The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum

The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release => Starbase Café => Topic started by: Death 999 on November 06, 2017, 02:29:01 pm



Title: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Death 999 on November 06, 2017, 02:29:01 pm
(so I read page 2 of cognitive biases and didn't realize there were two more pages and ended up causing a digression. Split.

The difference between the left and right is that the left is pro diversity of Demographics and the right is pro diversity of opinions.

Most on the left like diversity of opinion. Just not absolutely indiscriminate diversity of opinion. Like their opinions about you can be, you know, totally wrong (and vice versa, but you won't know that). For instance, 'all gays are pedophiles'. That's a not-entirely-unpopular opinion, and it's wrong, and it's a serious attack against around 1/10th of the population. It causes a lot of damage. That's not OK. There are a fair number of things like this.

Also, opinions that steadfastly cling to totally disproven positions on matters of fact and again cause harm - like, say, trickle-down economics, and in a different direction, falsifying the motivations behind the Confederacy, are also irksome. There are not too many things in this category, and many are mirrored by equivalents on the right, so it doesn't draw a distinction between the sides.

Most other economic arguments, cultural questions that don't boil down to false personal attacks, and so on, the left is not particularly un-accepting of differences. Especially compared to the Tea Party and its primarying the tar out of anyone who doesn't do exactly what they say. The defecting Berniecrats are the closest comparison there, and they don't add up to nearly as much a demand for political purity.


Title: Accidental digresson on left-right
Post by: Sargon on November 06, 2017, 03:07:12 pm
The left likes to tell you what is your opinion and then attack it.
They call you a racist then attack you for being a racist.
So that is the dangers about "Punch a Nazi"(which is acceptable among the left).
While punching a Nazi might sound like a good thing to do, the problem is who decides who is a Nazi, and so you get a force to band or use violence against people you deem racist/have bad thoughts and opinions.
So that is the trouble, once you regulate ideas, it's easy to label someone as having bad ideas and banning him and not even let him talk.

If you don't allow any idea out, even the most racist ones, you are likely to end not allowing the moderate ideas as well.


Title: Accidental digresson on left-right
Post by: Zanthius on November 06, 2017, 03:13:08 pm
If you don't allow any idea out, even the most racist ones, you are likely to end not allowing the moderate ideas as well.

There certainly are left-wing people that believe in moderating ideas, just like there are right-wing people that believe in moderating ideas. I am sure there are plenty of right-wing people that don't want to allow Muslims to express themselves freely. Probably also right-wing people that don't want allow black people to express themselves freely. Maybe even right-wing people that don't want to allow women to express themselves freely.

But why base our political ideas upon these stupid generalizations? I don't believe in moderating ideas, nor do I think most people here do.


Title: Accidental digresson on left-right
Post by: Sargon on November 06, 2017, 04:16:42 pm
"Just not absolutely indiscriminate diversity of opinion"

Death999 said it.

Anyway, the radical right wing don't need to ban the left wing ideas. The left wing don't understand that any violence or banning of right wing really play into their hands.
Antifa even helped the Nazi party in the 30s to gain popularity because once they went on the street as vigilanty the Nazis could used that politically to say "Look, there is chaos in the streets, we need to fix this".


Title: Accidental digresson on left-right
Post by: Zanthius on November 06, 2017, 04:34:10 pm
Death999: Can you move this discussion into a separate thread? I really dont think subjective  generalizations about what constitutes the left belongs in a thread about cognitive biases.


Title: Accidental digresson on left-right
Post by: Death 999 on November 06, 2017, 04:56:24 pm
The left likes to tell you what is your opinion and then attack it.

If by 'the left' you mean 'people behaving badly in politis, regardless of political slant', I'd agree. Supposing this happens only on one side is a major blinders-wearing issue.

I split, since the post I was responding to was 2 pages back and it was a digression anyway.


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Sargon on November 06, 2017, 05:11:15 pm
Well, nowadays you see left wingers more likely to ban right wing ideas/guests in university/people on twitter/people on the media.
The fact that the left throw so much slander, and accept no possibility of discussing different opinions only serve the right wingers.

In most free countries when you tell people "You are not allowed to listen to them." Or you tell people what they shouldn't do, people are automatically intrigued by it.
If you try to hide "bad ideas" long enough, they will take root in underground or alternative places and draw people there.
The fact that the left controls the mainstream narrative is bad for itself, because it puts the right on the "rebel" "underground" place.

Maybe those politicians have no choice, because a true honest discussion would reveal their ideas are empty. And even if they are not, that is the impression they are giving to most people.


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Zanthius on November 06, 2017, 05:46:39 pm
According to the diagram I made a few months ago, immigration regulations should actually be considered left-wing, since it is a form of regulations. The most universally accepted interpretation of left-wing vs right-wing, is that left-wing wants to have more regulations, while right-wing wants to have less regulations.

(https://image.ibb.co/gwtBoa/axis.jpg)

Anyhow. Why can't you just say that you think it is a bad idea for all people to believe in censorship of opinions, no matter if they are left-wing or right-wing?


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Sargon on November 06, 2017, 06:00:39 pm
By the way, there is always the claim that "Religion is dangerous, it brings violence, it's bad..."
Well the last shooter in the US was a left wing atheist.
So include Atheism into the dangerous ideologies.


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Zanthius on November 06, 2017, 06:22:35 pm
By the way, there is always the claim that "Religion is dangerous, it brings violence, it's bad..."

Are you referring to this? I really don't care if people are religious as long as they don't discriminate.

(https://i.imgur.com/QeTZlCX.jpg)

Well the last shooter in the US was a left wing atheist.
So include Atheism into the dangerous ideologies.

Well, I don't think it is wise to generalize upon the behavior of one individual, and I don't think I have ever said that I am an atheist.


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Sargon on November 06, 2017, 06:48:55 pm
Sure, but you talked about toxic ideologies.
There is no specific toxic ideology in the West.
And even if you talk to radical Muslims or Nazis they will try to rationalize how they are not racist or hate women.
That's why I think it's wrong to target certain ideologies and attack people for those.

It's like there is almost 0% chance for you to find someone on trial who is 100% honest and admits that he have done something wrong and he should get the full punishment he deserves.

And you are correct. People can be racist or backwater inside their head, but only if they act upon it, it's what makes the difference.
I don't see how you can categorize ideas as toxic, I think it's really the individual who is toxic, rarely the ideas themselves.


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Death 999 on November 06, 2017, 07:09:17 pm
Well, nowadays you see left wingers more likely to ban right wing ideas/guests in university/people on twitter/people on the media.
The fact that the left throw so much slander, and accept no possibility of discussing different opinions only serve the right wingers.

Again, this is not a partisanly-asymmetric bad strategy. If you've somehow missed the continuous slander by the right… well, it's there too. Or perhaps you haven't missed it, but have simply failed to notice it since it wasn't aimed at you?

I am not defending the terrible moves like shouting down and censoring. But I'm also not celebrating a 'diversity of opinion' on matters of readily verifiable fact where the incorrect position leads to harmful policy and behavior. Nor should we be, and nor is the Right diverse in this dimension in any way the Left is not as well.

Maybe those politicians have no choice, because a true honest discussion would reveal their ideas are empty.

Which ones are you talking about? Never mind -- the answer is all too obvious in your tiny, dry eyes. (nb: Safe Ones quote, not to be taken as anything. Just seemed like the perfect time to drop it in) I take you to mean that politicians on the left have only empty ideas? See my first paragraph.


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Sargon on November 06, 2017, 08:17:46 pm
"Easily verifiable", I don't think most important things are easily verifiable.
You wouldn't listen that the dangerous terror funding opposition in Saudia Arabia actually donated millions to Obama?
The rigging of the DNC primaries is "shurgged off" as a non issue, and that Bernie took the money eventhough he knew it was rigged.

The left winger fail to accept there are bad things going on on their side. They tend to shrug it off as unimportant, although many of the things left wing politicians od will get the average joe a lifeterm in prison.
Also the "Seth rich assasination" conspiracy theory might actually be true.
How can you trust everything said in the media when they have been caught up lying many times and the numbers just don't add up?
But some people swear everything in the MSM is the moderate common sense "verifiable" truth, yet any talk about corruption by Hillary and Obama is just lies and impossible.


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Scalare on November 08, 2017, 06:30:06 pm
Sargon, the nature of politics is such that the people who abuse the system the most get the most power. So that's why it's not surprising that poiticians do more corrupt things than average joe.


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Death 999 on November 08, 2017, 06:35:42 pm
"Easily verifiable", I don't think most important things are easily verifiable.
You wouldn't listen that the dangerous terror funding opposition in Saudia Arabia actually donated millions to Obama?
The rigging of the DNC primaries is "shurgged off" as a non issue, and that Bernie took the money eventhough he knew it was rigged.

Those are not the examples I made, and those are things I think diversity of opinion on is OK. I do disagree with those, yes, but i doubt I object to your position more than you object to my position on them, so there's no partisan asymmetry there.

The three examples I gave were:

1) 'gays are pedophiles'
2) trickle-down economics
3) the motivations behind the Confederacy

These are quite different than political-scandal-du-jour.


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Sargon on November 08, 2017, 11:27:15 pm
Then you have to agree that the following things are not acceptable as well:

1) Police brutality or systemic racism exist.
2) Communism was never really implemented
3) The motivations behind modern Feminism.



Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Zanthius on November 09, 2017, 10:51:45 am
Then you have to agree that the following things are not acceptable as well:

1) Police brutality or systemic racism exist.
2) Communism was never really implemented
3) The motivations behind modern Feminism.

I really have problems understanding the way you are writing, but lets give it a try:

It is not acceptable that "Police brutality or systemic racism exist."

Well, some police brutality is probably unavoidable, but of course it is better with less police brutality. Similarly, it is probably unavoidable that some individuals have racists beliefs, but of course it is better with less such beliefs in a society, and racists laws are definitely unacceptable. But we shouldn't necessarily have any censorship of belief, since that infringes on our freedom to believe whatever we want. It also tends to have negative repercussions.

It is not acceptable that "Communism was never really implemented"

We are arguing for a welfare state funded by progressive taxes. In communism everybody is working for the state, and the state decides how much you should get in salary, so there is no need for taxes. If communism is taken to its conclusion there isn't necessarily going to be any money at all.

It is not acceptable that "The motivations behind modern Feminism."

This sentence doesn't seem to be congruent. I don't understand what you are trying to say.


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Death 999 on November 09, 2017, 04:48:12 pm
Then you have to agree that the following things are not acceptable as well:

1) Police brutality or systemic racism exist.
2) Communism was never really implemented
3) The motivations behind modern Feminism.

PART 1: the core point

My thesis up front was that when you tried to paint the Right as being welcoming of diversity of opinion and the Left is not, substituting the much less valuable diversity of demographics, that was wrong - that the Left does embrace diversity of opinion to a reasonable extent, not less than the Right. So, do YOU think those are unacceptable positions?

I think a lot of the disagreement comes from a sudden shift in usage. When I suggested that the Left can embrace diversity of opinion, you countered by suggesting that anything outside that is unacceptable. Well, well. That's a bit of a discontinuity, isn't it? If you're not embracing, you must be shunning, banning, and censoring. I agree that declining to signal-boost someone by not inviting them to speak on campus qualifies as 'not embracing', but it's a stretch to call it banning.

For some reason, no one complains that conservative colleges don't invite transsexual activists over to give special lectures. It occurs to me that if one is so closed off that one's exclusionary behavior isn't even notable, that's not a sign of hyper-inclusivity.

PART 2: addressing the examples

2… it's only technically true for a ridiculously narrow definition of communism that happens to be so non-implementable that it's not a useful term. So, I'd agree that someone who seriously suggests that communism has never been attempted and therefore we ought to go off and try it, is around is about as qualified as one who suggests that trickle-down economics works. Slightly less qualified, even.

3… Feminism is disanalogous to the Confederacy, the clear parallel you drew as the basis for including it here. Feminism is broad category of sub-movements with no need to pledge allegiance or commit treason to join up, and has very little ability to police itself. So there are a small number of extremists who write a lot, and a broad mass of more reasonable people, and the extremists are not particularly in charge beyond writing more, and the more reasonable people are not required to cross the proverbial Rubicon to be what they are. It's not even clear what 'the motivations behind modern Feminism' might even mean as a referent, even aside from the question of what the answer might be.

This muddiness prevents it from falling into the kind of clearly-not-OK category I was saying might not be the kind of diversity of opinion not worth embracing.

This is all in stark contrast to the Confederacy.

1… what? I can't even figure out what you think this is parallel to, to make it something I ought to agree with thinking is outside the penumbra of embraceable diversity of opinion. Where is the clear evidence against all of this that can overcome the evidence for it, so surely that thinking it's real is just beyond the acceptable range? Maybe for a sufficiently narrow definition of systemic racism it might be false.


Also, older post -
By the way, there is always the claim that "Religion is dangerous, it brings violence, it's bad..."
Well the last shooter in the US was a left wing atheist.
So include Atheism into the dangerous ideologies.

Line 1 - the Left as a whole is not anti-religion, at least not in the USA. Elsewhere, perhaps. Communism sure was! People have complained about how far Left the Pope is, fer crying out loud. The New Atheist set say this, but they have been roundly shunned as insufficiently tolerant of more diverse opinions. Hmm.
Line 2 - Citation needed (not contesting, just want to see the evidence)
Line 3 - Does not follow from stated claims. If one Jain went on a rampage, that wouldn't make Jainism a dangerous ideology, not by a long-shot.


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Sargon on November 09, 2017, 05:09:40 pm
Ok, i am not arguing for or against any of those points.
I just tried to show you that someone else could rationalize why the things you think are important are not acceptable opinions as well.
Confederacy is about tradition? That's like saying celebrating Easter is celebrating murder because hundreds of years ago something bad happened. Whatever.

Even the Croissant you eat was invented to mark the defeat of Turkey(or some other Muslim people) invasion to Germany or something like that. As it comes from the crescent and suppose to mock it.
So is eating Croissant is Islamophobia now?

What I am trying to say that if you disqualify other people's ideas from being valid, you might found they disqualify your ideas as well as being too "not normal".
The fact that you think you can analytically decide what such ides are valid and not shows you are just too rationalize. If so, please provide the algorithm you put the idea in to decide if it's valid or not.

There is a lof of bad things going on with Feminists lately, it's not just the extremist, it's the entire Democratic party and Hollywood. One could argue against it just as much.


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Zanthius on November 09, 2017, 06:01:55 pm
There is a lof of bad things going on with Feminists lately, it's not just the extremist, it's the entire Democratic party and Hollywood. One could argue against it just as much.

Maybe you would think of it as a trivial matter if women were sexually harassing you, but most women have a different psychology. They are usually much more sensitive about these things than men, and I think the disrespectful way men have been treating women in a historical context is much more horrible. Women are also discriminated and treated disrespectfully in many less developed countries today.


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Sargon on November 09, 2017, 06:46:39 pm
Women are just as evil/violent/sexual predator as men.
They just have less tools to cause damage, but not any less intent.
Women will sexually abuse other women or men either directly or by proxy with their useful idiot man.

Don't tell me "women are gentle creatures" it's BS. They have the same capacity of evil and violence as men.

I don't say Feminism wasn't good ever, I see the modern incarnation of Feminism which also don't accept older generation Feminism is as bad as it gets.

Also a lot more men are being murdered and sent to prison than women.
You are way more likely to get murdered if you are a man than a woman.

Edit: I think there was a research that shows there is a lot more sexual abuse in female prisons(between inmates) than in male prison.


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Zanthius on November 09, 2017, 07:18:35 pm
Women are just as evil/violent/sexual predator as men.
They just have less tools to cause damage, but not any less intent.

Sounds like you have had very bad experiences with women. Probably someone that at some time was very close to you. Have you seen the TV series called Mindhunter? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5290382/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5290382/)). From the series, I have gotten the impression that lots of serial killers have had very bad experiences with their mothers. Here is an interview with one of the serial killers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB4ZbSSq298 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB4ZbSSq298)


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Sargon on November 09, 2017, 08:09:42 pm
Nah, I have a very loving family.
I would probably end up as a serial killer though if I didn't have the perfect family.

Still, I don't buy this BS that women are more gentle than men, or more kind, or less violent.
You give a woman a Jeep and she as capable as a man to mow you down in a road cross just like a man.
In the past I thought women drive less aggressive than men, but I have changed my mind about that. They are just as capable as men to drive like reckless maniacs.

Basically I don't like most people, I think most people are selfish and vile. And that includes women, they are not different than men in that respect.
It is funny, because if you think women are not capable of the same things men are(even if we talk about violent and evil things) you basically women are substantially different than men pshycologically. Which might have a lot of other implications like at work and etc. But I think it's not true, women are capable of being vicious and aggressive just like men.
Either that or you will have to find proof the woman's brain is substantially different than a man's brain.

Edit: The only big difference that might make their behavior difference is the physical difference...
Because a tiny woman who is short and not very strong, doesn't have the same safety as a strong man in the street.
In a street where citizens aren't allowed to carry guns, the big strong guys always have the option to be more aggressive and threatening than weaker guys or women. I am not saying that all strong guys are like that, but some are.
So people with different bodies have to choose different strategies to deal with light social confrontation, like imagine "fighting" in the road or on parking space. Suddenly your physics might matter.


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Zanthius on November 09, 2017, 09:49:27 pm
Either that or you will have to find proof the woman's brain is substantially different than a man's brain.

Well, there certainly are neurological differences between males and females:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences)


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Sargon on November 09, 2017, 10:34:06 pm
"Experts note that neural sexual dimorphisms in humans exist only as averages, with overlapping variabilities,[3] and that it is unknown to what extent each is influenced by genetics or environment, even in adulthood"

It's a very small difference with a lot of overlapping, and they don't even know if it's environmental or genetic.


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Zanthius on November 09, 2017, 10:46:38 pm
It's a very small difference with a lot of overlapping, and they don't even know if it's environmental or genetic.

Well, genetically, guys have a Y-chromosome, while women have two X-chromosomes.


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Death 999 on November 09, 2017, 11:16:47 pm
In the three examples I gave, I tried to keep it close to facts. Homosexuals are not more likely than heterosexuals to be pedophiles. The confederacy was founded and fought to preserve and expand chattel slavery, in the words of the founders. And the economic mobility of the lower and middle classes does not ride when the rich have their taxes cut.


I also don't think women are better than men, and it is not a required or even very common element of feminism to believe so (perhaps among the noisiest, most obnoxious elements). So we outright agree on that, making the question of whether it's an acceptably similar opinion rather moot.


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Sargon on November 10, 2017, 07:45:50 am
"tried to keep", this is not an argument.
How do you know Homosexuals are not more likely to be pedophiles? Even if they are 1% more likely, they are still more likely.
I am not saying it's true, I am just saying you don't know yet you speak like you do. You see the danger here?

I don't know a lot about the confederacy. Again, it might just be a cultural thing, like people who are religious don't stone people to death just because the bible says so?
Antifa also had it's dark roots, Feminism might also have dark sides like you said, communism also has it's dark history.

Trickle down CAN work. The point of trickle down is... you shouldn't care how much rich people make, you should care about how much YOU make.
Do you rather have a really big gap between the rich and poor and do fine? or that everyone will be equally poor?

The status of the rich people shouldn't supposingly matter for you as long as you do well.


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Zanthius on November 10, 2017, 08:48:32 am
Do you rather have a really big gap between the rich and poor and do fine? or that everyone will be equally poor?

Those aren't necessarily the only two options.

Do you think it is fair to have a society that makes it easy for wealthy individuals to gain even more wealth, while at the same time makes it difficult for poor people to gain wealth?

Or do you think it more fair to have a society that makes it difficult for wealthy individuals to gain even more wealth, while at the same time makes it easier for poor people to gain wealth?

The status of the rich people shouldn't supposingly matter for you as long as you do well.

Well, that seems rather egocentric. Even if you are doing well, you can still feel bad about economic inequality simply by having some empathy and looking at the poor people in your society.

Here is a youtube video about why trickle down doesn't work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cABuFmA3nhY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cABuFmA3nhY)

And this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KKCXJ6WesU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KKCXJ6WesU)


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Sargon on November 10, 2017, 09:50:28 am
Yes there more than two options. But there are also more than the two options you provided. Again, what does it matter to you that rich people get richer?
If you have a system that make rich people richer but also poor people better off, is that bad?
The argument about the gap is just irrelevant to argue ahainst trickle down. You have to prove that making rich people richer is always bad in all scenarios. Also rich are just numbers. Does it matter if someone have 1 million or 1 billion? They are both rich.


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Zanthius on November 10, 2017, 10:12:56 am
If you have a system that make rich people richer but also poor people better off, is that bad?

Well, if people also produce more waste (pollution) the richer they get, one might argue that even such a system is bad for environmental reasons.

But this idea seems to suffer some kind of misconception about the nature of wealth. As if wealth is some abstract mathematical thing, that we can just grab infinite amounts of without reducing the amount available for other people. If the total amount of wealth on this planet is more like a cake, it shouldn't be so difficult to envision that the more cake you grab for yourself, the less cake there will be available for other people. Of course, in reality this cake isn't necessarily of a fixed size. Some activities might actually increase the size of the cake. But lots of activities are just about grabbing more cake to yourself, and that of course only reduces the amount of cake available for other people. Lots of people seem to think that grabbing more cake to yourself, is the same as making the cake bigger, even though those two activities are very different.

Also rich are just numbers. Does it matter if someone have 1 million or 1 billion? They are both rich.

If wealth is just a number, then why don't we just add 1 billion USD to every bank account on the planet? Wouldn't that make everybody more wealthy? Actually, that would be more or less the same as rescaling an SVG image. It would just decrease the value of a USD.

The total amount of wealth on this planet is very much like an SVG image. Different currencies are just like different metrics applied to the SVG image.  I actually think lots of people mistake the metric (money) for what the metric is measuring (wealth).


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Death 999 on November 10, 2017, 02:29:29 pm
How do you know Homosexuals are not more likely to be pedophiles? Even if they are 1% more likely, they are still more likely.
I am not saying it's true, I am just saying you don't know yet you speak like you do. You see the danger here?

The original claim, and the one I said is not the kind of diversity of opinion that adds value, was that 100% of homosexuals are pedophiles. I made a contrary claim, the negation of which is a weaker claim. My claim is based on studies which closely examined the question and found a weak, non-significant amount by which homosexuals are less likely to be pedophiles. Now, I would also consider non-embraceable diversity to include the opinion that a very large fraction of homosexuals are pedophiles. But if it's 1% as you say, or something higher - so long as it's vaguely close to supportable by evidence and not merely a bat to attack people with, that is again a valuable contribution.


I don't know a lot about the confederacy. Again, it might just be a cultural thing, like people who are religious don't stone people to death just because the bible says so?

Yes, it's a cultural thing, but it's a cultural thing by which a particular minority pretends that the Confederacy was a noble enterprise, which excuses keeping up statues of people who fought and bled and died to protect the institution of enslaving the black populace, holds slavery not to have been a bad thing, demonizes the reconstruction, justified segregation, etc. These consequences make this lie particularly anti-valuable in terms of diversity of opinion.

Trickle down CAN work. The point of trickle down is... you shouldn't care how much rich people make, you should care about how much YOU make.

That is a good metric, I agree. The problem is, the real wages of working-class people underperform under it. There is another metric, though - is it actually true? The explicit lines of reasoning that lead to suspecting it would work have parts and predictions they make on their way to justifying the move, and those predictions are falsified - cutting taxes on the rich does not produce the degree of increased investment that would be required for it to work. It is not even close. So you can tell that if you follow that policy and the real wages increase, it's not because of that.

Similarly, the Laffer Curve is correct in principle, but the peak is not near our current tax levels, nor Clinton-era tax levels.

As for the 'everyone poor'… what? If it's not one extreme it has to be the other? That's not how people work, it's not how logic works. It's a lot like how you're applying the standard that if there is any limit on valuing diversity of opinion, then it must be WAY TOO CLOSE. No possible gradation of value that eventually dips negative.


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Sargon on November 10, 2017, 03:16:12 pm
What I thought you were saying is that Trickle down never works, and rich people should always be heavily taxed.
If we look it on taxes it could make more sense.

Just like the gaussian graph, there is a balance between the income the state gets from taxes and the boost to the economy from lower taxes.
So when you find the optimal point, you do amount of tax that optimize growth and the share of the pie that gets back to the state.
As you said, the size of the pie can change(growth).

That is the idea behind trickle down, you want to optimize taxation to optimize growth and what the state earns from it. Of course trickle down does not mean 0% taxes or 0% taxes on the rich.


Why wouldn't we blow up the Pyramids? Weren't there slaves in the time of ancient Egypt? What about ancient Roman statues? The Roman empire also had slaves.


I don't know, 100% of homosexuals might be a certain degree of pedophilles. They might not act on their desire, but it is possible that all Homosexuals are actually attracted to young boys?


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Zanthius on November 11, 2017, 02:57:40 am
That is the idea behind trickle down, you want to optimize taxation to optimize growth and what the state earns from it

The problems with this, is that it depends on what taxes other countries have. The less taxes other countries have, the less taxes your country needs to have in order to be competitive with other countries. If a country decides to have a huge increase in taxes for the rich, it is likely that industries will move to other countries where they can enjoy less taxes. This is why the shark is eating your country.

(http://archania.org/tax-evasion.png/)





Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Death 999 on November 13, 2017, 08:38:15 pm
That is hardly the only problem there, Zanthius.


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Zanthius on November 13, 2017, 09:51:12 pm
That is hardly the only problem there, Zanthius.

No. I feel like smart people like you need to use so much energy on explaining simple things to people that have been wrongly educated. The problem doesn't necessarily seem to be that we haven't been sufficiently educated, but rather that we have been wrongly educated. We have too many misconceptions, and we often have a very poor understanding even about the ideologies/concepts we are advocating for. I wish we at least tried to get some better understanding of our own concepts/ideologies, before starting to advocate for them.


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Zanthius on November 13, 2017, 10:01:47 pm
Why wouldn't we blow up the Pyramids? Weren't there slaves in the time of ancient Egypt?

Actually, the Pyramids probably weren't built by slaves: https://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2010/01/12/egypt-new-find-shows-slaves-didnt-build-pyramids (https://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2010/01/12/egypt-new-find-shows-slaves-didnt-build-pyramids)

don't know, 100% of homosexuals might be a certain degree of pedophilles. They might not act on their desire, but it is possible that all Homosexuals are actually attracted to young boys?

Well, it looks like there are much more Google searches for sexy young girls than for sexy young boys, and much more Google searches for sexy teen girls than for sexy teen boys.

(https://i.imgur.com/ooARX9o.jpg)

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=sexy%20young%20boys,sexy%20young%20girls (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=sexy%20young%20boys,sexy%20young%20girls)

(https://i.imgur.com/rTasQf7.jpg)

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=sexy%20teen%20boys,sexy%20teen%20girls (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=sexy%20teen%20boys,sexy%20teen%20girls)


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Sargon on November 13, 2017, 10:51:08 pm
Are you saying ancient Egyptian didn't have any slaves or they were completely progressive? lol
Even if masterful artisans were carrying the Pyramid rocks, I am sure ancient Egypt had a lot of racism, suffering and injustice. So the Pyramid must be destroyed.

Sexy young girls might mean 20+ women. Not sure.
And teens might be searching for photos of teens, I dunno.


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Zanthius on November 13, 2017, 11:32:11 pm
Are you saying ancient Egyptian didn't have any slaves or they were completely progressive? lol

Actually, Akhenaton (the founder of monotheism) was quite cool.

(http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-true-wisdom-is-less-presuming-than-folly-the-wise-man-doubteth-often-and-changeth-his-mind-the-akhenaton-2224.jpg)


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Death 999 on November 14, 2017, 12:02:29 am
This is a bit of a digression from the starting point, which is about the parallel.

As far as I know, no one is seriously suggesting blowing up Stone Mountain, which would be the closest equivalent I can find to the Pyramids. The statues are generally simply taken out of their positions of prominence and honor in the centers of cities. Most are moved to museums and Confederate cemeteries. This is exactly what we did with the pyramids, by the way - put part in museums and the rest stays in its Egyptian Monarchs cemetery.

So once again, it's suggested that an action is extreme, with horrible parallels… and they don't hold up and the action is not extreme.

That is hardly the only problem there, Zanthius.

No.


Do you mean your no as, "Agreed, it isn't"?


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Zanthius on November 14, 2017, 05:29:26 pm
Do you mean your no as, "Agreed, it isn't"?

Correct.


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Sargon on November 14, 2017, 07:42:13 pm
Well the Pyrmaids are not inside a city.
But all sort of Roman statues or Greek statues. The Greek were probably sexist and raped women and children, so their statues should be removed?


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Zanthius on November 14, 2017, 08:49:34 pm
But all sort of Roman statues or Greek statues. The Greek were probably sexist and raped women and children, so their statues should be removed?

So you don't think we should differentiate between something that happened more than 2000 years ago, and something that happened less than 200 years ago? Any of the discrimination that happened more than 2000 years ago is long forgotten now. Not necessarily so for discrimination that happened less than 200 years ago.  Many of the confederate states also have continued with their discrimination of black people long after the civil war. The movie called Mississippi Burning is a great movie about this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095647/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095647/)


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Sargon on November 16, 2017, 06:04:25 pm
The Empire state builing was also used during times of racism? Why don't you move that?
What about mount Rashmore? Isn't George Washington racist?
Isn't Lincoln a little racist/sexist himself?

Edit: What if they find MLK said Homophobic things? Remove his monuments as well?


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Zanthius on November 16, 2017, 06:38:54 pm
The Empire state builing was also used during times of racism? Why don't you move that?

The Empire State Building was finished in 1931, 66 years after the American civil war ended. It is also located in one of the states which fought against slavery.

I don't understand why anybody would think it is so important to preserve statues of people that fought to preserve slavery. Seems to me almost like the people admiring these statues want to restore slavery.


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Sargon on November 16, 2017, 06:40:42 pm
Women didn't have a right to vote before the 50s no?
Linoln also didn't give women the right to vote. So he is sexist and his monuments should be removed.


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Zanthius on November 16, 2017, 06:42:20 pm
Women didn't have a right to vote before the 50s no?
Linoln also didn't give women the right to vote. So he is sexist and his monuments should be removed.

Did he fight in a war against women's right to vote?


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Sargon on November 16, 2017, 06:51:45 pm
They said the war was not about slavery, it was about not joining the north. The slavery thing was a side effect.
But the US did oppress women when they tried to get the right to vote... so I don't think Lincoln was a Feminist.

Edit: Notice how you try to find the right reason why to remove those statues... like, you have a hidden reasoning.
Not all the German soldiers who fought in WW2 were responsible for Hitler's crimes as well.


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Zanthius on November 16, 2017, 06:54:10 pm
They said the war was not about slavery, it was about not joining the north. The slavery thing was a side effect.

They were already joined with the north. They wanted to separate from the north, to keep slavery.

But the US did oppress women when they tried to get the right to vote... so I don't think Lincoln was a Feminist.

Sure, but his main agenda wasn't to prevent women from voting.


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Sargon on November 16, 2017, 06:56:30 pm
How do you know what was his main agenda?
So just because he inherited a sexist country he is not responsible?
What if the south inherited a country with slavery? Maybe it's not their responsibility to free them? Maybe it wasn't there agenda?

As I said, not every southern was also supporting slavery. As not every German solider who fought in WW2 was supporting the death camps?


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Zanthius on November 16, 2017, 07:06:05 pm
What if the south inherited a country with slavery? Maybe it's not their responsibility to free them? Maybe it wasn't there agenda?

The southern states (and Latin American countries) more or less invented slavery themselves. There wasn't much slavery like that in Europe before Europeans went to America.  The southern states actively fought to prevent their own president (Lincoln) from ending slavery. They did this by requiring independence from the north.

This map shows when slavery was abolished in different American countries:

(https://kottke.org/plus/misc/images/slavery-abolition-map.jpg)

As you can see, many countries had abolished slavery before USA. Only Brazil, Cuba and Puerto Rico abolished slavery after USA.

As I said, not every southern was also supporting slavery. As not every German solider who fought in WW2 was supporting the death camps?

Most of the Germans that fought for Germany in WW2 were well aware of the Nazi ideology. But they weren't as guilty of atrocities as the people organizing and working in the death camps.


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Sargon on November 16, 2017, 08:10:02 pm
I am not sure how you know all of this.
They didn't have the internet back then.
The war with the south might have been about slavery, it might have also not.
How do you know what people knew what people thought?
You will have to find written evidence for that, and I suspect it will only be for the leaders anyway, if you find anything.


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Zanthius on November 16, 2017, 08:18:04 pm
I am not sure how you know all of this.

I have read a lot of history. There is also a TV-series about the civil war: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088583/?ref_=nv_sr_1 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088583/?ref_=nv_sr_1)

The war with the south might have been about slavery, it might have also not.
How do you know what people knew what people thought?

Even though they didn't have Internet in the 19th century, they certainly wrote a lot of letters and books. So we have a lot of written evidences about what the civil war was about.

You will have to find written evidence for that, and I suspect it will only be for the leaders anyway, if you find anything.

Here is a teaching company course about the civil war:  https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/american-civil-war.html (https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/american-civil-war.html)

There are also lots of history books written about the civil war. Many of them with good references.


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Death 999 on November 17, 2017, 01:04:18 am
The war with the south might have been about slavery, it might have also not.
How do you know what people knew what people thought?

By looking at what they wrote about it at the time.

An examination of the Confederate constitution, the various declarations of secessions, and many other writings, strongly establish it.

For example

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississippi_declaration.asp <- this one is really direct about it, whooooeee.
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/georgia_declaration.asp

Those two get down to the whole slavery thing right away. This next one beats around the bush a little, but when it gets down to it, all of the procedural matters stem from the issue of slavery - it's all 'we would never have joined up with the other states if it weren't that we were promised we could keep doing slavery'.

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/southcarolina_declaration.asp

In particular, see the section starting, 'The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows:'

Texas doesn't get as wordy, but it basically whines about slavery not being allowed to expand (calling it southerners not being allowed to live and work elsewhere, ignoring the possibility of simply not bringing slaves), though they do have the only other complaint, that of insufficient border security vs Mexico and the Indians:

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/texas_declaration.asp

The site I found those on doesn't have the others as far as I can tell, so I'll stop there.

So yeah, the leaders were all about the slavery. And they weren't even dressing it up all that hard in anything else. The regular citizens didn't have much of anything else to be fighting over either, except for Texas. Of course, Texas didn't get any better border security out of seceding, so…


Title: Re: Accidental digression on left-right
Post by: Zanthius on November 30, 2017, 11:13:14 pm
I have added this section to the article called "Global trends and concluding remarks":

(https://i.imgur.com/gF4o2xY.jpg)

http://archania.org/global_trends_and_concluding_remarks.html (http://archania.org/global_trends_and_concluding_remarks.html)

This has of course also been uploaded to GitHub. Everything I change from now on, will first be uploaded to GitHub.