Political Litmus Test
-
By my experience, many people regard abstract art as a useless, non-artistic waste of time. The question measures your focus on the concrete, which I think is a fundamental of conservatism.
I think that some abstract art is pretty beautiful and certainly worthy of being called art. Other stuff seems to be a test to see how much (or little!) the artist can get away with. I don't have a problem with people disagreeing on whether a particular thing should be considered art.
-
but the idea that he wants people locked up for it comes from his critics, who have now repeated it so often that they show every sign of having come to believe it.
It's possible he doesn't want them locked up, but he certainly wants them treated as criminals and punished. It's not shoulder aliens to infer prison time from that.
-
@CoyneTheDup said:
The problem isn't government--or its lack. The problem is incumbent sense of entitlement.
And "incumbent sense of entitlement" is pretty much the definition of conservatism, whose overriding priority is to keep the levers of power firmly in the hands of those who already control them.
Cool. You can stop calling me conservative then.
-
Other stuff seems to be a test to see how much (or little!) the artist can get away with.
Sublime trolling is sublime.
http://www.tate.org.uk/art/images/work/T/T07/T07573_10.jpg
-
If someone that worked for you told you they didnt respect your authority you would fire them, wouldn't you, Hitler?
Need more info: Do they always top-post?
More seriously: you'd probably already have been fired if your statement was more than snark and you actually acted as such.
-
You can pretend that economic barriers to entry are so much "better" than political ones, but they're not. No rational business person would start a bank they know will be unprofitable. And by definition, the monopoly has the power to make competitors unprofitable. So nobody can, as a matter of fact, compete with a monopoly.
You can argue all you want that people have "freedom" to "compete", but it's a fiction. The only thing a monopoly has to do is make competition unprofitable by creating barriers to entry.
So sure, in principle, you can "get over" any barrier to entry. Nobody has a gun to your head. But you will lose money, so no business will try.
-
but the idea that he wants people locked up for it comes from his critics, who have now repeated it so often that they show every sign of having come to believe it.
So he didn't say that speech against his pet groups should be a crime?
Yes, he did.
And what happens to those who commit crimes?
You are just as fucking retarded as he is.
-
Well, yes and no. The way I act-out here would almost certainly have gotten me fired from lesser companies, but on the other hand, I do respect my manager a lot. Not because of their authority, though, but because they're really fucking good at managing. But any liberties I get here, my coworkers get too. God only knows how many wtfs there are lurking in all our code. I'm sure there are some people who couldn't handle that.
The point is, anyway, that anti-authority is more of a character trait for me than a political stance. And it's the same with liberalism. Take Chekhov (or whoever)'s gate — the one you're not supposed to open. If there was a shut gate somewhere, and no-one could tell me why it was supposed to be shut, that would bother me on a deep emotional level. Why won't somebody just open it already! Gah!
-
Take Chekhov (or whoever)'s gate — the one you're not supposed to open. If there was a shut gate somewhere, and no-one could tell me why it was supposed to be shut, that would bother me on a deep emotional level. Why won't somebody just open it already! Gah!
It was Chesterton's gate (or fence). And it wasn't about opening it but destroying it (without first understanding its purpose):
-
A post on reddit is not enough to disprove the dozens of videos i've seen of Trump's supporters becoming belligerent and violent at his "peaceful" rallies.
Are his rallies more or less peaceful than Black Lives Matter rallies?
-
If you got a different result you're wrong.
-
Fox is too vocal, but a lot of the authoritarian stuff seems to be straight from the gang that go after him.
But...he is authoritarian. Just ask him what he wants to do about speech that is against his pet groups. He would eviscerate freedom of speech to serve his own pet groups interests.
-
I'm also sure I'll regret that post tomorrow after reading all the responses to it. But whatever
Nah. We like you.
-
-
If someone that worked for you told you they didnt respect your authority you would fire them, wouldn't you, Hitler?
No. I would say that disrespect for authority is a prerequisite for working with me.
-
Take Chekhov (or whoever)'s gate — the one you're not supposed to open. If there was a shut gate somewhere, and no-one could tell me why it was supposed to be shut, that would bother me on a deep emotional level. Why won't somebody just open it already! Gah!
Funny enough, after calling me Hitler who would fire anyone for dissent, you then follow it up with describing a trait that I seek out in people who work with me.
I have mentioned it before, but my favorite question is "Why?". Always be asking why. Always question the common knowledge and look for new ways to do things. "Because that's the way they've always been done" is shitty justification for a decision and for maintaining the status quo.
-
It was Chesterton's gate (or fence). And it wasn't about opening it but destroying it (without first understanding its purpose):
He confused that with Chekhov's gun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov's_gun
Also, Chekhov's gun was the source of one of the funniest bits on Archer.
-
I have mentioned it before, but my favorite question is "Why?"
I now wonder if you'd change your tune if you ran a daycare...
-
Maybe. But I do love it when my oldest asks why. A daycare's worth of children would probably be overload though.
-
I have yet to see a video of a Donald Trump rally that didn't involve some sort of behavior which disgusted me to the point of nausea.
You are certainly a delicate hothouse flower.
-
That, or he's very picky of videos he's seeing. Also, he didn't say it was Trump's behavior that disgusts him there - FWIW, he might watch only CNN news videos with commentary that's all lies, and he realizes it's all lies, and that disgusts him :P
-
UK. I know what the Green Party in the US is and stands for, for the most part, but that could be entirely different in the UK.
Green parties everywhere rely on red-green color blindness, though I'd be happy to see a deviation from this rule.
-
Unpasteurized Argus.
-
Normal red socialists usually don't want to enforce having days in the week that only vegetarian food may be served on.
Greens however, do.
-
Did they shoot for Friday but the Catholic church stopped them?
Also, I hope this is a joke. It's a joke, right? Right?
-
No, normal red socialists just create such crushing poverty that nobody can afford to eat meat every day. Which is actually just fine, because the state owned corporation that has the sole rights to distribute meat is unable to supply it more frequently than once or twice a week anyway.
-
-
-
http://www.theguardian.com/world/german-elections-blog-2013/2013/sep/13/german-election-wurst-policy-veggie-day-greens
Holy fuck. Poe's Law, once again.
-
Normal red socialists usually don't want to enforce having days in the week that only vegetarian food may be served on.
Greens however, do.
So greens are even worse than reds? TIL
-
Normal red socialists usually don't want to enforce having days in the week that only vegetarian food may be served on.
Greens however, do.
Potato, potahto, BEEF!
-
I have to agree with some of the previous posters who recommended a "No Opinion/Neutral" option.
-
They think that because I want to more equally enforce laws which already limit freedom of speech that I want to completely abolish it.
-
Exactly. Every rally. Not just Trump's.
I have yet to see anyone get beaten up and thrown out of any other candidates' rallies while shouts of "sieg heil!" And "set him on fire!" Ring out from the ones too far away to throw punches and kicks.@Gaska said:
Maybe except for the fact that Trump supporters don't disrupt other candidates' rallies. If you ask me, it's rather nice of them.
Yes, it's totally nice of them to wait until there are no cameras around to disrupt the bodily functions of other candidates' supporters with numerous boots applied to various organs.@Gaska said:
Now you're just lying.
"Get him out of here. Throw him out" is a common refrain of Trump's, as is the vitriolic language which builds his supporters' hatred of his opponents and theirs.
-
So greens are even worse than reds? TIL
Of course they are. Reds are essentially a spent force at this point, while greens are mounting serious challenges to the power of establishments everywhere. Therefore, greens must be demonized at every opportunity. Did you not get the memo?
-
"Get him out of here. Throw him out" is a common refrain of Trump's
It's a fair reaction to someone who has shown up specifically to disrupt.
as is the vitriolic language which builds his supporters' hatred of his opponents and theirs.
Hmm...that sounds familiar....
-
Therefore, greens must be demonized at every opportunity.
Well, duh. That's the least you can do with evil.
-
someone who has shown up specifically to disrupt
...where "disrupt" could include sitting quietly while wearing a hijab.
-
@boomzilla said:
someone who has shown up specifically to disrupt
...where "disrupt" could include sitting quietly while wearing a hijab.
No. Which, contrary to your imagination, isn't a defense of instances where there has been a similar reaction to such a thing. You and @Fox are so black and white here.
Oh, also, you haven't responded to my request for elaboration on the "choose not to work" thing. I'm genuinely interested in what you had in mind.
-
elaboration on the "choose not to work" thing
I'm going to let that one run for a while, because it amuses me to watch people who clearly think of themselves as enlightened and well-informed so comprehensively miss the bleedin' obvious.
-
I'm going to let that one run for a while, because it amuses me to see so many people who clearly consider themselves enlightened and well-informed so comprehensively miss the bleedin' obvious.
Fuck you Gąska.
Though now I think we might be having different interpretations of "society" in there. Also, I think the discussion on that has moved on and it would be more interested to argue over whatever thing you're actually thinking about.
-
He means [spoiler]stay at home parents[/spoiler]. DUH.
-
The only ones who demonize Greens are... Greens themselves. Nobody's putting that Marxist rhetoric into their mouths, they're the ones coming up with it. People don't call them Watermelons for no reason.
And it's not just the Marxism; it's the mind-blowing stupidity that seems to be a prerequisite to joining these parties, too. We had a Green party in the parliament once, they even got into the governing coalition so they got a few ministers' seats - and plenty of attention. Highlights include high profile politicians - ministers! - being unable to explain how a nuclear powerplant works (even in the most basic terms - fission make heat, heat make steam, steam run turbines...) or going on and on about the benefits of using biomass for heating and then admitting having no idea what biomass even is. It would have been funny if the government wasn't taking 3/4 of everything I make in order to pay these people.
-
Spoiler tags on that, if you don't mind :)
Edit: thank you.
-
[IMG]
For some reason, I think the camera orientation is wrong in this picture. Or, is this urinal actually designed to collect the urine for direct consumption?
Filed under: You may now return to your regularly scheduled "debate"
-
I admit I had to think about it for about 5 seconds, but it's pretty obvious once you realize how many there are.
-
I've been thinking about monopolies, and I've been toying with the idea that if a monopoly exists, its leadership must be elected by the public. It can keep its capital structure, etc., if that is what the new leader wants. But monopolies should serve the public interest.
-
Spoiler tags on that, if you don't mind
Now, defend that!
I see it as the job of the non-stay at home parent to support the stay at home parent. Who is not "society." Maybe you're thinking of a single parent who cannot otherwise afford daycare or whatever. In that case, they hit the loophole of not really being capable of choosing to work.
-
@flabdablet said:
@boomzilla said:
someone who has shown up specifically to disrupt
...where "disrupt" could include sitting quietly while wearing a hijab.
No.
And yet yes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ri8DmybXl8Beg pardon: standing quietly while wearing a hijab.
And of course the immediate reaction from the Right is to go digging, find that the person concerned has a history of protest (shock! horror!) and conflate protest with unacceptable disruption and violence in an attempt to paint her protest in this instance as illegitimate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hixrLVIsCfIThe fact remains, as is quite clear from footage of the event, that all the disruption in this instance came from the reaction of security guards and Trump supporters to finding somebody in their midst with the temerity to disagree silently with their Dear Leader.
-
if a monopoly exists, its leadership must be elected by the public. It can keep its capital structure, etc., if that is what the new leader wants. But monopolies should serve the public interest.
WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA there, chummy. You're skating dangerously close to advocating some kind of representative democracy.