You know. I would try to fight this as a statement if we did not put in our constitution that slavery is fine for prisoners.
The original document had the 3/5 compromise
Is there anything in the constitution about not making arbitrary laws to make any random person ultimately a criminal?
OMG guys americabad amirite
This could apply to any number of countries and it's getting kinda tedious. It's like a bunch of American teenagers just learned that their history books aren't telling the whole story and literally cannot stop talking about it. You hit college level history, congratulations, good for you champ.
Well yeah… in lots of ways.
Good in others, as an Australian who traveled there the average American is great. I just think you’ve been intentionally fragmented and manipulated. So there are large groups of people who want their country to change but cannot seem to find common ground and band together to strengthen those ideas.
Then you have such powerfully rich and crazy groups that seem to be able to rule the narrative
Had to check to make sure I wasn't on Reddit again.
I had to check too cause "americabadamirite" complaints are basically peak Reddit since the Digg migration and shortly after.
Before then, I feel like I remember it being a lot less defensive about people daring to...criticize America
There's a huge difference between "lol le dum fat burger chez merica" and commentary about the history of the country and the patterns, systems, and dark truths that made it what it is today. Is there any one element in this meme that you'd argue is false?
you mean the united military budget of 50 3 world countries
Or 10-11 top military leading countries in the world?
Murica 💩
Peak tankie bullshit
Can you define tankie? Because I don't think that word means what you think it means
Authoritarianism leftists are tankies. To be fair they are pretty much the same as authoritarianism rightists. They both want to abolish liberalism before they duke it out over economic models.
You are right about the definition of tankies. People forget that views can be shared by varied groups. Pretty much liberals and to their left would agree with this message.
? Liberalism is an updown issue not a left right issue? You can be economically right and be a liberal...
I struggled to understand at first. You are talking in terms from the messed up 2 axis political compass thing? Ideologies have positions in simplified lists and axis, but you have to be careful of oversimplifying them. That system to me is propaganda to deligitimise groups like my own(anarcho-pacifist). The opposite of totalitarianism is anarchism. Libertarianism got co-opted, it used to be anarchism and is now the totalitarianism of capitalism with the smallest government.
Liberals if you want to put it that way, are pro-capitalist, relatively socially progressive. I think the standard left/right thing messes up the tankie position, which makes this quadrant thing even more awkward.
Sorry for the messy answer. Feeling a bit tired and wanted to answer you
I think you captured what I was saying pretty well. On a 4 axis model up is totalitarian, down is anarchism, left is economic left and right is economic right. And I agree it's over simplified still but I hate looking at the world as just left and right since it leads to the big bad.
I think that system is great for helping people to think more and discuss more about it, but calling the down axis in the common political compass Libertarianism, which now means something else is the part that bothers me.
To an anarchist, the standard left/right axis is really status quo(authoritarianism). When you merge both axis into what I just described you see it fits in many ways scarily cleanly, and the other things don't really matter as much, but are still important(economic: capitalism vs socialism). In other words tankies and fascists score high right wing, and liberals are more progressive etc. I think tankies are just socialists co-opted by oligarchs the same way that Hitler co-opted a bunch of socialists.
Politics is confusing, and our oligarchs intentionally make it more-so.
I mean I don't want to argue but there is an economic right and left and they can exist under anarchism. But I think it kind of matters less on the extreme anarchism side like how fascism and Communism both start looking the same on the extremes. I like this test since it breaks the parts out more. Rather than like a 2 or 4 sided axis.
There are no economic right views under anarchism. Just oligarch PR stunts co-opting us. You will see anything resembling right wing lunacy near Anarchism is just the same idea "Capitalism but with less powerful government" e.g. Libertarian and Anarcho-Capitalist.
I prefer not to use weird apps/websites or oversimplifications unless its rooted in a concept we can discuss. The standard left/right axis is already controversial enough I think. Right wing effectively means pro-capitalist, and left means anti-capitalist.
It's nice that you are thinking and talking about it though. And civilly. Most don't even try anymore >_>
Thanks for the chat.
I mean it breaks it out into more than just 4 axis. I agree it's still over simplified but I firmly disagree that anarchist capitalism is authoritarian(it can be but not always). But I mean left and right literally refer to economic models.
The left right thing is cancer to having real discussions and got turned into a tool to divide and conquer with.
Here's what the output from that tests looks like since I agree with you on not taking random tests to feed advertising companies.
[Redacted photo]
Like I think publicly traded companies are a great idea the problem with it is how capital is allocated currently. There's no good solution without going pretty authoritarian...
I'm not saying anarchist capitalism is authoritarian, I'm saying it has zero percent to do with anarchism. Totally mutually exclusive subjects and oxymoronic.
I think any idea that can help us discuss things well, will be tainted by propagandists that want us arguing and confused. Like the creation of ancaps or co-option of libertarians.
For that thing you linked. It's certainly an interesting way to look at it and will help people learn more and figure stuff out. I at some point reduced down all the higher level issues to lower level ones and then collapsed it into Anarchism. In my head most issues are resolved and i have proof of work, but remembering and articulating for other people can be pretty rough.
The last 3 axes I think are really just the authoritarian scale, the first axis is vaguely left/right wing anti-Capitalism vs Capitalism which also is the authoritarian scale in a sense.
Yeah I agree there's no good way to simplify complex subjects. Anyways have a good night it was nice having a real discussion that didn't devolve into tribalism and name calling! Keep on being an awesome non authoritarian person!
I ate too many mushrooms to properly reply anymore.
The closest I can get a simplification that is legit is anarchy vs totalitarianism. But yeah, can't oversimplify.
Thanks for being awesome too :D I enjoyed the convo and hope you enjoy your shrooms(lucky you).
[redacted]
Brave
The US has capitalism? Seems pretty regulated by people bought by corporations to me.
That's...capitalism. In a profit-seeking society, there's no greater profit than taking control of the society's government. There's no such thing as "crony capitalism" if that is what you are referring to. It's all a part of the game. Any sufficiently powerful company will eventually attempt to manipulate the law and regulations for their own gain.
The Soviet Union is basically what it would look like if a single corporation managed to completely take over society and push out all competition. That's why some people argue that it was a type of society known as "state capitalist", instead of communist, since they never actually did away with money, class, or hierarchy.
Another good example would be "Buy-N-Large" from the movie "Wall-E", although from reading the backstory on them, it seems like a more benevolent entity than we would expect from such a monopoly. Faced with declining profits from a failing economy and environment due to their grip on it, they implemented a system of universal income so that they could continue to have customers. They slowly became the world government and effectively operated as one.
Oof level: over 9000
(Yes, old memes are back!)
Also salty level: over 9000
Obviously those things (except capitalism and some wars) are bad, but literally every country has a history of essentially the same thing.
Obviously all those things ~~(except capitalism and some wars)~~ are bad
Ftfy
