Jump to content
270soft Forum

I'm not dead


Recommended Posts

So. I've been offline of a long time as of recent, and it would be unwise of me to assure anyone of anything different. I owe this to several reasons.

1. The reason so many young people disappear from forums, even if they previously loved them, business. I've been rather busy for the past few months, and that is only going to get worse in regards to my continued use and activity on this forum. Between leaving university, work, and the fact that I am joining the navy, I can't really say I'll be a force on this forum in any significant way. I'll be disappearing for a few months in early September. Period. I'll be out of the country, without data, so posts are few and far between. On September 27th I ship out for basic training. I'll be gone for two months, no if ands or buts about it.

2. I've been really discouraged at the current state of politics in the US, including the erosion of the very facilities that have previously worked overtime to keep us free. I feel very much isolated politically, and at sea. I've been completely impotent in terms of quelling the spread of irrational conspiracy theories, and have failed to make a dent in my area only believing what comes out of the horse's ass mouth in regards to Trump's ongoing problems. Despite being a pathological liar (repeatedly proven so), much of America seems willing to turn on hundred year old sources before believing that an authoritarian strongman might not always tell them the truth. 

3. I've had a short period of political introspection, and realignment. I am now registered Republican, but I doubt I can bring myself to vote for a single republican candidate. I like the democratic candidates, but dislike the party as an national force. The Republican party and most of it's recent offerings have successfully made it impossible for me to find a single candidate that I agree with from them. The recent bend towards the Nazis, or "Alt- Right" as they seem to prefer to be called now has me, frankly, terrified for the future of the nation. My family is Jewish (father's side). If they had gotten out of Europe two generations later, my line would've terminated in a death camp. The recent refusal of republican politicians to condemn Nazis for domestic terrorist attacks has turned me on all of them. I know what blaming one racial or ethnic group for all of a nation's problems can do, and I don't like what I see. I most similarly align to John Rockefeller's school of thought, balanced budget, Moderate to liberal social policies, and common sense economics. Neither party embrace's any of that, and I'm left to choose between the folks reenacting history, or a bitter compromise for me. 

4. I've run out of things to do here. Since I've unleashed the demon of Roleplay on this forum, I can't really get into it, because I don't have the time for RP, or to passionately develop algorithms again. There aren't as many proper debates as there used to be, and my steel has grown rusty. I miss my old sparring buddies, and every time I tried to get a debate going, it sputtered out.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LokiLoki22 said:

4. I've run out of things to do here. Since I've unleashed the demon of Roleplay on this forum, I can't really get into it, because I don't have the time for RP, or to passionately develop algorithms again. There aren't as many proper debates as there used to be, and my steel has grown rusty. I miss my old sparring buddies, and every time I tried to get a debate going, it sputtered out.  

And Anthony keeps shuttering all debate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LokiLoki22 said:

Please explain like I'm five, I've been away.

Anthony declared that the forum wasn't the "place for political discussions but rather to discuss 270soft games" and he keeps on shuttering all discussions like the one between me and @ThePotatoWalrus on the status of North Korea's government.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

Anthony declared that the forum wasn't the "place for political discussions but rather to discuss 270soft games" and he keeps on shuttering all discussions like the one between me and @ThePotatoWalrus on the status of North Korea's government.

I get where he's coming from, but humbly disagree. I would ask for perhaps a separate of the forum to debate in, just to keep things orderly. Ultimately, when you get a bunch of confident politics geeks together, debates will spring up. I'll start looking for a new forum if I can't do that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LokiLoki22 said:

I get where he's coming from, but humbly disagree. I would ask for perhaps a separate of the forum to debate in, just to keep things orderly. Ultimately, when you get a bunch of confident politics geeks together, debates will spring up. I'll start looking for a new forum if I can't do that.

@admin_270

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, LokiLoki22 said:

 

3. I've had a short period of political introspection, and realignment. I am now registered Republican, but I doubt I can bring myself to vote for a single republican candidate. I like the democratic candidates, but dislike the party as an national force. The Republican party and most of it's recent offerings have successfully made it impossible for me to find a single candidate that I agree with from them. The recent bend towards the Nazis, or "Alt- Right" as they seem to prefer to be called now has me, frankly, terrified for the future of the nation. My family is Jewish (father's side). If they had gotten out of Europe two generations later, my line would've terminated in a death camp. The recent refusal of republican politicians to condemn Nazis for domestic terrorist attacks has turned me on all of them. I know what blaming one racial or ethnic group for all of a nation's problems can do, and I don't like what I see. I most similarly align to John Rockefeller's school of thought, balanced budget, Moderate to liberal social policies, and common sense economics. Neither party embrace's any of that, and I'm left to choose between the folks reenacting history, or a bitter compromise for me. 

6

Don't fear the Alt-Right, they are nothing but a foolishly weak house of cards that is often dishonestly made out to be much more numbered by the media then they actually are. They will never triumph in any significant way. Nazism falls in the ranks of Anarchism, Socialism, and Communism, ideologies antithetical to America. Fear is what gives them power, let us defiantly exclaim they have no place on either side of the political spectrum or partisan dynamic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reagan04 said:

Don't fear the Alt-Right, they are nothing but a foolishly weak house of cards that is often dishonestly made out to be much more numbered by the media then they actually are. They will never triumph in any significant way. Nazism falls in the ranks of Anarchism, Socialism, and Communism, ideologies antithetical to America. Fear is what gives them power, let us defiantly exclaim they have no place on either side of the political spectrum or partisan dynamic.

Old sparring buddy, you give me hope. I certainly hope you are right, but truthfully, only time will tell. I hope they pass over quickly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

Anthony declared that the forum wasn't the "place for political discussions but rather to discuss 270soft games" and he keeps on shuttering all discussions like the one between me and @ThePotatoWalrus on the status of North Korea's government.

I typically support most everything Anthony does and the threads that he locks but I felt locking that one was a bit of a misstep. Respectful political discussion is not against the rules, and the discussion was relatively on-topic to the original post, which was allowed.

2 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

Don't fear the Alt-Right, they are nothing but a foolishly weak house of cards that is often dishonestly made out to be much more numbered by the media then they actually are. They will never triumph in any significant way. Nazism falls in the ranks of Anarchism, Socialism, and Communism, ideologies antithetical to America. Fear is what gives them power, let us defiantly exclaim they have no place on either side of the political spectrum or partisan dynamic.

As a non-Republican, I can also agree with most of this. (Besides the Anarchism sentiment). Really well said though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

I typically support most everything Anthony does and the threads that he locks but I felt locking that one was a bit of a misstep. Respectful political discussion is not against the rules, and the discussion was relatively on-topic to the original post, which was allowed.

As a non-Republican, I can also agree with most of this. (Besides the Anarchism sentiment). Really well said though.

 

2 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

Don't fear the Alt-Right, they are nothing but a foolishly weak house of cards that is often dishonestly made out to be much more numbered by the media then they actually are. They will never triumph in any significant way. Nazism falls in the ranks of Anarchism, Socialism, and Communism, ideologies antithetical to America. Fear is what gives them power, let us defiantly exclaim they have no place on either side of the political spectrum or partisan dynamic.

I don't believe that all forms of Socialism are antithetical to American values, either - though many Americans strongly believe that the most repugnant aspects of Socialism in Western circles are absolutely intrinsic, essential, and inseparable from any form of Socialism at all and that Socialism can NEVER respect property, human rights, electoral processes, or work at, in any form, in cooperation with private enterprise - which is not actually true, and is a bad stereotype of only the most extreme brands of the ideology. However, Christian Dominionist or Fundamentalist Theonymy IS actually antithetical to American values, because it violates the ban on a state religion, the ban on religion being a requirement to hold or public office, and tramples, by it's very nature, so many Constitutional rights. Nonetheless, American citizens are ALSO Constitutionally allowed to hold ANY of these ideologies, no matter how repugnant, and vocally and publicly promote in a non-violent, non-criminal nature without Constitutionally-legal fear of government reprisal. This of course made the laws and policies of the Red Scare BLATANTLY un-Constitutional and the fact no consequences were levied for these policies and it wasn't shut down sooner was a tragic breach of the U.S. Constitution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem with democrats and republicans is many people have ideologies with a mix of both, so there's no real party that represents us. Then both dems and republicans end up pandering to the alt-right (nazis) or far-left (tribalism) and we see bizarre things like abolishing borders, legalizing heroin, separating families, or saying facts are fake.

"I most similarly align to John Rockefeller's school of thought, balanced budget, Moderate to liberal social policies, and common sense economics. Neither party embrace's any of that, and I'm left to choose between the folks reenacting history, or a bitter compromise for me. "
Sounds like a Massachusetts Republican, of which there are those still around....in Massachusetts.

___
"which is not actually true, and is a bad stereotype of only the most extreme brands of the ideology."
This is true but if you see the type of things the local DSA - Democratic Socialists of America - are spewing they are playing into the stereotype. I consider myself a centrist and "democratic socialist" (in the European/Scandinavian style of a mixed market) but I cannot support what the DSA peddles (which is class warfare and other catchy Soviet era slogans).

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, IonicAmalgam said:

I think the problem with democrats and republicans is many people have ideologies with a mix of both, so there's no real party that represents us. Then both dems and republicans end up pandering to the alt-right (nazis) or far-left (tribalism) and we see bizarre things like abolishing borders, legalizing heroin, separating families, or saying facts are fake.

"I most similarly align to John Rockefeller's school of thought, balanced budget, Moderate to liberal social policies, and common sense economics. Neither party embrace's any of that, and I'm left to choose between the folks reenacting history, or a bitter compromise for me. "
Sounds like a Massachusetts Republican, of which there are those still around....in Massachusetts.

___
"which is not actually true, and is a bad stereotype of only the most extreme brands of the ideology."
This is true but if you see the type of things the local DSA - Democratic Socialists of America - are spewing they are playing into the stereotype. I consider myself a centrist and "democratic socialist" (in the European/Scandinavian style of a mixed market) but I cannot support what the DSA peddles (which is class warfare and other catchy Soviet era slogans).

The far-left is defined as "tribalist," especially as an exclusive and distinct term to separate them from the far-right? What social sciences are you studying?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Patine said:

The far-left is defined as "tribalist," especially as an exclusive and distinct term to separate them from the far-right? What social sciences are you studying?

It's the best catchall I could think of to describe their excessive focus on identity issues while also including other issues not just in the social realm. Republicans have identity politics too but it's been overshadowed and it's not as harped upon as on the left (it's not the most important thing anyway, unlike the left who uses it as purity tests over competence or integrity. Good old Democratic California votes for the candidate who harps identity issues but is significantly more corrupt :x). I would say the democratic 'base/far left (the ones who vote in the primaries) is far more focused on identity politics than socialist based on what I've seen in California anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, IonicAmalgam said:

It's the best catchall I could think of to describe their excessive focus on identity issues while also including other issues not just in the social realm. Republicans have identity politics too but it's been overshadowed and it's not as harped upon as on the left (it's not the most important thing anyway, unlike the left who uses it as purity tests over competence or integrity. Good old Democratic California votes for the candidate who harps identity issues but is significantly more corrupt :x). I would say the democratic 'base/far left (the ones who vote in the primaries) is far more focused on identity politics than socialist based on what I've seen in California anyway.

But nationalism, parochialism, clannishness (basically, hard family values), border security obsession, military glorification, and hyper-patriotism (including the use of terms such as "treasonous," "traitors," "unpatriotic," and "un-American," just for fellow citizens who don't agree with them or just to happen to criticize or not support their points of view - all big talking points for the GOP - are all ideologies that are direct, traceable descendants, by sociological reckoning, of strong tribal ideology as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

But nationalism, parochialism, clannishness (basically, hard family values), border security obsession, military glorification, and hyper-patriotism (including the use of terms such as "treasonous," "traitors," "unpatriotic," and "un-American," just for fellow citizens who don't agree with them or just to happen to criticize or not support their points of view - all big talking points for the GOP - are all ideologies that are direct, traceable descendants, by sociological reckoning, of strong tribal ideology as well.

I consider most of that to be nationalism rather than tribalism. Somalia for example has a civil war between tribes, but it's still a nation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IonicAmalgam said:

I consider most of that to be nationalism rather than tribalism. Somalia for example has a civil war between tribes, but it's still a nation.

Nationalism is just tribalism on a different level of size and complexity, frankly. Let's not try to over-mystify things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

Nationalism is just tribalism on a different level of size and complexity, frankly. Let's not try to over-mystify things.

Republicans have their tribes too - christian fundamentalists, libertarians, anti-tax, free trade, gun rights - but I feel right now nationalism (or populism but I don't really think it counts as populism) is the larger overriding issue determining who they are voting for. They are similar, but different. Tribalism I feel focuses more on differences between groups, while nationalism tries to define everyone as being the same. Both are 'us or them' but they are on a different level.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IonicAmalgam said:

Republicans have their tribes too - christian fundamentalists, libertarians, anti-tax, business - but I feel right now nationalism (or populism but I don't really think it counts as populism) is the larger overriding issue determining who they are voting for. They are similar, but different. Tribalism I feel focuses more on differences between groups, while nationalism tries to define everyone as being the same. Both are 'us or them' but they are on a different level.

No. The REAL difference between nationalism and tribalism is like the layers of an onion, or a Ukrainian wooden doll. Since ALL nations, ethnicities, tribes, political camps, and other such groups are artificial social constructs created at some point or another in history, they all amount to the same general concept, only differentiated by age, size, complexity, numbers, pedigree, traction, and external recognition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, IonicAmalgam said:

Lol okay I'm not going to argue semantics here.

Semantics are one of the big foundations of philosophy and law, and philosophy is one of the big foundations of ideology. But I'll stop too... :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

As a non-Republican, I can also agree with most of this. (Besides the Anarchism sentiment). Really well said though.

America is not built to be Anarchist, we are built to be the Constitutional Republic with very limited Federal Government. But Government is not inherently bad, it's, in fact, necessary for the preservation of God-given liberties, ones encroached upon in Anarchy, making Anarchism incompatible with the American Model.

11 hours ago, Patine said:

 

I don't believe that all forms of Socialism are antithetical to American values, either - though many Americans strongly believe that the most repugnant aspects of Socialism in Western circles are absolutely intrinsic, essential, and inseparable from any form of Socialism at all and that Socialism can NEVER respect property, human rights, electoral processes, or work at, in any form, in cooperation with private enterprise - which is not actually true, and is a bad stereotype of only the most extreme brands of the ideology. However, Christian Dominionist or Fundamentalist Theonymy IS actually antithetical to American values, because it violates the ban on a state religion, the ban on religion being a requirement to hold or public office, and tramples, by it's very nature, so many Constitutional rights. Nonetheless, American citizens are ALSO Constitutionally allowed to hold ANY of these ideologies, no matter how repugnant, and vocally and publicly promote in a non-violent, non-criminal nature without Constitutionally-legal fear of government reprisal. This of course made the laws and policies of the Red Scare BLATANTLY un-Constitutional and the fact no consequences were levied for these policies and it wasn't shut down sooner was a tragic breach of the U.S. Constitution.

Let's break this down, first, yes, all forms of Socialism are antithetical to American Values, full stop. Yes, all forms of Theonymy and Theocracy are antithetical to American values, full stop. And yes, any law which prohibits an American from holding a political belief is antithetical to American Values, full stop.

America is built to be a nation which shuns Big Government, Socialism, Theocracy, and Thought Policing do nothing but invite that back into the equation. Now, since the Wilson and subsequently Roosevelt Administrations, we've begun to more rapidly process away from that dream. Meaning that yes, it would appear that Modern America has room for Socialism, that's because Modern America is dangerously close to abandoning what I call "The American Model." I really don't feel like getting into a long ideological debate as I know we have both given up on that pursuit. This is just a short summary of my opinions on the matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

America is not built to be Anarchist, we are built to be the Constitutional Republic with very limited Federal Government. But Government is not inherently bad, it's, in fact, necessary for the preservation of God-given liberties, ones encroached upon in Anarchy, making Anarchism incompatible with the American Model.

Let's break this down, first, yes, all forms of Socialism are antithetical to American Values, full stop. Yes, all forms of Theonymy and Theocracy are antithetical to American values, full stop. And yes, any law which prohibits an American from holding a political belief is antithetical to American Values, full stop.

America is built to be a nation which shuns Big Government, Socialism, Theocracy, and Thought Policing do nothing but invite that back into the equation. Now, since the Wilson and subsequently Roosevelt Administrations, we've begun to more rapidly process away from that dream. Meaning that yes, it would appear that Modern America has room for Socialism, that's because Modern America is dangerously close to abandoning what I call "The American Model." I really don't feel like getting into a long ideological debate as I know we have both given up on that pursuit. This is just a short summary of my opinions on the matter.

I humbly disagree. Some (small) forms of socialism are in what we deal with every day. We have a socialized postal service, military, water, education, and public service. America was built to be a tough nation that changes with the times, and moderates itself. These traits have served us well. Our founding fathers left us with a flexible document, and hazy phrasing for a reason, so that we aren't constrained against trying new things, and rolling back those things if they aren't working. Many of the new deal programs that you so revile are still around today, and we couldn't imagine a US without them. Things like Social Security, the GI Bill of Rights, the FDIC, all, in some way, shape, or form, socialist. The Nordic countries are a decent example of how a nation, if it is truly democratic, will not descend into "Thought Policing". These nations, despite their reputation, are still market based, and in some cases are more market friendly than their neighbors in Eastern Europe. It is, simply, silly to toss socialism in with Though policing, and I despise the Soviets for ruining the word. If you went to a public school, drink tap water, receive mail, or call the police, you have been a benefactor of a system "Antithetical to American Values, full stop". You can cling to a macho dream all you want, but socialism is not communism, it is simply, by definition, a good or service provided by the government in exchange for taxes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

America is not built to be Anarchist, we are built to be the Constitutional Republic with very limited Federal Government. But Government is not inherently bad, it's, in fact, necessary for the preservation of God-given liberties, ones encroached upon in Anarchy, making Anarchism incompatible with the American Model.

Let's break this down, first, yes, all forms of Socialism are antithetical to American Values, full stop. Yes, all forms of Theonymy and Theocracy are antithetical to American values, full stop. And yes, any law which prohibits an American from holding a political belief is antithetical to American Values, full stop.

America is built to be a nation which shuns Big Government, Socialism, Theocracy, and Thought Policing do nothing but invite that back into the equation. Now, since the Wilson and subsequently Roosevelt Administrations, we've begun to more rapidly process away from that dream. Meaning that yes, it would appear that Modern America has room for Socialism, that's because Modern America is dangerously close to abandoning what I call "The American Model." I really don't feel like getting into a long ideological debate as I know we have both given up on that pursuit. This is just a short summary of my opinions on the matter.

But WHO made the decision that ALL forms of Socialism are antithetical to American values, even less authoritarian and more electoral and private-public cooperative models? Who decided this? The Founding Fathers? Did they specify a socio-political and economic model that didn't yet exist and hadn't been defined in their own day and age? Is every single American who lives and has lived in agreement with this? No! This is the arbitrary imposition of values on others and the arrogant, pompous, paternalistic preaching to others of how be a "proper" citizen the nation they live in and what is a "proper" way of running that nation, decided one group of people who believe they have the right to dictate that to others in an unbending, unchanging into perpetuity, or be called an "improper" citizen of their own nation for desiring an alternative to that.

Also, your use of "God-given" liberties is hubris and using the Lord's name in vane. God did not grant the rights in the first 10 Amendments of the U.S. Constitution from on high and there is no intimation or statement in any part of scripture He guarantees or supports these rights (several are even repugnant to his law or Christ's teachings, in fact). These rights are given by a council of men in the 18th Century - as flawed, biased, faulted, sinful, and imperfect as all other men on the Earth - and have ABSOLUTELY no divine providence or backing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LokiLoki22 said:

I humbly disagree. Some (small) forms of socialism are in what we deal with every day. We have a socialized postal service, military, water, education, and public service. America was built to be a tough nation that changes with the times, and moderates itself. These traits have served us well. Our founding fathers left us with a flexible document, and hazy phrasing for a reason, so that we aren't constrained against trying new things, and rolling back those things if they aren't working. Many of the new deal programs that you so revile are still around today, and we couldn't imagine a US without them. Things like Social Security, the GI Bill of Rights, the FDIC, all, in some way, shape, or form, socialist. The Nordic countries are a decent example of how a nation, if it is truly democratic, will not descend into "Thought Policing". These nations, despite their reputation, are still market based, and in some cases are more market friendly than their neighbors in Eastern Europe. It is, simply, silly to toss socialism in with Though policing, and I despise the Soviets for ruining the word. If you went to a public school, drink tap water, receive mail, or call the police, you have been a benefactor of a system "Antithetical to American Values, full stop". You can cling to a macho dream all you want, but socialism is not communism, it is simply, by definition, a good or service provided by the government in exchange for taxes. 

Except, drum roll, that isn't Socialism. That's Social Democracy, which, while I oppose, is not antithetical to our system.

I never lumped Thought Policing in with Socialism, in fact, my comment about Thought Policing was in order to defend Socialism when Patine brought up laws outlawing an ideology. 

I don't even get where you're going with "macho dream", this honestly seems like a feminist's appeal to emotion, I'm not sure, not your best work on that one.

And no, that is not the definition of Socialism, Socialism is the worker's controlling the means of production, everything up until this point which you have cited is Social Democracy. While I do think Social Democracy should be reigned in, the mere existence of government does not make it Socialist. Government exists to enrich and preserve liberties, through  he use of police and military that is accomplished. I think one of the great fallacies that Democratic Socialists would have us believe is that Social Democracy or government existing at all proves that Socialism has worth in the American Model.

And those Nordic Nations you mention, are swimming fast away from their "Socialist" brands as their welfare states buckle under the pressure of rapid immigration and de-homogenization. They in fact, deplore Socialism with tax rates lower than the US and regulations fewer and farther in between.

Again, I'm not looking for a spar like the old times, I'm trying to lay down my sword, so to speak. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Patine said:

But WHO made the decision that ALL forms of Socialism are antithetical to American values, even less authoritarian and more electoral and private-public cooperative models? Who decided this? The Founding Fathers? Did they specify a socio-political and economic model that didn't yet exist and hadn't been defined in their own day and age? Is every single American who lives and has lived in agreement with this? No! This is the arbitrary imposition of values on others and the arrogant, pompous, paternalistic preaching to others of how be a "proper" citizen the nation they live in and what is a "proper" way of running that nation, decided one group of people who believe they have the right to dictate that to others in an unbending, unchanging into perpetuity, or be called an "improper" citizen of their own nation for desiring an alternative to that.

Also, your use of "God-given" liberties is hubris and using the Lord's name in vane. God did not grant the rights in the first 10 Amendments of the U.S. Constitution from on high and there is no intimation or statement in any part of scripture He guarantees or supports these rights (several are even repugnant to his law or Christ's teachings, in fact). These rights are given by a council of men in the 18th Century - as flawed, biased, faulted, sinful, and imperfect as all other men on the Earth - and have ABSOLUTELY no divine providence or backing.

I must humbly, yet vehemently, disagree and for the reasons stated above, I do not wish to further embitter the conversation. As I have previously made clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...