Random Thoughts 2: Arbitrary Speculations

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't know, if you want to break down radical feminists like that, you have to do the same with Incels. Because if we're that exact, then most Incels are also not men who cannot get laid, but rather men who have standards that above what they can afford with their own appearance. Pretty much any man can get laid by that random low-iq, overweight female who wants to really have a baby and is willing to sleep with just about anyone.

And if we do that, then radical feminists don't sound that dissimilar anymore, as they too are mostly women who couldn't find a partner that they liked, and then they got feminists, and managed to get some low self-esteem men to like their toes, and many used that change to get a boy-toy for themselves.
I don't think that's true, or why you would think that it's true.

I don't even know what the purpose of this analogy is. To delegitimise radical feminism, a movement which hasn't been politically or culturally relevant for twenty years? To legitimise Incels, a movement characterised less by activism than by spree-killings? To get one over on the Ivory Tower liberals of CFC?
 
Last edited:
Why do some people consider flying exploding butts outside the bounds of good taste? I don't get what is abutt good taste some people seem to be bent on enforcing, it's a real pain in the butt. Buttophobes! I'm half tempted to make a spam thread consisting of 300 posts of that GIF butt that would be pushing it. On another note, this friggin heat is killing me, my hair has melted, can't think strait, head pulsing. Getting pissed over stupid stuff. Stupid fan is blowing hot air in my face. I think it's abutt time i invest in an air conditioner butt i have no money. It's all abutt fun with the pun hun from the sun. I think i'm gonna go jump off a bridge into the river, haven't done that since i was 10.

Moderator Action: Warned for PDMA --LM
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited:
I also think it's hilarious that you automatically think one is destined to a horrible life of poverty (quote) just because one got "dishonorably discharged" as if that'll stop you from getting any job.

It actually does. There are still a lot of employers out there that will either refuse to hire anyone with a less than honorable discharge or won't give them anything more than an entry-level position with no chance for promotion. There are several reasons for this, but the main one being that if you failed at the military, then you will probably fail at any other job. That's because while the military is definitely stressful, it is ultimately the easiest job one will ever have. Ninety percent of your job in the military is being in the right place, at the right time, and in the right uniform so if you can't even manage that, then you tend to look pretty hopeless as a human being.
 
Given that "a lot of employers" in your country also retain the right to fire people at will for any reason at all, that's not saying much.
 
Employers get to decide whether a person prospers or starves based not even on your ability to make them a profit, but on your assumed ability to make them a profit, based on narrow set of prejudices that nobody has the power to challenge.

But the people who are against this system? They're the real villains of the piece.
 
But the people who are against this system? They're the real villains of the piece.
Yes, because the current system, while not perfect, works for the vast majority of people. If you want to bring it down instead of improving its flaws, then you're the villain.
 
Yes, because the current system, while not perfect, works for the vast majority of people.

capitalism just works! (get it)

[citation needed]
 
Yes, because the current system, while not perfect, works for the vast majority of people. If you want to bring it down instead of improving its flaws, then you're the villain.
A majority having figured out how to convince the bosses to keep them alive, that is true. But that does not describe a system "works" for the majority. It describes a system which the majority are surviving.
 
A majority having figured out how to convince the bosses to keep them alive, that is true. But that does not describe a system "works" for the majority. It describes a system which the majority are surviving.
When most of the "peasants" survive until they die naturally of old age, it is already better than all other systems that have been tried so far. But of course people don't just survive, where there is social capitalism coupled with a social safety net, they live pretty good lives compared to literally every society that ever existed. Improving the system further, and removing blind spots within our own societies, and maybe more importantly, constraining the predatory nature of capitalism towards less-developed nations where the standards that we set for our own citizens are not met at all right now, is clearly the way to go.

"It's not perfect - let's burn it all down, so we can try this fantasy of mine!" is childish, and would only lead to unnecessary suffering.
 
Lately, I've been thinking a lot about what would happen if a meteor crashed down to Earth and spilled the blood of the planet into the oceans. Surely the Algae would filter most of it, but would they not sprawl overly as a result of it? It would, in a way, create a living wound, and the Algae would create a prospering slough that , in a way, would heal the planet, but then, after the planet's blood has been cleansed, die off. I'm sure there is a metaphor to be found in that, but I cannot quite make sense of it. Something about how every injury is a chance to grow stronger, but how does one create an analogy out of it? I think I will need to meditate about that some more, although, if I'm honest with myself, I'm not entirely sure if it is that reasonable, or useful, as, after all, we will soon have the technology to prevent meteors from striking our planet in the first place. Some might argue, we already have the reagents for such a technology, and that we only haven't brought them together to create the actual defense mechanism, because the universe has not yet blessed us with a heavinly body that would require such technology to exist in the first place. Which again could make for a great metaphor, something about how the hurdles that are blocking our path, and must be overcome, ultimately make us who we are, and that a life without adversity is ultimately a life without self-improvement.
 
I verified my hypothesis by posting it on /r/TheDonald
This should tell you all about the quality of German humour.
 
When most of the "peasants" survive until they die naturally of old age, it is already better than all other systems that have been tried so far. But of course people don't just survive, where there is social capitalism coupled with a social safety net, they live pretty good lives compared to literally every society that ever existed. Improving the system further, and removing blind spots within our own societies, and maybe more importantly, constraining the predatory nature of capitalism towards less-developed nations where the standards that we set for our own citizens are not met at all right now, is clearly the way to go.
And how's that been working out for you, these last thirty, forty years?

Nobody disagrees that Nice Capitalism is better than Mean Capitalism. We disagree about whether Nice Capitalism is a realistic prospect, about whether it's possible to trick a system built on relentless drive for profit into behaving like a system built on human needs. If I'm naive because I think that capitalism can be replaced with socialism, what do we say about those who think capitalism can be made to behave as if it were socialism?
 
Last edited:
And how's that been working out for you, these last thirty, forty years?
Well, I haven't been alive for thirty or even forty years, so who's "you"? For "you Germans"? I would say pretty good overall.

Nobody disagrees that Nice Capitalism is better than Mean Capitalism. We disagree about whether Nice Capitalism is a realistic prospect, about whether it's possible to trick a system built on relentless drive for profit into behaving like a system built on human needs.
The system isn't meant to be "tricked into behaving" like that, the system is meant to continue to behave like it has done in the past. The system is meant to continue to "drive for profit", as that's what creates prosperity. What you do is introduce rules that prevent the system from overstepping the boundaries that we think should not be overstepped.

If I'm naive because I think that capitalism can be replaced with socialism
No, I think you're naive because you think you can overthrow the current system and end up with something that is better than where we're moving towards right now, given the lessons of history. It is much more likely, probably almost inevitable, that we would create utter chaos that will ultimately set us back in time and force us to re-do a lot of progress we're making now. I can see a future where socialism replaces capitalism, but such a future will have to grow from the current system, one step at a time.
 
I'm not putting up an act, I meant every word I said in my last post.
 
I can see a future where socialism replaces capitalism, but such a future will have to grow from the current system, one step at a time.

Some people don't care for incremental change. You know the type, the ones who
just tore the Berlin Wall quickly instead of removing one brick per year.

Predictions of humanity's future trajectory that are based on "history" are as
reliable as those made using ouija boards.
 
Some people don't care for incremental change. You know the type, the ones who
just tore the Berlin Wall quickly instead of removing one brick per year.
What a strange metaphor. You know the Berlin Wall didn't "fall" because it was torn down, right?

But yeah, incremental change is not in itself a good thing, and rapid change is not in itself a bad thing, it's all about the appropriate tool for the job.
To say that revolution that a socialist revolution is the proper solution to our current situation, is really dumb in my opinion.
You will simply not arrive at the point that you want to arrive at.

Predictions of humanity's future trajectory that are based on "history" are as
reliable as those made using ouija boards.
"Just because it didn't work those other 99 times, doesn't mean that it can't work this time!"
 
What a strange metaphor. You know the Berlin Wall didn't "fall" because it was torn down, right?

It fell because of a sudden change in perceptions but, above all, because there
were overwhelming numbers who were committed to change and prepared to make it
happen.

But yeah, incremental change is not in itself a good thing...

Especially when people are dying and decide to stop the bloood-letting quickly,
instead of one drop at a time.

To say that revolution that a socialist revolution is the proper solution to our current situation, is really dumb in my opinion.
You will simply not arrive at the point that you want to arrive at.

Five-year plan by horoscope. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom