New posts

Trump.

Dec. 20, 2019, 2:58 p.m.
Posts: 16219
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002

Posted by: ReductiMat

In defense of Shogun, the DNC and the GOP are probably the most powerful companies in the world.

I think he goes wrong when saying one is better than the other.

GOP - corporatist bafflegab

DNC - corporatist bafflegab, improved with Obamacare!

Dec. 20, 2019, 4:22 p.m.
Posts: 326
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: syncro

DNC a "private company"? lol wut?

Cognitive dissonance is not clinical psych.

Biden pressuring a foreign government? You've got that wrong. In fact you've got it backwards.

Something tells me you need to find some better sources of information on these topics than the ones you're using.

lol read dude.

While its not, its being played out here and next thing you know it'll be dropped every other post like lolzorz used to be.

Not wrong.

Perhaps you should scrutinize your sources more.

edit/ps: how many accounts do you have on here?

it's more an organization than a company

it's a concept/term that has been in the common lexicon for a while now

your interpretation of it and the context in which you use it is very, very wrong and does not compare at all to trump's actions

i check multiple sources, both left and right

hundreds

Dec. 20, 2019, 5 p.m.
Posts: 326
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

Re checking sources, I would say that on avg, right and hard right sources tend to misrepresent the truth or lie outright. Far left sources tend to do the same thing. Left sources can bend the truth too to support their position, but usually not so bad that it creates a fabrication or completely misrepresents the truth. Center right, center, center left and left sources often prove to be the most factual. I say this based on accumulated knowledge and knowing enough that when something seems to be not right I will go and research it which often means tracking down the original report or research paper that the news/blog report claim is based on. I also try to be cognizant of the big picture and not let a single report that goes against the general trend of available info sway me into discounting that general trend. Now it's true that sometimes that this is the case where that one outlier is actually correct, but that doesn't happen often and given sometime it's also usually shown to be the correct position via follow up study or research. For example when one part of an ice sheet grows over a one or two year period we don't say that climate change is a hoax and the planet isn't warming but cooling, we instead look at the long term trends and other data and continue to monitor things to get a better understanding of what's happening.

So in the case of your Biden claim for example, yes he did put pressure on Ukraine, but not for the reasons you intimate. He also was not alone on that either, diplomats from other European nations, the IMF as well as anti-corruption advocates in the Ukraine all had legitimate concerns about Shokin and wanted him out. It also seems you have given no consideration to what many in the West wanted Shokin gone and you've gotten the timelines of the Burisma issues and Biden's son's time on the board all out of whack as well. There are several reports covering the whole thing from fairly reputable and well established agencies, two I thought were relatively good reads came from Bloomberg and the USA Today. 

As an aside but related to this I'll suggest that you consider how bias (left/right) and accuracy (truth/facts) affect reporting. Personally I am ok with some bias and even expect it from most sources. As long as it's not too overt I thin the average reader is not going to get overwhelmed by it. What's not ok is factually incorrect reporting, and to be honest in this say and age it really shouldn't be happening as it's often easy to check sourcing. What is outright despicable is a combination of strong bias and outright lies or a strong bending of the truth. Your Biden claim? Well that's not to far from being outright despicable considering how easy it is to check out what happened.

Dec. 20, 2019, 7:42 p.m.
Posts: 11300
Joined: June 4, 2008

Am I a centrist because I'm a Socialist Libertarian?

Dec. 20, 2019, 7:44 p.m.
Posts: 326
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

Posted by: ReductiMat

Am I a centrist because I'm a Socialist Libertarian?

https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Dec. 20, 2019, 8:16 p.m.
Posts: 326
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

start here if you're curious about the political spectrum and don't want to do the test. my guess is that many people would be surprised about where they actually sit on the political specrum.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/about

Dec. 20, 2019, 10:22 p.m.
Posts: 11300
Joined: June 4, 2008

I've done that before. 

I think the term centre is for people who refuse to have an opinion and want to make everyone happy.

Dec. 20, 2019, 11:01 p.m.
Posts: 1939
Joined: May 23, 2006

Dec. 21, 2019, 12:37 a.m.
Posts: 326
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

Posted by: ReductiMat

I've done that before. 

I think the term centre is for people who refuse to have an opinion and want to make everyone happy.

I disagree. What I like about the political compass is that is takes economic and social values and blends them together to come up with a much clearer picture of where one's political views lay. That's where being centre is a valuable stance imo - as long as people can define just what their centre is. So for me for example I tend to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal with smatterings of socialism and libertarianism thrown in for good measure. Typically I find people who call themselves centrist tend to be the same. It's not about not having an opinion but the exact opposite, having a wide range of opinions on many topics. I think the biggest danger we face with modern politics is that people are far too focused on the left/right divide and pay little attention to the actual issues. People need to forget about which team they want to be on and starting thinking about human issues and how all of humanity can best be solved. We know communism doesn't work, socialism has issues and capitalism has some promise but fails in key areas. It seems that a blend of a social democracy with some capitalism or free market theory throw in and a dash of libertarianism is what will best serve all people. Shouldn't that be the goal? Like what is the point of a society with amazing levels of affluence when significant portions struggle to survive? And that's just here in the Western world. Look around the globe at the literal billions that are basically living a life of subsistence. The list of to youtubers just came out and the top earner at $26 million is some 8 yr old kids who reviews toys. Does that make any fucking sense at all when there are millions of childrens living in poverty who don't even get to have breakfast? Out social structure is seriously fucked in light of the abundance that we have in this world. And it's not a money problem, it's an attitude problem.

Dec. 21, 2019, 8:21 a.m.
Posts: 11300
Joined: June 4, 2008

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: ReductiMat

I've done that before. 

I think the term centre is for people who refuse to have an opinion and want to make everyone happy.

I disagree. What I like about the political compass is that is takes economic and social values and blends them together to come up with a much clearer picture of where one's political views lay. That's where being centre is a valuable stance imo - as long as people can define just what their centre is. So for me for example I tend to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal with smatterings of socialism and libertarianism thrown in for good measure. Typically I find people who call themselves centrist tend to be the same. It's not about not having an opinion but the exact opposite, having a wide range of opinions on many topics. I think the biggest danger we face with modern politics is that people are far too focused on the left/right divide and pay little attention to the actual issues. People need to forget about which team they want to be on and starting thinking about human issues and how all of humanity can best be solved. We know communism doesn't work, socialism has issues and capitalism has some promise but fails in key areas. It seems that a blend of a social democracy with some capitalism or free market theory throw in and a dash of libertarianism is what will best serve all people. Shouldn't that be the goal? Like what is the point of a society with amazing levels of affluence when significant portions struggle to survive? And that's just here in the Western world. Look around the globe at the literal billions that are basically living a life of subsistence. The list of to youtubers just came out and the top earner at $26 million is some 8 yr old kids who reviews toys. Does that make any fucking sense at all when there are millions of childrens living in poverty who don't even get to have breakfast? Out social structure is seriously fucked in light of the abundance that we have in this world. And it's not a money problem, it's an attitude problem.

How would you define a replicable science experiment to prove that being center is better based off an "unexplained scoring system" by a website that "does not reveal the people behind it, beyond the fact that it seems to be based in the United Kingdom?"

What if someone came up with a more transparent system that placed you right or left of centre?  Would you strive to change your views to fit that model?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Political_Compass

Dec. 21, 2019, 12:44 p.m.
Posts: 1939
Joined: May 23, 2006

Ain't about left or right. It's about up and down.

Dec. 21, 2019, 1:15 p.m.
Posts: 13843
Joined: Dec. 30, 2002

Posted by: syncro

DNC a "private company"? lol wut?

https://ivn.us/posts/dnc-to-court-we-are-a-private-corporation-with-no-obligation-to-follow-our-rules

Update: A federal judge dismissed the DNC lawsuit on August 28. The court recognized that the DNC treated voters unfairly, but ruled that the DNC is a private corporation; therefore, voters cannot protect their rights by turning to the courts:

What was that about your sources? You know me, I care more for content than which domain name it comes from.

Dec. 21, 2019, 1:18 p.m.
Posts: 13843
Joined: Dec. 30, 2002

Posted by: ReductiMat

How would you define a replicable science experiment to prove that being center is better based off an "unexplained scoring system" by a website that "does not reveal the people behind it, beyond the fact that it seems to be based in the United Kingdom?"

What if someone came up with a more transparent system that placed you right or left of centre?  Would you strive to change your views to fit that model?

Ohhhh now that is rich dude lol

As for a transparent political leaning system, you speak in oxymorons. How can a system be transparent that misplaces you intentionally? That's not a good system but its a system none the less.

Dec. 21, 2019, 1:54 p.m.
Posts: 326
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: syncro

DNC a "private company"? lol wut?

https://ivn.us/posts/dnc-to-court-we-are-a-private-corporation-with-no-obligation-to-follow-our-rules

Update: A federal judge dismissed the DNC lawsuit on August 28. The court recognized that the DNC treated voters unfairly, but ruled that the DNC is a private corporation; therefore, voters cannot protect their rights by turning to the courts:

What was that about your sources? You know me, I care more for content than which domain name it comes from.

Really? Of all the things I listed that's what you want to go to bat on, a trite semantic argument about you the using the words "private company" - not corporation btw - to describe a political organization?
Say private company (or corporation even) and typically most people will think of an entity that sells/manufactures some sort of good or service. That's all I was getting at. I wouldn't consider the DNC a "company" in that respect, but I would consider them a political organization as that is their purpose. My sources here are the dictionary and common language.

Dec. 21, 2019, 2:04 p.m.
Posts: 13843
Joined: Dec. 30, 2002

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: syncro

DNC a "private company"? lol wut?

https://ivn.us/posts/dnc-to-court-we-are-a-private-corporation-with-no-obligation-to-follow-our-rules

Update: A federal judge dismissed the DNC lawsuit on August 28. The court recognized that the DNC treated voters unfairly, but ruled that the DNC is a private corporation; therefore, voters cannot protect their rights by turning to the courts:

What was that about your sources? You know me, I care more for content than which domain name it comes from.

Really? Of all the things I listed that's what you want to go to bat on, a trite semantic argument about you the using the words "private company" - not corporation btw - to describe a political organization?
Say private company (or corporation even) and typically most people will think of an entity that sells/manufactures some sort of good or service. That's all I was getting at. I wouldn't consider the DNC a "company" in that respect, but I would consider them a political organization as that is their purpose. My sources here are the dictionary and common language.

I thought you'd dissect the company versus corporation instead of focusing on private. Now you'll say you knew it was a private corp over an organization.

Forum jump: