Jump to content
270soft Forum

Women* Game Jam Canada e-mail


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Most responses from you I read aren't what I would call conservative. Just as identifying as a 30 foot long talking zebra doesn't make you one, identifying as a conservative doesn't make you one. 😉

You don't get to say who's a conservative and who's not either. Not a lot of these are fiscal conversations, if you aren't noticing that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm late to this post, but as someone on this forum who identifies as Nonbinary and uses They/Them pronouns (as well as someone who works with LGBTQ) causes I just wanted to chime in with a few stray

I’m saying that I try not to be a jerk about these kinds of things.     I’m not sure that this post/thread is necessary, especially when to my knowledge there aren’t any women here, much less a

C'mon man, really? We're better than this.

Another funny instance regarding what @admin_270 has initially written. I read some of the official university guidelines yesterday. They tell you to not address someone as Mr./Mrs. based solely on the name or look of the person. Each person has to make his preference clear. Fun fact: nearly each Email I receive from university stuff addresses me as Mr. (or without a greeting...), but I didn't tell them because no one has asked me so far. So, I have to assume 95% of their own, mostly liberal, staff breaks their own rules because they are simply not suitable for everyday situations... some ivory tower ''academics'' want to give themselves air. At another page it is discussed ''doctor'' sounds masculine and ''doctox'' should be used instead. I believe the world has much bigger problems and this is typical first world behavior.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

At another page it is discussed ''doctor'' sounds masculine and ''doctox'' should be used instead.

This stuff sounds funny, and indeed is, but it's also serious. It's not just that there are bigger problems - it's that using 'Doctox' instead of 'Doctor' (and so on) is itself a problem, and comes from an ideology that seeks radical reshaping of society in a way that would make it significantly worse. These sorts of things are some of the more visible fruits of a long movement of certain ideologies and interests through the universities, and although these sorts of examples seem ridiculous now, some of the more ridiculous ideas might not seem so ridiculous in 10 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Most responses from you I read aren't what I would call conservative. Just as identifying as a 30 foot long talking zebra doesn't make you one, identifying as a conservative doesn't make you one. 😉

Please do tell. If I’m not a conservative and pretty hard right libertarian at that that would be news to me and I’d love to hear about it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

You don't get to say who's a conservative and who's not either. Not a lot of these are fiscal conversations, if you aren't noticing that. 

This is absolutely right. One doesn't become a conservative based on what someone says, it's what they are and do.

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

Please do tell. If I’m not a conservative and pretty hard right libertarian at that that would be news to me and I’d love to hear about it.

Libertarians aren't a particularly good fit for conservatism. They are uneasy partners in the GOP, as is obvious with people like Amash and Gary Johnson.

'Hard-right' libertarians, especially, are rarely what I would consider conservatives. They tend toward social liberalism and economic policies that would lead to radical transformations of their societies - not really 'conserving' in the normal sense of conservatism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

Libertarians aren't a particularly good fit for conservatism. They are uneasy partners in the GOP, as is obvious with people like Amash and Gary Johnson.

'Hard-right' libertarians, especially, are rarely what I would consider conservatives. They tend toward social liberalism and economic policies that would lead to radical transformations of their societies - not really 'conserving' in the normal sense of conservatism.

Libertarianism is the heart and soul of conservatism.

Ill take Reagan’s word over yours. Not to mention The Godfather of modern conservative libertarianism: Barry Goldwater.

Ill take that company over your ill-conceived attempt to redefine my conservatism.

Im not a social liberal. But I am a civil libertarian. You have to remember that, again, at the heart of conservatism is classical liberalism. If we are conservatives aim to conserve the legacy of the Founding Fathers, which is liberty, we are conserving the classical liberalism of the 18th century and American Enlightenment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

Libertarianism is the heart and soul of conservatism.

Liberty is certainly an important aspect of conservatism, but this wrong.

The standard definition of 'conservative' is

"disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change"

Libertarians tend to get things out of whack, by emphasizing liberty (in a blanket sense) over all sorts of important aspects of maintaining the good parts of one's inherited society.

Instead, conservatism comes about by a balancing of liberty and restraint, tradition and novelty.

You can see this most clearly perhaps in economics. True conservatism doesn't espouse policies that gut the manufacturing base and middle-class, sending massive numbers of jobs overseas. Libertarians tend to argue for the economic theories which justify policies that lead to this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Liberty is certainly an important aspect of conservatism, but this wrong.

You are free to feel this way. But again, I will stand by Reagan and Goldwater over a Canadian apologist for authoritanism.

6 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

The standard of definition of 'conservative' is

"disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change"

Libertarians tend to get things out of whack, by emphasizing liberty (in a blanket sense) over all sorts of important aspects of maintaining the good parts of one's inherited society.

Instead, conservatism comes about by a balancing of liberty and restraint, tradition and novelty.

I think you're confusing European and American conservatism. The heart of American conservatism IS the classical liberalism that defined the American Enlightenment. That is what we're trying to conserve here. That's the whole point of the American dream, model, experiment, shabang, whatever you want to call it. It makes sense then that a unique nation would have a unique form of conservatism.

6 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

You can see this most clearly perhaps in economics. True conservatism doesn't espouse policies that gut the manufacturing base and middle-class, sending massive numbers of jobs overseas. Libertarians tend to argue for the economic theories which justify policies that lead to this.

I think you misunderstand how economic development in a free market works but let's just say that the free market is the heart and soul of conservative economics and the Austrian School is the gold standard for that economic thought. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

over a Canadian apologist for authoritanism

Care to show where I have defended authoritarianism?

3 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

I think you're confusing European and American conservatism

It's certainly true that I stand outside American conservativism, and so when using 'conservative' I am not talking exclusively about the American version.

But even within the U.S., I would argue that 'conservatism' can't be centred solely upon liberty, even though it's an important component. To do that begets a monstrosity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

Care to show where I have defended authoritarianism?

I was trying to do servo proud and not mention he who shall not be named but here goes: All the times that you have defended the Trump administration's wild expansion of power and shows of authoritarianism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

All the times that you have defended the Trump administration's wild expansion of power and shows of authoritarianism

Can you cite some examples where I have defended the Trump admin's 'wild expansion of power and shows of authoritarianism'? I'm genuinely curious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

I can only speak of the areas I have an insight into ;)  That might be true, but I would not support excluding a liberal from any activities. When people don't hold extremist believes they should be allowed to speak.

Ah but who defines "extremist?" I can picture the Harvard campus circa 1770. "We can't allow people to be talking about breaking from England. How scandalous! A people without a monarchy to rule over them?" In other words, it's all subjective. I tend to be an absolutist on the 1st Amendment. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Ideas, no matter how grotesque, that are banned will be forced underground where they will fester. Let them be out in the open to be fully criticized. As a Jew, I would support the right of a Nazi to speak on campus. There would be about 5 people in an auditorium of 200 and even they'd be protestors. Let him have his sparsely attended event and see what an idiot he is. As long as one is not directly inciting violence (and to the SJWs out there I mean actual physical violence, not the "I don't feel safe hearing different ideas" crap) they should be allowed to speak no matter what.

The biggest mistake made in the handling of Charlottesville was giving those assholes exactly what they wanted - media attention. People have never heard of the Streisand Effect, it seems. What should have been a small gathering of a marginalized group of white-supremacists which would have been quickly forgotten and thrown on the ash heap of history, turned into a media circus by the MSM and Black Lives Matter, thus playing right into their hands.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

I was trying to do servo proud and not mention he who shall not be named but here goes: All the times that you have defended the Trump administration's wild expansion of power and shows of authoritarianism.

I think there might be a small mix-up here. I can't speak for @admin_270 but just for myself, I don't defend any expansion of authoritarianism. The Presidency has become way too powerful over the course of the last 150 years. I would like to see a country where the Constitution is followed, and the Executive Branch (and really, the others too) are reined in so that they wouldn't be able to expand it at all. Wouldn't it be nice if we had the re-incarnation of George Washington in the White House, a Senate full of Jeffersons and a House full of Madisons. But alas, we don't. Now, there seems to be a thought process out there that goes something like... "Servo75 doesn't insult Trump. He's a bit forgiving of Trump's shortcomings. Therefore he must be a MAGA supporter. And since Trump is authoritarian, that must mean servo supports authoritarianism too."

I mean that's clearly a ridiculous statement, and if someone assumed all Bernie voters were Marxists I'd find that just as laughable. But somehow Trump is the exception, he's seen as so evil so that there are no shades of gray, and it's a package deal. Anyone who finds him  so much as 1% acceptable must "obviously" defend every "horrible" thing he does. Ridiculous. Now let me preface what I'm about to write with the statement that I am not going to debate Trump's "authoritarianism" for the 105th time. It's futile at this point and I simply won't engage in that. I'm just talking about my own personal perspective here: When someone asks me if I'm a Trump supporter, I say it depends. By the far left definition I suppose I am, because that's a pretty low bar. Anyone who's not figuratively bashing his skull in every 10 minutes must be one of those "crazy MAGA people." They assume that supporting someone is a package deal. If you think Trump didn't collude with Russia than you "must" be a rabid supporter and therefore "must" rubber stamp every thing he does. I shouldn't need to say this for the umpteenth time: I am not a Trump supporter, nor am I a hater. I can like some of the things he does and dislike others. Why don't I express those criticisms more often, and why does it seem like I'm defending him so much? Simply because when the conversation starts out (and I'm not directing this at @Reagan04, it's just a general statement) with "Trump's a white nationalist authoritarian," we can't get down to the levels of what I believe to be fair criticism because we've got to get that boulder out of the way first. If we can't even agree that Donald Trump is not the second coming of Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Genghis Khan all rolled into one, then it's impossible to get to the points of agreement. For example, yes Donald Trump tweets too much. But if Twitter were around in 1940, then whether Hitler Tweeted too much or not would be pointless. There's no sense arguing that because he was obviously an evil person and discussions centering around his authoritarianism would be valid and the fine details like that would be pointless to discuss.

The bottom line is this: One can support the President without rubber stamping everything that he does. One can be an opponent without reflexively hating everything he does. We used to have that belief in American political discussion. So, and I don't know what @admin_270's direct opinion of POTUS is, but it's beside the point. One can say positive things about the President without giving the assumption that things like executive overreach (which has been happening for well over 100 years) are good things. People who support the President do not overlook his shortcomings and faults. They simply put them in perspective with everything else. That's my point of view. I realize some people think there's nothing to put in perspective with, that Trump is the 100% personification of pure evil. I leave them to their opinions and respectfully ask they leave me to mine. I'm done debating the issue. I just wanted to explain where I fall on things.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, servo75 said:

I think there might be a small mix-up here. I can't speak for @admin_270 but just for myself, I don't defend any expansion of authoritarianism. The Presidency has become way too powerful over the course of the last 150 years. I would like to see a country where the Constitution is followed, and the Executive Branch (and really, the others too) are reined in so that they wouldn't be able to expand it at all. Wouldn't it be nice if we had the re-incarnation of George Washington in the White House, a Senate full of Jeffersons and a House full of Madisons. But alas, we don't. Now, there seems to be a thought process out there that goes something like... "Servo75 doesn't insult Trump. He's a bit forgiving of Trump's shortcomings. Therefore he must be a MAGA supporter. And since Trump is authoritarian, that must mean servo supports authoritarianism too."

I mean that's clearly a ridiculous statement, and if someone assumed all Bernie voters were Marxists I'd find that just as laughable. But somehow Trump is the exception, he's seen as so evil so that there are no shades of gray, and it's a package deal. Anyone who finds him  so much as 1% acceptable must "obviously" defend every "horrible" thing he does. Ridiculous. Now let me preface what I'm about to write with the statement that I am not going to debate Trump's "authoritarianism" for the 105th time. It's futile at this point and I simply won't engage in that. I'm just talking about my own personal perspective here: When someone asks me if I'm a Trump supporter, I say it depends. By the far left definition I suppose I am, because that's a pretty low bar. Anyone who's not figuratively bashing his skull in every 10 minutes must be one of those "crazy MAGA people." They assume that supporting someone is a package deal. If you think Trump didn't collude with Russia than you "must" be a rabid supporter and therefore "must" rubber stamp every thing he does. I shouldn't need to say this for the umpteenth time: I am not a Trump supporter, nor am I a hater. I can like some of the things he does and dislike others. Why don't I express those criticisms more often, and why does it seem like I'm defending him so much? Simply because when the conversation starts out (and I'm not directing this at @Reagan04, it's just a general statement) with "Trump's a white nationalist authoritarian," we can't get down to the levels of what I believe to be fair criticism because we've got to get that boulder out of the way first. If we can't even agree that Donald Trump is not the second coming of Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Genghis Khan all rolled into one, then it's impossible to get to the points of agreement. For example, yes Donald Trump tweets too much. But if Twitter were around in 1940, then whether Hitler Tweeted too much or not would be pointless. There's no sense arguing that because he was obviously an evil person and discussions centering around his authoritarianism would be valid and the fine details like that would be pointless to discuss.

The bottom line is this: One can support the President without rubber stamping everything that he does. One can be an opponent without reflexively hating everything he does. We used to have that belief in American political discussion. So, and I don't know what @admin_270's direct opinion of POTUS is, but it's beside the point. One can say positive things about the President without giving the assumption that things like executive overreach (which has been happening for well over 100 years) are good things. People who support the President do not overlook his shortcomings and faults. They simply put them in perspective with everything else. That's my point of view. I realize some people think there's nothing to put in perspective with, that Trump is the 100% personification of pure evil. I leave them to their opinions and respectfully ask they leave me to mine. I'm done debating the issue. I just wanted to explain where I fall on things.

 

Your ideal government was 100% slave owners.  That’s an even worse ratio than our real government was in our darkest days. ;c)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

You are free to feel this way. But again, I will stand by Reagan and Goldwater over a Canadian apologist for authoritanism.

I think you're confusing European and American conservatism. The heart of American conservatism IS the classical liberalism that defined the American Enlightenment. That is what we're trying to conserve here. That's the whole point of the American dream, model, experiment, shabang, whatever you want to call it. It makes sense then that a unique nation would have a unique form of conservatism.

I think you misunderstand how economic development in a free market works but let's just say that the free market is the heart and soul of conservative economics and the Austrian School is the gold standard for that economic thought. 

To be fair, I think this describes American "Paleoconservativism," or "Classic Conservativism," not really nearly so much American "Neoconservatism," - judging by empirical evidence, at least.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The GOP abandoned the Austrian School long ago.  Richard Nixon admitted as much in 1971 when he said "We're all Keynesians now".  The days when the Feds left people alone is over and it's not coming back.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Actinguy said:

Your ideal government was 100% slave owners.  That’s an even worse ratio than our real government was in our darkest days. ;c)

It's really quite pitiful that this is all you see them as, and that this was your primary takeaway from my post. I'm flummoxed. And I REALLY hope you're not implying that I would prefer slaveowners to run the government BECAUSE they're slave owners.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, pilight said:

The GOP abandoned the Austrian School long ago.  Richard Nixon admitted as much in 1971 when he said "We're all Keynesians now".  The days when the Feds left people alone is over and it's not coming back.

Yes and that's the whole problem. I'm not saying that all the people I mentioned were Austrians, that's missing the point. A big problem I find, and this is actually even worse with the Libertarian Party, is that for some reasons, the intellectual wing of these parties seem to think that good ideas win elections. They let perfect become the enemy of good. The Big-Ls have become too much like the Jedi Order to me. So caught up in dogmatic ideology that all sense of pragmatism goes out the window.

For instance, I listen to a podcast of a certain Libertarian whose name I won't mention here but typical of much of the "intellectual right". They will sit back and say, "Donald Trump is overreaching his executive authority in signing those executive orders to extend unemployment and eviction moratorium." Yes, technically he's right. But they never say what THEY would have done differently. It's easy to armchair quarterback when you don't have the responsibilities of government.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, admin_270 said:

They are uneasy partners in the GOP, as is obvious with people like Amash and Gary Johnson.

Hmm, I don't know what you mean by "uneasy" partners. Amash and Johnson now are more libertarian than GOP. But there should be better partnership there especially with the vacuum left by the Democrats going so far left. I would like to see at least an informal partnership. The opportunity is definitely there as I think there are many disaffected Democrats who are looking for a new "home" but are put off by both the radicalism and socialism of the new Democrats, but also the hard-line social views of the Republicans. They're ripe for the picking by a Republican-Libertarian alliance that can really communicate their values. Unfortunately that's the blind leading the blind, and such an alliance I think will sadly never happen.  I've advocated for this this many times in conservative groups and the response is usually something in the vein of "I don't want to work with them because they're a bunch of open borders pot smokers." Which is greatly unfair and sad at the same time.

 

9 hours ago, admin_270 said:

Libertarians aren't a particularly good fit for conservatism.

Big or little "L"? If the former, then sadly you're right. They've basically lost their way as a party and have not nominated people with true libertarian principles. I've wanted to vote Libertarian many times, particuarly for Dr. Jorgenson in 2020 but I can't bring myself to do it. It's not just that "they can't win." If a party shows true conviction, shows that they can win and want to win and have a game plan, a good ground game and national and local party structure, well organized leadership, and a polished candidate who can deliver a well-communicated and resonant message (some geography lessons wouldn't hurt either), and shows that they are truly desirous and ready to sit at the grownups' table and have the responsibility of governing rather than being content to sit on the sidelines and Monday-morning QB everyone else, then I will vote for the "L" if there's even a 1% chance of winning overall. Unfortunately the Libertarian Party over the past few election cycles, possesses almost none of those characteristics. Fifty years on, when The Republicans and Democrats had already put six and five Presidents, respectively in the White House at that same age, their electoral performance can charitably be described as "pathetic." If for little l, then I disagree somewhat. There's much more overlap I think, between the two, than differences, and certainly a hell of a lot more overlap with the GOP than with the Democrats. There are scarcely few true libertarians in Washington, and what few there are are almost all on the GOP side - 2 or 3 in the Senate and maybe a dozen in the House. I can't think of a single Congressional Democrat that I would consider a libertarian.
I so WANT to proudly call myself a big-L Libertarian but until they start upping their game, I just can't do it.

9 hours ago, admin_270 said:

Hard-right' libertarians, especially, are rarely what I would consider conservatives. They tend toward social liberalism and economic policies that would lead to radical transformations of their societies - not really 'conserving' in the normal sense of conservatism.

Again, not sure what you mean by "hard right"? My vision of hard-right libertarian is the anarcho-capitalist. I certainly wouldn't support someone like that, but I guess that whether you consider them "true conservatives" also depends on what flavor of conservatism you're talking about. I'd be genuinely interested in you fleshing out that statement a bit more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, servo75 said:

I so WANT to proudly call myself a big-L Libertarian but until they start upping their game, I just can't do it.

On this we entirely agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2020 at 9:46 PM, Reagan04 said:

Unfortunately I don't have time to unpack the incredible, likely unintended, bigotry that is piled into this paragraph. I just want you to know that America is past this sort of 20th century thinking and I invite you to do better as well. Perhaps we'll discuss this again at some point but it's never a good day when basic human rights have to be defended against total dismissal.

Oh please, do unpack it, I'm curious. What did I dismiss? I pretty much acknowledged that gender dysphoria is real. What is bigoted about what I said? Really? Can you name even one thing I said that is objectively bigoted? You have the right to your opinion, but at least argue against the points that I made. This is exactly what I talked about in "apology." Instead of directly refuting my points, it looks like you're taking the ad hominem approach here by calling me a bigot without any cause, basically insinuating that a "decent person" wouldn't think the way I think. Well you'd better be able to back that up pal, I take tremendous offense to accusing me of Orwellian "wrongthink" without even addressing the specific issues you're concerned about. I would expect this of the left wing "social justice warriors", where anything they don't agree with is "hate speech." You're really pushing my buttons here and I'm quickly losing my patience. I would love for you to enlighten me what "basic human rights" have to do with choice of bathrooms.

A simple, "Servo with all due respect I disagree with you because of X, Y, and Z" would suffice. "I really think you're wrong on this and am curious why you think that way." Is that so hard??? Is this even possible for you to accept that people can disagree strongly with you but still be decent well-intentioned people? Do you have to assume people are somehow bad because they have even very unpopular opinions (which I don't agree mine is). Or do you have to instantaneously and cynically assume the worst in people? So if you're going to personally insult me with such bold and scurrilous assertions about my character, you'd better either solidly back them up with objective evidence, or have the decency to apologize. You and I disagree on a lot (though I think less than is apparent) but I expected better of you than to immediately jump to such base conclusions without even so much as parley.

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

On this we entirely agree.

Hallelujah! A miracle!

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

It's part of his new small government policies package- "Coloring Control". 

WHAAAT???

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Actinguy said:

Um...none of those things happened to me in college.  And I went while Obama was President.  I assure you that I saw neither play-doh nor coloring books the entire time.

But if somebody wants to color on their own time, why does that even matter?

Were you in college in the Fall of 2016? If these things didn't happen to you that's great but there are well-publicized events of these things happening, of young college students going apoplectic over the election results.

And this isn't about coloring on one's own time. You're missing my point. And all of the links below were found in a 5 minute Google search.

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...