Nomoturtle's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Nomoturtle's arguments, looking across every debate.
2 points

Can't be the fall guy if he's not the big guy.

Nomoturtle(774) Clarified
1 point

there is nevertheless always a sense of that settling

I think I understand on the surface, but not the depth of it; I can't say I empathise. I've yet to meet someone that can fulfill everything at once, but it's yet to become a source of dread, and I've yet to really try. I'm a loner, still content to drown myself in material entertainment for now.

I doubt you expected anything anyway, but sorry friend.

1 point

From the end of a leash is how.

1 point

people get their perception of inequity from their personal experiences of actual inequity which are produced by extremely well-documented human cognitive biases. those are facts and im not gonna debate them like they're mere conjectures based on exaggerated victim complexes and statistical gaming

On the former part, yeah, that's what I said. For the Latter, I didn't say anything about victim complexes or statistical gaming. The charitable interpretation of changing statistics would be making a positive change in a group, not literally faking the statisics.

your notion that we can end inequity just by getting face to face is so naive and ignorant that i genuinely cannot fathom your perspective at all.

Well I assumed by "intimate interpersonal relationships" you meant somone you were close with but struggled with conflict, and not someone stalking you down the street. I also thought you were talking about wealth, which perhaps explains what must have seemed a very strange example otherwise, though I suspect you already knew.

those whom i would form intimate relationships with are all positioned uniquely and inequitably within the social contexts which we share. from that there is a barrier in experiential understanding which cannot be surmounted

I don't believe you when you say it cannot be surmounted. Even if it couldn't, there are undoubtedly others with the same experiential understanding, even if not wholly, partially in each person. And so what if there isn't an identical clone of you that you can perfectly communicate with, is there no value in the exchange of ideas and experiences without demand of full experiential understanding? Is that not why you're here, where we're all anonymous?

Nomoturtle(774) Clarified
1 point

From that report:

The remaining households (10.5 percent, down from 11.1 percent in 2018) were food insecure at least

some time during the year, including 4.1 percent with very low food security (not significantly different from 4.3 percent in 2018). Very low food security is the more severe range

of food insecurity where one or more household members experienced reduced food

intake and disrupted eating patterns at times during the year because of limited money

and other resources for obtaining food. Among children, changes from 2018 in food insecurity and very low food security were not statistically significant. Children and adults

were food insecure in 6.5 percent of U.S. households with children in 2019; very low food

security among children was 0.6 percent. In 2019, the typical food-secure household spent

24 percent more on food than the typical food-insecure household of the same size and

household composition

So, the average American spends 24% more on food that these supposed malnourished, so presumably they get around 80% of the food the others do.

Now, you see, more than 2 in 3 Americans are overweight or obese. They (and much of the west) have an obesity crisis. So maybe you can see why I don't find it very alarming that people are eating 80% of what makes them overweight and obese.

Furthermore, by the standards it states in its methodology someone could qualify as one of those 35 million for any reason between them deciding to eat less food to save money, or if they forgot their wallet at home one day and missed a meal.

How many Americans starve to death each year?

1 point

Buddy, I can spot an American from 3,000 miles away just by their political views.

Well, you're literally 4,000 miles off the target. Again, I'm British.

Your response to Communism was to dismiss it on the grounds that it is idealist


Well, good intentions are a good start. A better start than abandoning the good intentions because you believe doing good is idealist.

I maintan my good intentions, they merely have nothing to do wth communism.

leading us to believe that the universe is somehow naturally bad and so we'd better just go along with it.

Not at all. Just that you need to apply some thought to the incentives you create when you do make changes, even with those good intentions.

Game theory doesn't have anything to do with Communism.

Indeed it doesn't, it's a model involved in social science. It deals well with emergent systems produced by indepenadent actors with simple motivations, which is a good start as a model to understand how people and the economy react.

It doesn't sound smart at all, its name isn't especially indicative of its meaning.

Any country where...

Ok, more specific. What ideology, market system, or principles of governance would you consider to be a centrist position.

1 point

Under Communism -- true Communism -- there is no hierarchical leadership, no dictator, no class and no government.

Yes, yes, and under capitalism there's no state either. No true communism exists, no true capitalism exists. They're all mixed economies.

But it just so turns out that whenever people attempt communism it ends in poverty and often democide, and whenever people attempt capitalism it ends in people leading lives with a relatively higher standard of living.

Despite the perhaps inexcusable violence the Russian revolution started with the very best intentions.

Yes, kill the bourgeoisie, very good intentions. The entire premise is built on class warfare and revenge. Oh but I'm sure they had it coming right?

same myths and half-truths you have been indoctrinated with

Tell me, point by point, exactly what you're talking about. If you are to 'un-indoctrinate' me, you must be very very specific, and tell me where to go that I can verify what you say.

1 point

your entire country has a right wing bias. The centre is not where it should be, or indeed where it is in any other developed nation

Despite me directly telling you before, you still have no idea what my country is.

If doing good is hard, the solution is not to give up (or even do the opposite). You seem to think it is

No, I don't. As I already said, Intentions alone are insufficient. I think planning out incentives are how you get anywhere, as in game theory, towards improvement. And evidence based policy helps too where even that fails. But that's for the material. For the rest, good is achieved by a shared principled and consistent morality.

What would you even consider to be centrist anyway?

1 point

Well, people get their perception of inequity from personal experience of unfairness and reporting of statistics. You want that at a level where it isn't a cause of confict between you and others, yes?

If so, honestly I don't see why you find that so important, I would imagine such differences between people are typically resolvable, face to face at least - perhaps your case is exceptional, or I just lack experience, or I don't understand x)

not sure why it would.

Some have told me it has helped them. In taking ownership of their situation and putting in the work to better it, they respect their position within inequity, having themselves to blame for it, good or bad. Essentially no more than the assumtion of internal ability over external influences. A belief.

i find myself subject to particular ontological limitations - bounded consciousness and social inequity

Do you consider technology to be able to help with either? The former depending on your meaning - extra-human senses, computational assistance, digital consciousness, virtual reailty. The latter owing to a potential partial post-scarcity future where perhaps inequity might be less important.

Nomoturtle(774) Clarified
1 point

You didn't pick up a raging far right bias from any pursuit which was intellectual

Well it's either that or I don't have a far right bias .

I've already traced my path through ideology to you. You can see exactly what I've seen that is right and what is left from that.

Ah, the old: good is too hard, so let's try bad.

No. I'm talking about game theory. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I'll be ignoring the rest.

I expect no more from you.

1 point

All of those I've talked to or heard from that came from communism tell me it's a horrible idea, they survived it and want nothing to do with it. I've spoken with someone dear to me from east Germany from before the Berlin wall fell, and often listen to a Romanian guy describe his country during communist rule. That enough 'rest of the world' for you?

The United States government spent the better part of a century harassing Marxists out of American politics and banned the Communist Party entirely in 1954, criminalising membership.

Yeah I'm not surprised. There's plenty of evidence of the USSR attempting to subvert the US, so a reaction isn't unexpected.

1 point

Well, even in the worst case that you start with nothing, one can work one of those safe jobs or take loands, to the point of earning the capital necessary to offer other people to give them what they need to start their business.

You work 'a third of your life' in order to encourage others to work to provide for your needs and desires. Why else should they grow you food, teach you, entertain you, etc. unless you produce for them in kind?

Nomoturtle(774) Clarified
1 point

So your far right anti-Marxist views are just a gift from God?

They were a gift from talking with friends in university, talking with people here years ago, listening to independants online that read more than I, and from recoiling at the sight of how low some progressives, devoid of principles or common standards, will stoop to attain their goals.

I began to understand that good intentions are not enough. Incentives are important and can be predicted to govern much human behaviour. That lead me to pursue ideas pertaining to morality, the corruption of power, and then to ideology that strives to limit the exercise of power such as individualism, personal liberty, and capitalism. How much of that do you consider far right? I am currently trying to learn about ancaps to attempt to find a line where the pursuit of freedom can lead back to tyranny and reconcile with the idea of the state as a self-imposed tyrannical body.

I didn't say you were my ideological opposition

You didn't, I did.

The people you are calling progressive Marxists are predominantly laissez-faire capitalists

Are they? I can give some descriptions that might convince you. Some of them call for violent revolution against the 1%. Some believe in a cabal of white supremecist 'bourgeoise' that oppress the poor working minority races and they rely on the use of activism and social pressure to purge them from their power. Some advocate for peaceful revolution by infiltrating businesses and directing them as they please, firing undesirables as they go. And I'd bet most are ignorant of a lot of this, content receiving praise as they follow ever-shifting narratives.

All of these are ideas that are easily considered to be derived from marxism in the form of class struggle, socialism as a form of implementation of communism, and of class struggle applied to other collective identities. They all tend to push for equity in all outcomes, and use any inequity as evidence of the burden that drives their cause. They also tend to believe government social programs provide the solutions to all their problems (for some permanently, for others as a means to an end). They don't sound like laissez-faire capitalists to me. They are beyond principles of market co-operation, they want social or state enforced equity of both outcome and treatment; an impossible result.

1 point

What about my example? Requisitioning a table from a solo carpenter?

Working for someone richer is but one option. It is the safe and risk free option and thus the most popular. But theoretically everyone can also be entrepreneurs under capitalism, or even own co-ops, or be voluntary socialists. And those that end up being 'someone richer' tend to be those that take the path of entrepreneur ship and provide for generations of their children, as well as providing those safe and risk free jobs to those that desire them. This is why your precious proletariat don't say 'No'. It is consensual. Free. You can go live on the woods if you don't want to work for money, or heck, you can even live off the taxpayer these days.

Or at least in theory anyway, in practice of course there can be many issues, for which we rely on the government to attempt to resolve. I would say it's one of the least worst systems out there.

Nomoturtle(774) Clarified
1 point

I've never even watched fox news. It would serve you far better not to assume all your ideological opposition to be a monolith strawman.

What I know is from personal first hand accounts of hearing progressives speak, and that it's similar to the typical marxist revolutionary identitarian rhetoric that I understand generally at a surface level as a brief former advocate for communism.

Do you have nothing better to do than follow me around and take everything I say in bad faith?

Nomoturtle(774) Clarified
1 point

I'm sorry I called your point BS, but could you address any more than those two letters of my arguments?

Nomoturtle(774) Clarified
1 point

reducing everything i say and do to progressive marxism

I'm sorry. Those were the only sources of which I've seen, of what you're talking about, that I could relate it to.

I understand what you mean now. You want the statistics and anecdotes to not incite tension in your life.

In that case there are solutions outside of equity. I think there is a kind of tolerance to inequity that can be brought about through belief in self-responsibility and self betterment. I think there is a natural proclivity for people that have undergone such constructive effort to reflexively believe in that principle from earlier, 'the means justify the ends' (incoherence, as you put it, is also part of the human experience).

that is instrumental to my hedonism... i resign myself to it as best i can and resent existence for the suffering that it generates

Huh. Why hedonism? Only rational remaining option? And why tolerate suffering as a hedonist? I'm butting my nose in, but I hear only denunciations of hedonism in the wild. But I've also thought that hedonism is most free, owing to ones desires being able to form virtually any purpose at all. In fulfilling hedonistic desires one might wish to learn, create, destroy, etc. Why do you think it gets such a critical review in public?

Nomoturtle(774) Clarified
1 point

National Socialism preserved private property

As far as I can tell, they maintained private property the same way the Chinese communist party currently maintains private property; in that you'll find out it is very much not private and very much not your property when deemed convenient by the state.

included the conquest and murderous subjugation of other peoples

Well, there we have another similarity. The identitarian narrative of oppressed vs oppressors (German workers vs the Jews) is a mirror image of that found in the class struggle of the soviet communist uprising (proletariot vs the bougeouis... and then the kulaks).

When I looked into it further today, the Nazis also had a social welfare program (people's welfare, NSV) while banning private charities, which also served as a sort of national workers union. They had publically funded youth programs, public service work for the unemployed on roads and railways such that if you did not have a job, you were assigned one. Basically, they had a massive emphasis on typically socialist policies.

I think this is all part of that oppression narrative combined with that it established itself as a workers party; they strived for safety nets for the poor workers funded by those that they deemed oppressed them; the wealthy Jews. Their persecution and genocide of Jews was internally justified as justice, revenge at their oppressors.

1 point

I'd like to add that the reasons they're censoring people are ideological and partisan in nature, many many people are celebrating this. A free market is not free under such influences. But then if a free market cannot be free in reality, then the ancap utopia is as unattainable as the communist utopia.

So ultimately I totally agree with you on the necessity of some regulation, even if it requires a state monopoly of force to do it. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

2 points

The Nazis could not win power without attracting a large portion of that voting base and they knew it.

Ah, so all their socialist elements was just them pretending to be socialists. And they kept up the ruse right to the point of identitarian policy and democide. Remind me whatever happened to those Kulaks?

Nomoturtle(774) Clarified
2 points

"Socialists" and "National Socialists are two different things!

Yes. And the man in the video claims they share the same base school of thought in communism, just that the fascists is a bit more honest in that they require the state to achieve their utopia. The National Socialists were indeed facists and indeed evolved from facism, and the facists were apparently once socialists, according to this man's account.

Hitler had every "socialist" rounded up, along with the Jews, and sent to the "camps" to be "dealt with"

So? They are political rivals that would detract from his power. He killed and silenced them to achieve unity. That could be because they were direct opposition, but could also be because they were similar and siphoned support from his party.

Then he invented his own kind of "National Socialists"

BS. They were called National Socialists (NSDAP) from the start, since 1920. Before any of the 'rounding up the other Socialists' stuff started - that happened around when they got in power.

Nomoturtle(774) Clarified
2 points

If you want to argue that capitalism, democracy, and other freedom based systems are often a nursery for facism (and communism) without requiring revolution, then I'd agree.

But the man in the video isn't saying that socialism is a nursery for facism, it's saying that the ideological principles, perspectives, and thought are an evolution of those found in socialism. That the socialists of the time fractured into socialists and facists.

You think I'm Bronto? I see a whole bunch of accounts named Bronto, but all of them were made after mine. So either Bronto is Nomoturtle, or you're constructing yet another strawman.

Nomoturtle(774) Clarified
2 points

And he makes these absurd claims while meanwhile, thanks to Donald Trump, members of his own party now feel bold enough to openly sympathise with Hitler!!!

Not everything is about Trump. And "his own party"? I'm an independant Brit.

2 points

Address the arguments instead of berating the source, eh? Some of what he's talking about are direct quotes from the doctrine of facism.

1 of 32 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]