight counts of murder unrelated to the Flynt shooting, and sentenced to death. In October 2013, Flynt said he opposed to the death penalty and did not want Franklin to be executed.[SUP][20][/SUP] Franklin was executed in Missouri by lethal injection on November 20, 2013.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Flynt#Shooting
2017-10-14, 11:42 PM #4768
Holy **** Larry Flynt is nuts. His life story is something else. You can't make this **** up.

And why in the world have I not seen this....
2017-10-15, 11:40 AM #4769
I was never interested enough in that man to go out of my way to watch that film. I'm curious, though, how good and accurate it is.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2017-10-15, 11:42 AM #4770
https://mobile.twitter.com/davidslavick/status/919375107155427329

While single payer gets more popular, looks like big business dems are leading a pushback against reforming healthcare in the right way. Whoopie.
2017-10-15, 12:04 PM #4771
Originally posted by Wookie06:
I was never interested enough in that man to go out of my way to watch that film. I'm curious, though, how good and accurate it is.


I don't know if you're going to get an objective picture from that movie, which I understand to paint him as the hero. If you read that biography of his life in the Independent, in real life he is quite the colorful character, to say the least.
2017-10-15, 12:47 PM #4772
Originally posted by Jon`C:
Socialism is not totalitarian, and totalitarianism is not a system of government, it is a mode and consequence.


I basically just looked at it as the state of government most opposite to none at all.

Originally posted by Jon`C:
Edit 1: Stalinism is totalitarian, Marxist-Leninism can be but ideally isn’t, Marxism can be but only during a transitionary period. All of these are popularly considered communism, but Stalinism really isn’t communism at all, and none of these things are socialism.


Communism as an idea is probably pretty far from totalitarian. One of the biggest problems with communism has been when it is put in practice by men. Regardless, I located it pretty far from totalitarian and socialism is pretty far from it as well. I decided that totalitarian is equal parts socialism and fascism (I thought I was spelling that wrong) and I would have placed them all equally 120 degrees off but the problem there is anarchy and communism end up at the same place.

Originally posted by Jon`C:
Communists and socialists don’t like each other very much and rarely get along. For perspective, the difference between communism and socialism is larger than the difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. That is why socialists would rather vote for the Democrats than a communist party.


I felt that my placement of democrats with regards to socialism was close but they don't really fit where I put them. Democrats and republicans in power rarely differ much at all in anything other than rhetoric. They probably both fit better between fascism and socialism perhaps.

Originally posted by Jon`C:
Americans are taught political science wrong on purpose. You are not taught the difference between socialism and communism because it is easy to reject communism and if you did understand the difference, the rich people of America might have to start paying taxes.


To be perfectly honest I have zero recollection of how those topics were addressed when I was in highschool. I also had zero interest back then. Of course we're talking three plus decades ago now. Anyway, this is the same nation that passed the sixteenth amendment over a hundred years ago so our understanding of taxes has been borked for a long time.

I don't mind the left-right terminology for describing basic policy but I've always had a problem with the idea that things like nazism and fascism lie on the far right when I have always seen moving right from center as a move towards greater liberty. And it is certainly not true that those isms are further away from far left policy than they are our own system of government.

The biggest takeaway for me going through this is that it forced me to rationalize the placement and relations of these various ideas in a model that I feel works far better than a line segment without being overly complicated.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2017-10-15, 1:44 PM #4773
Originally posted by Wookie06:
I don't mind the left-right terminology for describing basic policy but I've always had a problem with the idea that things like nazism and fascism lie on the far right when I have always seen moving right from center as a move towards greater liberty. And it is certainly not true that those isms are further away from far left policy than they are our own system of government.


I don't know what Jon`C will say about this, but liberty is a contextual term that I think libertarians misunderstand. As is the state. It's simply untrue that you can have actions that are totally uncoerced, and while this may seem obvious, the recognition of this fact makes it hard to accept libertarian premises. Take, as an example, someone born into a city who lives in an apartment and is relatively poor. What choices does this person have for food? Realistically, they can go to a grocery store and buy food, or buy prepared food. They may have quite a few choices, even some good ones. But they can't, for instance, grow all of their own food, or feasibly move to where they could, since land is owned. So no matter what, in order to survive they're coerced into buying food from a private enterprise. This means they have to work to have money to buy food. But to work, there also aren't many options: they're limited to maybe a few government jobs, or whatever privately owned enterprises are offering work. So they're de facto coerced into working for someone - and in libertarian terms this is called "voluntary".

Some people in this situation may have the option to move up, to acquire better work, found their own company, or live outside of society. However, for the great majority of people in the world, the past paragraph describes their life's situation. And, in fact, the demands of this coerced private employment can, at times, be extremely tyrannical. Moreover, due to the way many places handle organized labor, people have a hard time banding together to resist the demands of the people they're coerced to work under. For instance, wage theft is rampant in the United States, and without an effective state and with conditions of labor suppression, workers have little recourse to recoup their losses, and if people can't get life essentials outside of that employer, then you're effectively living under tyranny. The degree to which private employers control workers is pretty extreme, following social media, tracking and harassing labor organizers, demanding work outside of normal times.

I should mention too, that private property rights are extremely emphasized by the right. While personal property is fine - I have big problems with private property. Any investigation in the course of history will reveal pretty clearly that private property is never earned by uncoerced means - private property is always established through some war, some degree of violence and unfair treatment. Unless if private property is reconsidered and redivided fairly, then private property is a tool that allows certain people - i.e., people with the capital to run a business, to exploit other people who don't own private property into working by the means I stated above. So private property, in every instance it's ever existed in the world, has been unjust.

How does the state factor in? Well, in any polis, you have polity who engage in politics. People figured out centuries ago that, rather than roughhousing in the streets every time people have a dispute, it's better to organize some wise people to make decisions in terms of conflict. So that people, you know, don't die and stuff. The state is effectively then a conflict resolution system. So then - why does the right emphasize private property rights and hate the state? Well, that's pretty easy to figure out. The state has the potential to allow the polity to deem the actions of one of these private tyrannical employers wrong, and give effective recourse against them. The ideology is one they espouse that directly has the effect of preserving their power over people and limits the recourse people have against their abuses. So I don't think it's a good political belief.
2017-10-15, 1:49 PM #4774
That isn't to say, the state is always good. States can be good or bad - but they must be judged by their function. Even though I think Hayek is too ideologically biased, his basic premise about government control of the economy, forcing inelastic pricing and so forth - is a good premise. So of course it's not all or nothing. And, ideally, we would want a system where conflicts need to be resolved less often, so that government would be less important. However, as it stands, most people living under these oppressed conditions have little effect on policy, so that I'm not a fan of the workings of the state (or expansion of the state as it operates right now), but I am a fan of making the state work effectively for an end that's fair and just.
2017-10-15, 1:57 PM #4775
TL;DR "liberty" to libertarians means the liberty for employers to exploit workers, not actual liberty.
2017-10-15, 4:24 PM #4776
TL;DR: Right wing liberty fully realized means that one man is free to own another. That isn’t a very good deal for one of them, is it?
2017-10-15, 4:32 PM #4777
Originally posted by Jon`C:
TL;DR: Right wing liberty fully realized means that one man is free to own another. That isn’t a very good deal for one of them, is it?


No, not at all. Think of how hard it is to be a sturdy, rugged, independent, definitely straight job creator?
Epstein didn't kill himself.
2017-10-16, 12:23 AM #4778
Originally posted by Reid:
https://mobile.twitter.com/davidslavick/status/919375107155427329

While single payer gets more popular, looks like big business dems are leading a pushback against reforming healthcare in the right way. Whoopie.


Good, I'm glad the right to die is getting bipartisan support.
former entrepreneur
2017-10-16, 2:44 PM #4779
Once upon a time a man had a plank stuck in his eye. As he walked about the city, he came upon a woman in the market with a plank in her eye as well.

"Wow," the man said, "how could you go around with a plank in your eye like that?"

The woman replied, "Why are you bothering me? You have a plank in your eye yourself."

To which the man yelled: "NICE WHATABOUTISM, WHAT ARE YOU A TWITTER BOT? VLADIMIR PUTIN IS THE REAL EVIL HERE DISTRACTING YOU FROM HIS CRIMES AND..."

The man continued to yell until dusk, unaware that everybody had left and he was yelling at nobody.

The end.
2017-10-16, 2:47 PM #4780
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/355603-man-rescued-from-taliban-i-thought-my-captors-were-kidding-when
2017-10-16, 2:53 PM #4781
Originally posted by Reid:
Once upon a time a man had a plank stuck in his eye. As he walked about the city, he came upon a woman in the market with a plank in her eye as well.

"Wow," the man said, "how could you go around with a plank in your eye like that?"

The woman replied, "Why are you bothering me? You have a plank in your eye yourself."

To which the man yelled: "NICE WHATABOUTISM, WHAT ARE YOU A TWITTER BOT? VLADIMIR PUTIN IS THE REAL EVIL HERE DISTRACTING YOU FROM HIS CRIMES AND..."

The man continued to yell until dusk, unaware that everybody had left and he was yelling at nobody.

The end.


Which isn't to say whataboutism isn't real or a problematic debate tactic, but I find half of the people using it are using it to change the subject to being about poor debate tactics so they can ignore difficult charges of hypocrisy when they actually matter. And yes, what happened in the election is very serious, but there are also plenty of people whose brains were broken by it and lash out at everyone not agreeing with them as a Putin disinformation plant. Come at me.
2017-10-16, 2:55 PM #4782
Originally posted by Reid:
Once upon a time a man had a plank stuck in his eye. As he walked about the city, he came upon a woman in the market with a plank in her eye as well.

"Wow," the man said, "how could you go around with a plank in your eye like that?"

The woman replied, "Why are you bothering me? You have a plank in your eye yourself."

To which the man yelled: "NICE WHATABOUTISM, WHAT ARE YOU A TWITTER BOT? VLADIMIR PUTIN IS THE REAL EVIL HERE DISTRACTING YOU FROM HIS CRIMES AND..."

The man continued to yell until dusk, unaware that everybody had left and he was yelling at nobody.

The end.


Thus Spoke Reidathustra
former entrepreneur
2017-10-16, 3:21 PM #4783
Originally posted by Reid:
Which isn't to say whataboutism isn't real or a problematic debate tactic, but I find half of the people using it are using it to change the subject to being about poor debate tactics so they can ignore difficult charges of hypocrisy when they actually matter. And yes, what happened in the election is very serious, but there are also plenty of people whose brains were broken by it and lash out at everyone not agreeing with them as a Putin disinformation plant. Come at me.


I had about four different responses for this but then in the end I decided it wasn't worth taking the bait.

I mean really. Who's still talking about Russia conspiracies anymore? Take a chill pill, Reddit. That was so Trump's first 100 days.
former entrepreneur
2017-10-16, 3:28 PM #4784
Originally posted by Eversor:
I had about four different responses for this but then in the end I decided it wasn't worth taking the bait.

I mean really. Who's still talking about Russia conspiracies anymore? Take a chill pill, Reddit. That was so Trump's first 100 days.


*shrug*
2017-10-16, 3:33 PM #4785
At this point there isn't much to litigate about the topic, is there? Unless you're completely consumed by some kind of fevered delirium, it's exceedingly clear that Russia went to great lengths to sway the election. The only questions that matter are what can the government do to combat intervention in future elections, are they doing it, and will Trump make it more difficult for them to do it? All of those other questions about whether the US deserved it, or whether the US is the aggressor or on defense don't really matter at all. They're a complete distraction, really. Because, either way, what America should do, and would do, in just about any other case, is try to prevent it from happening again.
former entrepreneur
2017-10-16, 3:36 PM #4786
I actually agree 100% with you there, I was really more taking a jab at how "whataboutism" is used and how it's pretty much the exact thing it tries to call out.
2017-10-16, 3:43 PM #4787
Originally posted by Reid:
I actually agree 100% with you there, I was really more taking a jab at how "whataboutism" is used and how it's pretty much the exact thing it tries to call out.


How is it the exact thing it calls out?
former entrepreneur
2017-10-16, 3:49 PM #4788
Should be obvious if you think about it with moral sincerity. Whataboutism distracts from the charge by pointing the finger back instead of addressing it directly.
2017-10-16, 3:55 PM #4789
Right but it also often points out a non sequitor that itself distracted from the argument that the person putting forward the charge of whataboutism was making
former entrepreneur
2017-10-16, 4:02 PM #4790
Sure, at times, but it seems to me that pointing out relevant hypocrisies versus non sequitur points is core to debate and doesn't need to be the 2017 meme of the year word.
2017-10-16, 4:05 PM #4791
It also sort of implies that the first person to make a criticism in the debate owns the debate or something. Which is kind of silly.
2017-10-16, 4:08 PM #4792
Pointing out "relevant hypocrisies" often pushes the conversation to a place where people aren't ever going to convince each other, because it does nothing but expose the biases and preferences of the people talking
former entrepreneur
2017-10-16, 4:13 PM #4793
Maybe two people could have a debate about whether the US, or, for example, Iran is truly the more evil, untrustworthy, hypocritical country by going back and forth pointing out the atrocities that the other country has committed, but neither will likely make a compelling case by doing so. And both sides have already made up their mind on the issue anyway.

And it's probably not the debate that either person set out to have in the first place.
former entrepreneur
2017-10-16, 4:16 PM #4794
Also, isn't 2017 meme of the year itself a contender for that award?
former entrepreneur
2017-10-16, 4:20 PM #4795
Right, it's better if people acknowledge and fix their hypocrisies instead of debating. *cough*
2017-10-16, 4:24 PM #4796
It strikes me that you might use the word "debate" in an idiosyncratic way. Do you think debate is inherently antagonist? You think debate is inherently opposed to introspection?
former entrepreneur
2017-10-16, 4:48 PM #4797
Socrates was full of ****.
2017-10-16, 5:22 PM #4798
Well, the people who killed him knew he was full of ****. Or, at least, they found out soon after.
2017-10-16, 5:28 PM #4799
But if indeed you find him not within this month, you shall nose him as you go up the stairs into the lobby.
2017-10-16, 10:25 PM #4800
His influence apparently never died, hes the Obi Wan Kenobi of rhetoric.
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401

↑ Up to the top!