|
| Thread: General politics thread |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
posted May 12, 2013 01:08 AM |
|
|
Then I think the majority of westerners are nazi as well, if this is the meaning you give. I mean, only a half brain extreme leftist could consider today that his country must accept everyone then feed all criminals for free as long as they fulfill the prisons.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 12, 2013 01:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Racist because...
What level of assimilation?
Quote:
Communist because...
What you describe resembles utilitarianism more than communism.
Quote:
Nazi because...
Those things are not specific to Nazis but I do wonder who you want to castrate due to genetic conditions.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 12, 2013 10:20 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 10:29, 12 May 2013.
|
I looked up the whole "liberals" thing in the US.
Social liberalism got popular during the first half of the 20th century. Unlike classical liberalism, known in modern US as libertarianism, it advocates using government to deal with social issues such as healthcare and education. This is the dominant ideology in western Europe. In eastern europe, liberal-conservatism seems to have become more successful (emphasis on free market but not on civil liberties such as same-sex marriage and abortion).
In the United States, social liberalism got the name "new liberalism" (as opposed to the old, classical liberalism). Democrats started calling themselves "new liberals". In the end, the prefix was removed and they ended up just being "liberals". So I'd say that Democrats are social liberals.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 12, 2013 10:43 PM |
|
|
Progressives have to change what they are called periodically as people catch on to what they want to do to society. Thus the periodic changes in what they want to be called.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted May 12, 2013 10:56 PM |
|
|
I dislike those US liberals who think things like it's OK to be biased and give black people jobs over others only because they're black or suggest gay marriage should be legal in every state just because.
I know the majority probably isn't like that, but there are no doubt examples of people who preach the things I said above.
That's why I'd never call myself a liberal by U.S. standards. I'm more for the conservative side anyway.
Political parties in Romania are a joke. The social-democrat party formed an alliance with the national liberal party and the conservative party to take down the democrat-liberal party. Even they don't know if they're supposed to be left or right anymore.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted May 12, 2013 11:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I dislike those US liberals who think things like it's OK to be biased and give black people jobs over others only because they're black or suggest gay marriage should be legal in every state just because.
It's called positive discrimination.
In the UK it's easy to see this in both our political and legal system as parties have quotas for how many female members to get, and in the legal system women are FAR less likely to get bail, guessing this is in order to balance out the male/female prison levels.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted May 12, 2013 11:44 PM |
|
|
I see where you're coming from but don't agree with this concept.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted May 12, 2013 11:53 PM |
|
|
Of course neither do I, just vindicating your point.
I believe in a meritocracy where ability to contribute to society/sovereign's will is "rewarded" with a position in society where your ability/ies are better suited, even if it's just to inspire others, as opposed to our current system which is essentially just a rat-race, the one who kicks over the most people gets to live reasonably comfortably off the backs of those s/he denied.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 13, 2013 12:20 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 03:48, 13 May 2013.
|
Quote:
Progressives have to change what they are called periodically as people catch on to what they want to do to society. Thus the periodic changes in what they want to be called.
You talk of this as if it's a bad thing but it's not just what they want to do that changes, it's the society itself. I'd say the problem with conservatives is how they suggest the society to remain is exactly same as the progressives but with a 30 year delay. (Like you saying gay civil unions are okay unless not called marriage for example, is probably what a progressive would say back in the early 80's.)
Anyway, I think to be totally conservative or liberal is not realistic or possible if use your own head, I'm usually closer to what liberals (in European sense) think but I don't understand people who always think according to some parties political agenda.
|
|
Adrius
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
|
|
posted May 13, 2013 12:21 AM |
|
Edited by Adrius at 00:22, 13 May 2013.
|
In order to create equality you sometimes have to use positive discrimination.
Take Sweden for instance, where if you have an outlandish sounding name you have pretty much zero chance to get a job interview if someone equally qualified with a Swedish name competes too, and often times even less qualified as well.
You can't always change people's discriminatory ways by just rationalizing with them, discrimination itself is based on emotional prejudice, therefore you must make them experience an emotion to counter it, fire with fire, as happens when you get a foreign workmate and learn that "hey, this dude is alright". Allocating minority groups into work places create experiences for the involved ones that help alleviate discrimination in society.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 13, 2013 01:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I dislike those US liberals who think things like it's OK to be biased and give black people jobs over others only because they're black or suggest gay marriage should be legal in every state just because
These two examples are in no way the same. In fact, they're opposite. The first is restricting liberty, the second is expanding it. In the case of discrimination, the state would be forcing employers to weigh race a certain way when making a decision about a job applicant. In the second case, the government is simply letting two consenting adults make a contract with each other. Completely different.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted May 13, 2013 01:55 AM |
|
|
I'm a center-right progressive. I generally fall in line with the views that national healthcare is a step backwards in a civilization, and there should be lax labor laws, low taxes, gratuitous civil liberties, minimal censorship, open immigration / pro amnesty (under certain conditions). I'm moderate on foreign policy; the US does not and should not mind its own business, but internal support and wider cooperation need to be prereqs for any interventions. I'm actually very happy with the Obama admin's foreign policy so far, but given that foreign policy isn't a priority issue it only means so much.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 13, 2013 02:57 AM |
|
|
Quote:
In order to create equality you sometimes have to use positive discrimination.
And why should we "create" equality? Equality isn't always a good thing, you know. If you nuked the planet and killed everyone, they'd all be equal. They'd also all be dead.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 13, 2013 03:11 AM |
|
|
Quote:
In order to create equality you sometimes have to use positive discrimination.
The liberal idea of "Its ok to discriminate one group if it makes things better for the folks that vote for liberals" is just morally wrong. It is wrong for the federal government to hire based on skin tone, gender, and sexual "orientation." It is wrong for the government give college scholarships based on skin tone, gender. Ect.
Liberals reject the idea of Republican Martin Luther King who said people should be judged based on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.
Let a person's qualifications for a job determine who gets hired/promoted. Let a person's academic performance/test performance determine who gets in the university and who gets scholarships. Ect.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 13, 2013 03:34 AM |
|
|
I belive in here "create equality" = rectify systematic discrimination
Should have been obvious from the paragraph that follows though 
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted May 13, 2013 05:37 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Liberals reject the idea of Republican Martin Luther King who said people should be judged based on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.
And how well does this work in the deep south? North Dakota? Oklahoma? Washington? Slums are already over-populated with minorities, in areas where racism is still going strong, there would be even more... merely because of the ethnicity of the individual.
So Cor, to answer your question, when "creating" equality prevents a spike in crime rate (from fewer people being poor!), race riots, keeps down unemployment and prevents general harm to society, then I think it can be supported... I would rather it didn't have to exist, and I will piss and moan about it if it prevents me from succeeding, but there is still a large enough (immature) part of society that these laws are warranted.
I hope to see them disappear before I die because we no longer need them (as opposed to a neo-nazi group taking over, with all the bad things that come with that).
My political views? Moderate leaning liberal. In the 'Murican sense. Take that as you will.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted May 13, 2013 06:05 AM |
|
|
Quote:
]These two examples are in no way the same. In fact, they're opposite. The first is restricting liberty, the second is expanding it. In the case of discrimination, the state would be forcing employers to weigh race a certain way when making a decision about a job applicant. In the second case, the government is simply letting two consenting adults make a contract with each other. Completely different.
I never said they're similar, just that some liberals stand for these things which I don't agree with.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 13, 2013 08:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
In order to create equality you sometimes have to use positive discrimination.
And why should we "create" equality? Equality isn't always a good thing, you know. If you nuked the planet and killed everyone, they'd all be equal. They'd also all be dead.
Since people are not equal there is no equality and can never be. There are not even equal CHANCES possible, considering that so much in life depends on looks.
That's why the aim should just be to help those with no chance at all, and that's the "severely handicapped", with "handicapped" used in a very broad sense.
This doesn't create equality. It just aims to eliminate hopelessness.
The problem with the US is, that this - for me - has always been the gist of what that country aimed for: eliminating hopelessness.
But they left it to "the wide country": you could always go and find a new border and start anew, but that's been done with end of the 19th century.
|
|
Adrius
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
|
|
posted May 13, 2013 08:58 AM |
|
Edited by Adrius at 09:00, 13 May 2013.
|
@Corribus:
Quote:
Quote:
In order to create equality you sometimes have to use positive discrimination.
And why should we "create" equality? Equality isn't always a good thing, you know. If you nuked the planet and killed everyone, they'd all be equal. They'd also all be dead.
My argument is invalid because nukes kill people. K.
Might as well have said "YEAH MAN LET'S RAPE EVERYONE EQUALLY TOO! YOU LIKE EQUALITY RIGHT?!" 
In the general sense of everyone having as close to as equal chances as possible to live a good, healthy life I don't see the evil in equality.
@Elodin:
Quote:
Let a person's qualifications for a job determine who gets hired/promoted. Let a person's academic performance/test performance determine who gets in the university and who gets scholarships. Ect.
I agree, but that's not what happens. If there is a systematic discrimination (thanks for that word) where employers actively avoid hiring people of e.g. foreign origin, how can they even get the chance to show their qualifications?
The goal is for this kinda positive discrimination to NOT be needed, but for that to happen you need to battle the discrimination in people's minds first. It's not any attempt at liberal brainwashing, it's simply about letting different cultures meet up, get accustomed to each other and learn instead of these groups getting holed up in ghettos where they have little chance of ever getting out.
____________
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted May 13, 2013 10:34 AM |
|
|
Who decides? Who regulates who's fit for a job an who isn't? And who regulates the regulator?!
I could be a genius with the personality of a pile of poo. Who decides whether I'm fit for the job, or whether a 'decent' (open to interpretation) person with a worse skill-set is preferable to me?
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
|
|
