Absent your attempts to make it insulting and pathological, that’s called passionately opposing injustice. Being dispassionate is not inherently more “sane” or “reasonable,” having emotions is human and some things should provoke emotional reactions.

But of course, in reality, my response was quite calm and well reasoned, presenting plenty of evidence to support my points. You’re the one who can’t keep pace with that and have to resort to these petty insults in an attempt to discredit me, because you’re incapable of a logical response.

Are you saying that in an attempt to insult/discredit me in some way? Yes, I’m neurodivergent, and proud of it. I’m also correct on the points I made (save for mixing up Haidt and Chait, as I owned up to).

When you can’t refute any of the other person’s points, just call them crazy 🙄

Seems like you’re contributing to hostile online discourse with all these insults you keep hurling at me. I’m just trying to have a conversation.

Jesus christ, it’s like you read the headline and desperately wanted to provide supporting evidence.

Well, yes. First off because it’s funny. Several other people in the thread thought so and made the same joke.

But also, yes, because I despise civility fetishism, and I also despise Haidt for being a transphobic shitlib. And obviously, the two are connected, the reason Haidt is whining about civility is that he got bullied on Twitter for his transphobia and he wants to be able to shit on trans people without suffering any kind of social reprecussions.

It’s funny how you baselessly assert “this has absolutely nothing to do with trans rights” as if just saying it somehow makes it true, like some kind of magic spell. I wonder, would you say the same thing if it was a more prominent transphobe like JK Rowling calling out hostility in internet discourse? What if it was someone like, say, Charlie Kirk, or even Richard Spencer? Are you a true civility fetishist who takes issue with bullying bigots, or is it that you’re only ok with bigotry when it’s directed towards trans people? Idk, seems worth investigating.

But, you know, maybe civility fetishism isn’t so bad. Maybe it’s me who’s wrong, I’m just a crazy radical, and I need to be more like MLK.

First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.”

Huh, kinda seems like he saw tension disrupting the peace as being necessary towards pushing towards justice in equality in an unjust status quo. But maybe MLK is too radical too. You know who I need to be more like? Jesus. That’s right, I’m turning over a new leaf and I’ve decided to be more Christlike.

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.

Huh. Kinda seems like even Jesus agreed that social change necessarily involved creating conflict, or bringing conflicts to the forefront, in order to address injustice.

But ok, let’s ignore them (maybe the world would just be a better place if assholes like them would shut up some times and stop blasting their toxicity all over the world) and look at the actual, present day reality. When exactly was internet discourse supposedly more civil? Let’s compare to, say, 10 years ago, 2015. Before #MeToo so you don’t have to worry about women calling people out for sexual assault and causing division, but it’s also in the middle of Gamergate, so you know, really not a great time to be a woman on the internet, but I guess if you were a cishet white man, things were pretty peaceful and harmonious. You also didn’t have a bunch of people calling out the bombs going to the Middle East, of course, we were still bombing civilians en masse, but I guess if you were a cishet white man, things were pretty peaceful and harmonious.

You know when discourse was really at it’s peak? The 1950’s. Before all these radicals started calling for civil rights or spreading division against things like bombing Vietnam or Korea, just an all around wonderful time, a Leave it to Beaver paradise, you know, just so long as you’re a cishet white man.

At some point, obviously, you have to draw the line. And I’ve simply drawn it a little bit further than you have.

Jonathan Haidt recently wrote in The Atlantic:

Ok but fr tho fuck Jonathan Haidt.

Haidt was JAQing off about trans people in the exact way that the Onion called out and satirized hours after their article was published. He’s a “centrist” who seems to exclusively punch left, and he’s just whining about getting called out with legitimate criticism.

He also got deez nuts’d iirc lol.

Edit: Shit, I had him confused with another Atlantic writer, Jonathan Chait. My bad. Haidt is also a left-punching transphobic “centrist” tho.

I find the last days of the Qing dynasty China to be somewhat analogous. Institutional rot, rampant corruption, a complete failure to adapt to crises and open hostility to anyone proposing workable solutions or trying to learn from foreign examples. Basically the two voices in government were, “Learn how guns work while completely refusing to understand the scientific principles that allowed them to be developed” and “Learn absolutely nothing.” The “lesser evil” was woefully inadequate, and once the government finally collapsed, both factions that emerged (communists and nationalist) were far more influenced by Western ideas than even the most radical in the Qing government were.

Finally

Worse horses

Imo classical economists were generally more clear-sighted and honest than modern ones. Of course they had their biases and perspective based on their class (and their audience), but at that point economics was so poorly understood that theorists were legitimately trying to figure stuff out, moreso than trying to produce propaganda. Of course, the industrial proletariat and threat of socialism wasn’t really present yet either, so the class conflict was more about new money bourgeois vs old money aristocrats and landlords.

Marx and Smith are a lot more similar than most people think, because Marx was writing in the context of various economic assumptions that come from Smith, such as the labor theory of value, which is usually attributed to Marx but actually comes from Smith.

The thing about Smith though is that his writing style was very dry and repetitive so nobody actually reads him, at best, they might read abridged versions which cut out any inconvenient parts like that. So he just kinda became known as the capitalism guy and is thrown in the same category as Ayn Rand.

Bulls on Parade (Hell Yeah Cover)

Weapons not food, not homes, not shoes (Hell yeah!)

Not need, just feed the war cannibal animal (Hell yeah!)

I walk the corner to the rubble that used to be a library (Hell yeah!)

Line up to the mind cemetery now (Hell yeah!)

What they don’t know keeps the contracts alive and movin’ (Hell yeah!)

We don’t gotta burn the books we just remove 'em (Hell yeah!)

While arms warehouses fill as quick as the cells (Hell yeah!)

Rally 'round the family, pockets full of shells (Hell yeah!)

Well, if it didn’t, then perhaps there’s no way to get them to do what we want and in that case it is imperative that they be replaced as soon as possible, a goal that is also furthered by voting third party.

The thing to fight for is ranked choice voting, or some other method without a spoiler effect. Until you have that

No. The thing is for candidates to endorse ranked choice voting and implement it, and until they do that, they are going to have to deal with the spoiler effect.

This shit is so stupid. “You have to fall in line unconditionally forever, until, out of the kindness of their hearts and against their own interests, the party decides to let you out of that situation.” That’s just saying we have to fall in line unconditionally forever. They’re never going to just give us systemic change, it’s designed this way on purpose and is working exactly the way they want it to.

The only way to actually apply pressure towards getting necessary policies is through setting conditions on your vote based on those policies. This ideology of “lesser-evilism” is completely illogical and incoherent, and the whole reason we’re here is because it’s such an egregious failure. There is no incentive for politicians to implement RCV if they know they’ll have your vote either way. It’s the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.

I’ve considered it, but I might have to go back to school to get the qualifications. I’m also trans and nervous about what that future might look like.

And yeah, there’s also the issue of just training people to work for defense companies. At least you could maybe warn them? Tbh, if did go back to school for teaching, I feel like I’d want to teach history instead, it’s much more of a “study of everything” than physics is (and is more relevant to politics). Like tbh I kinda lost interest in physics after graduating, for me, it was tied to a lot of things that I’ve left behind.

I have a BS in physics that I never used, I chose it because I had no idea what I was doing and discovered afterward that most jobs involving physics are less “figuring out how stars work, for the joy of discovery” and more, “figuring out new and exciting ways to kill brown people, for profit,” which I did not sign up for. So, I’ve wound up doing grunt work at warehouses instead. “Learn to wash your own vegetables and you won’t have to pay court to kings,” as the story goes.

A lot of people go into STEM because they just want to solve problems and the issue with that is that if you just solve any problem that’s put in front of you without regard for who’s problem it is and whether solving it will actually make the world a better place, then you belong in the same category as the guy who developed the Blitzkrieg doctrine, who claimed afterwards that he didn’t really care about “politics” and was just doing his job as best as he could. Just because you’re capable of solving a problem and someone’s asking you to doesn’t mean that you actually should.

I know I’d be a lot cooler, especially around here, if I just put on the Che Guevara shirt and say revolution is the only answer.

Not what I said. Revolution is not the only mechanism for change that exists outside of voting, there are other forms of mass action such as strikes and protests.

Because every example of that sort of thing just leads to more fascism under a different name

That’s completely ahistorical. Even if you write off all the biggest and most famous examples, like the Russian, American, Chinese, and French revolutions (which you shouldn’t), the world is a big place and you wouldn’t be making that kind of sweeping generalization if you’d actually looked into it.

The reason people say this shit (aside from propaganda to discourage doing revolutions) is to signal that they themselves aren’t interested in participating in a revolution. But the actual history is a lot more complicated than is allowed by this sort of sweeping proclamation about every country in every time that has ever existed.

It’s funny because this position of “revolution is always bad” is literally to the right of neocons. Neoconservatives are always fantasizing about the people of rival countries (Iran, Cuba, China, etc) rising up to overthrow their governments. They’re allowed to be pro-revolution because they’re sufficiently wedded to the establishment that they don’t feel the need to disavow every revolutionary action ever to avoid suspicion, which allows these conservatives to be to take a position to the left of the average self-proclaimed anti-communist leftist who is desperate to make sure everyone knows they’re not one of those kinds of leftists.

But as for making it a red line for supporting democrats, sure. I mean honestly, credit to you for proposing something that might actually work. I think if there’s a big enough movement to do that, every Democrat would get behind it.

Yes, and the same is true for setting red lines on other issues, such as Palestine. If enough people actually stood by it, the Democrats would be forced to change their position, or they would end up being replaced by another party.

That being said, I am fully aware of the flaws in my ideology - and there are many - but I enjoy libertarianism because it allows me to tell people like you to “GET OFF MY LAWN!” and not feel morally wrong for it.

Lmao I’ve never seen someone so explicitly accept that they picked their ideology out at the supermarket.

See, ideas generally fall into two categories, which I call “manmade” and “natural.” “Manmade” ideas are ideas that are specifically crafted to have mass market appeal, to fulfill some psychological urge of some demographic, whereas “natural” ideas are just reflections of the world as it actually exists. Libertarianism is a perfect manmade ideology, it allows you to tell “the man” to fuck off, to “GET OFF MY LAWN!” Who cares if the ideology is actually correct or capable of producing a functioning system? All that matters is that it makes you feel good. It’s no different from people who believe in quack medicine or crystal healing or whatever, it’s “I want to believe.”

People just want to go down to the supermarket and look through all different brands of ideologies until they find the one that really suits their own personal style, and then they bring it home and put it up on the mantle and polish it every day and keep it there, they would never dream of actually using it because they might get dirt on it, and anyway it would probably break since it’s not designed for that, it’s just there to look pretty. A proper ideology should be used so often it’s kept in the toolshed, where it’s rough and worn and not pretty to look at, but it’s designed to actually get the job done, and that ideology should be just as suitable whether you’re a nuerodivergent trans software developer or a Guatemalan dirt farmer. Because the truth is the truth no matter who you are or what your style is.

If you recognize that you only like libertarianism because it makes you feel good to believe in it, then you need to reject it immediately. You don’t just go through live believing whatever makes you feel good regardless of reason or evidence… do you?

Supporting this, the Dems have literally funded far-right Republican candidates under a “pied piper” strategy, on the assumption that they’ll be easier to beat and to motivate voters to come out to stop them. Donald Trump himself benefited from this strategy, the Dem leadership loves Trump because he gets people so angry and they know they’re the only alternative.

Just a non-dictatator doing very non-dictatator things like stealing the election, operating secret extrajudicial torture dungeons where people are detained indefinitely without trial, illegally spying on innocent people en masse, and starting multiple wars of aggression.

I wonder how long it will take y’all to start rehabilitating Trump once he’s no longer the current thing.

The whole point of having extrajudicial torture dungeons is that they are extrajudicial. They may not have sent US citizens to them (although US citizens were killed in extrajudicial drone strikes), but the only “lawyers” they had access to at Guantanamo were people like Ron DeSantis who posed as a lawyer to try to extract information about which methods the victims found most unpleasant, to be shared with their torturers. If that sort of system exists, it can easily be turned against US citizens, as has happened.

Mass surveillance is a blatant violation of the constitution as well, and when the illegal programs were exposed, not only did no one involved in them get punished in any way, they kept doing them and the person who exposed them was hunted to the ends of the earth.

And meanwhile, immigration courts are basically kangaroo courts where young children can be made to defend themselves with no right to an attorney, and that’s been going on for a long time.

There hasn’t been anything close to rule of law in this country for a long time (if ever). Trump is just continuing the path we’ve been trending towards for a long time in a very overt and rapid way.

What’s “horrible” about it? It’s a very simple negotiating tactic that even a toddler can understand. The difference is that we aren’t throwing a fit because we didn’t get some toy we wanted or something, we’re throwing a fit because people are being murdered en masse before our eyes. If ever there was an appropriate time to throw a fit, that time is now.

Since our cause is correct and indisputably justified, the only thing that matters is whether the tactic is effective or not. And obviously it is effective, if the other side is being intransigent as they are, then “Do what we want, or else,” packs a lot more punch than “Do what we want, pretty please?”

Yeah if you think Bush was an acceptable choice and not a fascist then you don’t really have a leg to stand on with this “commies love gulags” nonsense. You think this El Salvador shit is new? Those of us who were paying attention know that Bush did the same shit, while they did their fair share of torturing alleged “terrorists” with no due process in our own black sites, the worst abuses were conducted in foreign countries like Egypt, when we sent prisoners there knowing full well how they’d be treated. Some of us have been fighting this battle for over 20 years, nice of you to finally wake up and notice now that someone you hate is doing it, but it would be nice if you’d notice when the people you like are doing it too.

It’s so stupid when liberals, defending a system with the largest prison population per capita in the world, with indefinite detention without trial, mass surveillance, etc, still try to take the moral high ground on that issue just because the word “gulag” sounds scary and foreign.