In the year 2030

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Re: In the year 2030

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:50 pm

This thread is just more evidence that right wingers lost their goddamn minds.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3524
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: In the year 2030

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:55 pm

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:This thread is just more evidence that right wingers lost their goddamn minds.

Imagine defrauding a national election and getting away with it, and selling your nation down the river to China.

Oh wait, you don't have to imagine.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4415
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: In the year 2030

Postby MagsJ » Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:33 am

_
Lol
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 21523
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: In the year 2030

Postby Gloominary » Sun Dec 13, 2020 3:00 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Gloominary wrote:The totalitarian left suits the modern financial elite better than the totalitarian right, altho they've used aspects of rightwing authoritarianism too when it suited them: corporatism, the fake war on drugs and terror...
Gradually they're eliminating all traces of rightwing authoritarianism and moving into a strictly leftwing form: communism, globalism, misandry, reverse racism, transsexualism, climate change theory, germaphobia/hypochondria, Malthusianism, scientism, technocracy, transhumanism...
Starting from the end, I think transhumanism is definitely a fantasy (being made real) on the right just as much as the left. I don't see the people drawn to that as coming primarily from the Left. In fact the nature, organic food end of the left has an instinctual revulsion for it. Though the Left is definitely persuaded by this also. And technocrats are well loved by the right also. I'd need to see some compelling evidence that the Right in general has not found them a long term ally and hope of power, etc. There are elements of both the right and left who are critical of technocratic solutions to everything, but only factions on each side. The vast bulk of both love those guys. In fact I have long chastised the right for being conservative about social change but not willing to be critical of technologically driven change. Of course there are exceptions, but precisely since I was seeing, here for example, people criticizing rapid changes in society via social norms being challenged not concerned about the changes in social norms caused by technological changes. And I rarely got any takers. Now the people here have changed somewhat and the more conspiracy theorist end of the Right has greater sway. That group does look at technocracy problems, which is great. But the bulk of the right, I think they want to toys just like the left. The left may imbue them with idealism, but the Right happily scarfs them up for individual power, hedonism and also fantasies of the great future.

I see where you're coming from.
I think the left and right have changed quite a bit in the last decade or two.
The old left of the mid-late 20th century Anglosphere was more progressive socially, but more conservative technologically, whereas the old right was more conservative socially, but more progressive technologically.
Generally the left and right have undergone a purification process in the last decade or two, they're becoming more consistent and extreme, which's what's leading to increasing tensions between the two.
The new left is more progressive across the board, whereas the new right is more libertarian, or conservative (but not fascistic or national socialist in my estimation) across the board.

Globalism is tricky. The Left Idealism certainly pushes for that. But the Right's implicit world domination has also been pushing for this, often as part of corporatism. The corporations are the first great globalists (the first ones being things like the East India Trading Company and the like) These were parts of nations, though really empires, and in the end they did not care about, say, England, just as Rome, though before Italy, was never going to be Italian. They are swallowing the world, and where they have control it can't be democracy, since these are hierarchical organizations. Free Trade agreements pushed by the corporations are anti-national, anti-democratic and for a while they may serve the parent country, but not after. So, yes, you hear more anti-globalist stuff on the right, but implicitly, since they vote corporate lines and Wall st. lines, they support the corporatization and financialization of the whole world. They may not get that this is globalism, but they are supporting it.

The old left of the mid-late 20th century Angelo-sphere tended to be more socially globalist but fiscally localist, contrastively the old right tended to be more socially nationalist but fiscally globalist.
The new left is globalist across the board, the new right is nationalist across the board.
Look how the reps under DJT adopted protectionism.
Politically, the old left was perhaps a bit less imperialist, but perhaps a bit more engaged in developing peaceful international partnerships and alliances.
While corporations may have been (one of) the first globalists, today international organizations like the CDC, WHO, WEF and the UN are pioneering globalism, and the left has always been very much involved in them.

Transsexualism is coming from the Left. The reduction of seeing men and women as different is also coming from the Left. Some of that is good, since there were a lot of hallucinations about what each one should be and could be, but the denial of difference is now the new denial on the block.

In my view, it's mostly bad, as I think there's important differences between men and women both physically (besides the most obvious) and neuropsychologically that either don't vary, or vary a hell of a lot less than the left maintain.
That being said, in the past perhaps the right took things too far, believing all effeminacy or masculinity in women was unnatural or artificial, inauthentic.

Malthus I'd have to mull over. I do see how on the ideal level it fits with the Left. On the other hand the right has often wanted to intercede in the breeding of 'inferiors' including by class, even along Malthusian lines. But I am not sure.

Insofar as the right intervenes in sexual matters, it tends to promote procreation, unless it's a national socialist right, in which case it may promote population reduction strictly for undesirables (the disabled, disordered, blacks, Jews, etcetera), insofar as the left intervenes in sexual matters, it tends to promote population reduction across the board, or at least for the vast, vast majority, perhaps not for the 0.1%.

To me I see a core with power that is not easily placed in left of right categories. Call them the elite or the illuminati or neocon/neoliberals. I don't think they have values per se. When we talk about Left or Right, we are talking about sets of values in a group of people. I don't think the real movers and shakers have values. They have preferences. Their preference is that they have power, that they are utterly unaccountable, that there is a rigid hierarchy, that they have control. I mean I would almost call it a sexual tendency than a value system. Here's how they get off. There game moves slide into the right and left and they can use either side to shift things towards where they can get off even more.

Right, some of them don't have values, and some of them have elitist values.
Overall I think the left suits where the elite want to take humanity right now more than the right.
The parts of the left that don't suit them, like the economic equality part, they will jettison.
As far as I can tell, they want subsistence social welfare and little private property for us, and superlative social welfare and lots of private property for them, something like that.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3305
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: In the year 2030

Postby Gloominary » Sun Dec 13, 2020 3:48 am

Gloominary wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Gloominary wrote:The totalitarian left suits the modern financial elite better than the totalitarian right, altho they've used aspects of rightwing authoritarianism too when it suited them: corporatism, the fake war on drugs and terror...
Gradually they're eliminating all traces of rightwing authoritarianism and moving into a strictly leftwing form: communism, globalism, misandry, reverse racism, transsexualism, climate change theory, germaphobia/hypochondria, Malthusianism, scientism, technocracy, transhumanism...
Starting from the end, I think transhumanism is definitely a fantasy (being made real) on the right just as much as the left. I don't see the people drawn to that as coming primarily from the Left. In fact the nature, organic food end of the left has an instinctual revulsion for it. Though the Left is definitely persuaded by this also. And technocrats are well loved by the right also. I'd need to see some compelling evidence that the Right in general has not found them a long term ally and hope of power, etc. There are elements of both the right and left who are critical of technocratic solutions to everything, but only factions on each side. The vast bulk of both love those guys. In fact I have long chastised the right for being conservative about social change but not willing to be critical of technologically driven change. Of course there are exceptions, but precisely since I was seeing, here for example, people criticizing rapid changes in society via social norms being challenged not concerned about the changes in social norms caused by technological changes. And I rarely got any takers. Now the people here have changed somewhat and the more conspiracy theorist end of the Right has greater sway. That group does look at technocracy problems, which is great. But the bulk of the right, I think they want to toys just like the left. The left may imbue them with idealism, but the Right happily scarfs them up for individual power, hedonism and also fantasies of the great future.

I see where you're coming from.
I think the left and right have changed quite a bit in the last decade or two.
The old left of the mid-late 20th century Anglosphere was more progressive socially, but more conservative technologically, whereas the old right was more conservative socially, but more progressive technologically.
Generally the left and right have undergone a purification process in the last decade or two, they're becoming more consistent and extreme, which's what's leading to increasing tensions between the two.
The new left is more progressive across the board, whereas the new right is more libertarian, or conservative (but not fascistic or national socialist in my estimation) across the board.

Globalism is tricky. The Left Idealism certainly pushes for that. But the Right's implicit world domination has also been pushing for this, often as part of corporatism. The corporations are the first great globalists (the first ones being things like the East India Trading Company and the like) These were parts of nations, though really empires, and in the end they did not care about, say, England, just as Rome, though before Italy, was never going to be Italian. They are swallowing the world, and where they have control it can't be democracy, since these are hierarchical organizations. Free Trade agreements pushed by the corporations are anti-national, anti-democratic and for a while they may serve the parent country, but not after. So, yes, you hear more anti-globalist stuff on the right, but implicitly, since they vote corporate lines and Wall st. lines, they support the corporatization and financialization of the whole world. They may not get that this is globalism, but they are supporting it.

The old left of the mid-late 20th century Angelo-sphere tended to be more socially globalist but fiscally localist, contrastively the old right tended to be more socially nationalist but fiscally globalist.
The new left is globalist across the board, the new right is nationalist across the board.
Look how the reps under DJT adopted protectionism.
Politically, the old left was perhaps a bit less imperialist, but perhaps a bit more engaged in developing peaceful international partnerships and alliances.
While corporations may have been (one of) the first globalists, today international organizations like the CDC, WHO, WEF and the UN are pioneering globalism, and the left has always been very much involved in them.

Transsexualism is coming from the Left. The reduction of seeing men and women as different is also coming from the Left. Some of that is good, since there were a lot of hallucinations about what each one should be and could be, but the denial of difference is now the new denial on the block.

In my view, it's mostly bad, as I think there's important differences between men and women both physically (besides the most obvious) and neuropsychologically that either don't vary, or vary a hell of a lot less than the left maintain.
That being said, in the past perhaps the right took things too far, believing all effeminacy or masculinity in women was unnatural or artificial, inauthentic.

Malthus I'd have to mull over. I do see how on the ideal level it fits with the Left. On the other hand the right has often wanted to intercede in the breeding of 'inferiors' including by class, even along Malthusian lines. But I am not sure.

Insofar as the right intervenes in sexual matters, it tends to promote procreation, unless it's a national socialist right, in which case it may promote population reduction strictly for undesirables (the disabled, disordered, blacks, Jews, etcetera), insofar as the left intervenes in sexual matters, it tends to promote population reduction across the board, or at least for the vast, vast majority, perhaps not for the 0.1%.

To me I see a core with power that is not easily placed in left of right categories. Call them the elite or the illuminati or neocon/neoliberals. I don't think they have values per se. When we talk about Left or Right, we are talking about sets of values in a group of people. I don't think the real movers and shakers have values. They have preferences. Their preference is that they have power, that they are utterly unaccountable, that there is a rigid hierarchy, that they have control. I mean I would almost call it a sexual tendency than a value system. Here's how they get off. There game moves slide into the right and left and they can use either side to shift things towards where they can get off even more.

Right, some of them don't have values, and some of them have elitist values.
Overall I think the left suits where the elite want to take humanity right now more than the right.
The parts of the left that don't suit them, like the economic equality part, they will jettison.
As far as I can tell, they want subsistence social welfare and little private property for us, and superlative social welfare and lots of private property for them, something like that.

All that being said, I don't want to make it sound like the left is just an elite plot and the right are the good guys.
The elite are attempting to opportunistically coopt the left more than the right, right now.
There are individuals and factions on the left who disagree with where the elite are trying to take the left.
They actually want to help the poor, middleclass and environment, instead of just feigning to.
And they're not ultra-partisan or mired in identity politics, they may be socially moderate or even libertarian.
Unfortunately, those on the left who're hyper-skeptical of the elite don't seem to frequent these boards much.
Tulsi Gabbard of the US is the best example I know of, she shouldn't have endorsed Biden tho, that was bullshit.

The left is sick of being the underdog, the outsider, they want that insider, let's make nice and work with the military industrial complex, multinationals and international organizations, status.
And most of all, they really like the money that comes from working with, or for the establishment instead of against it.
The right on the other hand is the new rebel.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3305
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Previous

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users