• The upgrade to XenForo 2.3.7 has now been completed. Please report any issues to our administrators.

War Room Lounge v173: IIRC, taco bell's beef was something like 20% oats

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheMinority said:
Like i said, you're too caught up in being a partisan and using labels that lack history and context. Rather than discuss ideas you're stuck arguing teams, assigning blame and labeling.

Its like your mind is stuck in a left vs right paradigm and anything outside of this frame work you can not compute.

What you are doing is essentially the same bs as blaming democrats of today for slavery. You realize how foolish that is?

Come on son, put that thinking cap on if you want me to engage.
Click to expand...

You are aware COINTELPRO was the 1960s right? I get it's an inconvenient subject, but you're not going to be able to handwave something that took place when a lot of people today were alive. Timelines argument isn't cutting it. Conservatives were the ones that cheered when the Panthers were destroyed, because they destroyed the Panthers. Now try and tell me how I shouldn't blame the destruction of the Panthers on the right when the right is the one that made it happen. Y'all still try and lock up Assata Shakur every time we bring her up, that's supposedly what you stand for?

Give me a break. And stop lying.
 
TheMinority said:
Reminds me, I remember a wr member arguing that Stalin was in all actuality a right winger because he was an authoritarian.

I think we just need to abandon these archaic labels and instead articulate our positions.
Click to expand...

Well it is an interesting question: what is authoritarianism? Left-wing beliefs center around equality of some kind (equality of property owning citizens, equality of the sexes, equality of the classes, etc) and right wing ones around inequality (thousands of permutations). Authoritarianism is tricky to define; de facto, Stalin was only (until 1941) the General Secretary of the Communist Party; he didn't actually hold any 'elected offices', etc. But de facto, he had total control of the state, which itself was extreme-left in its laws and self-understanding. Does a belief in equality necessarily mean that undemocratic solutions are illegitimate? The US left has been happy to use our very anti-democratic Supreme Court to pursue its ends; we hear a lot about how democratic states with regimes our left doesn't like are somehow failing at democracy or sliding into fascism. At the end of the day, I think authoritarian rule is inherently more right wing; because those ideologies are more accepting of the idea that one man may have privileges that you don't. If you are on the left, there has to be at least a fiction that everyone's voice matters (it doesn't actually matter).
 
Jack V Savage said:
The World Bank says only six countries have equal rights for men and women, though I don't know their full criteria (2019 report). Many countries still have laws saying that wives have to obey their husbands and different divorce rights. SSM only became legal across the U.S. in 2015. Etc. Equality under the law is more controversial and less common than I think people realize.
Click to expand...

More sanity out there than I expected.
 
Falsedawn said:
You are aware COINTELPRO was the 1960s right? I get it's an inconvenient subject, but you're not going to be able to handwave something that took place when a lot of people today were alive. Timelines argument isn't cutting it. Conservatives were the ones that cheered when the Panthers were destroyed, because they destroyed the Panthers. Now try and tell me how I shouldn't blame the destruction of the Panthers on the right when the right is the one that made it happen. Y'all still try and lock up Assata Shakur every time we bring her up, that's supposedly what you stand for?

Give me a break. And stop lying.
Click to expand...

Bro fuck those old boomer conservatives.

We are a different breed today.

Malcom X was a great American.
 
tonni said:
Play it.
Click to expand...
I have. It is fun for a little while, and I imagine playing it drunk would be great, but there are only three maps, and most people are terrible liars.
 
Sycho Sid said:
I am so beyond tired of that game
Click to expand...
I just want my goddamn Destiny 2 Beyond Light expansion. I've been real minimal on gaming since I got all caught up with most of my Exotic hunting and shit for stuff I Missed between the Forsaken launch and Season 11.
 
Gregolian said:
I just want my goddamn Destiny 2 Beyond Light expansion. I've been real minimal on gaming since I got all caught up with most of my Exotic hunting and shit for stuff I Missed between the Forsaken launch and Season 11.
Click to expand...
I am not a big Destiny guy, but the aesthetics for that new expansion look amazing.
 
Sycho Sid said:
I am not a big Destiny guy, but the aesthetics for that new expansion look amazing.
Click to expand...
The lore behind it is what has me super interested. Instead of using just the "light" to power your abilities you are getting to tap into the darker side now too.
 
TheMinority said:
Bro fuck those old boomer conservatives.

We are a different breed today.

Malcom X was a great American.
Click to expand...

So you're not a Trump fan? He was trying to get Shakur extradited as of 2017. BLM's tactics and aims can be traced back to the Panthers, the SNCC, and the BLA, but he's led a veritable crusade against it.

Surely you understand that you can't exactly disavow "old boomer conservatives" when a 74 year old slob who fits into that description is currently president right?
 
Denter said:
Well it is an interesting question: what is authoritarianism? Left-wing beliefs center around equality of some kind (equality of property owning citizens, equality of the sexes, equality of the classes, etc) and right wing ones around inequality (thousands of permutations). Authoritarianism is tricky to define; de facto, Stalin was only (until 1941) the General Secretary of the Communist Party; he didn't actually hold any 'elected offices', etc. But de facto, he had total control of the state, which itself was extreme-left in its laws and self-understanding. Does a belief in equality necessarily mean that undemocratic solutions are illegitimate? The US left has been happy to use our very anti-democratic Supreme Court to pursue its ends; we hear a lot about how democratic states with regimes our left doesn't like are somehow failing at democracy or sliding into fascism. At the end of the day, I think authoritarian rule is inherently more right wing; because those ideologies are more accepting of the idea that one man may have privileges that you don't. If you are on the left, there has to be at least a fiction that everyone's voice matters (it doesn't actually matter).
Click to expand...

I've quoted this a few times (should just put it in my sig), but I love it because it sums everything up so well (and this is the long version):

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:

There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.

For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.

As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.

So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.

Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whateverthefuckkindofstupidnoise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.

No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:

The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
Click to expand...
 
TheMinority said:
How am I evading a ban? If the mods were to warn me for breaking the rules I would just try to follow the rules as best I could.
Click to expand...
Your previous account got banned, and you made a new account to evade said ban.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,271,430
Messages
57,716,328
Members
175,818
Latest member
tigersmoosh

Share this page

Back
Top