[@The Harbinger of Ferocity] [quote]You would be right that is not how people think, which I believe to be detrimental, and while it is on that level of inconvenience that everyone would rather to just avoid, the sort where it is just another irritation in life perceived as irrelevant, there's few cheaper, more expedient options to implement as examples that are not only practical, but effective. The reduction in the rate of traffic is to be expected with it, but I find that a small price to pay. Areas of extremely high population density, such as New York and California would need to use their traffic data, as would they all, to help alleviate issues of that nature while meeting the objective. [/quote] The thing is that all these prices we would be paying, the invasiveness and severe inconvienence, wouldn't be buying much. We just don't have a major terrorist problem in the United States right now. There is a point where safety ventures into paranoia. [quote]I am of the thought that the advancement of socialism, as with the New Deal, as a platform in the United States is inherently negative to the system as a whole. Sanders arguments by comparison to the general qualities of the Democratic party are much further left, throwback or not. I would say the same and more about anyone openly advocating communism in the United States, to add at that point they have become largely un-American. I can see the appeal of socialism, even to citizens of the United States, but it is still much further left leaning in the same vein that hysteria was made about how "Alt-Right" Donald Trump was and that the Nazi party and its ilk are running for presidency. The difference being, Sanders and others with socialist values are actually strongly left leaning compared to the rest of their party and embraced for it while we have even seen here in this discussion that Trump and his administration is its own animal which is mainly Republican in label, with some overt leanings.[/quote] Well, first and foremost "Unamerican" isn't an argument for or against anything. If it were, I'd point out that your police state idea is thouroughly unamerican. But this is neither here nor there because America is what we make it to be. This would I assume betray and Austrian vein in your economic thinking, so we'd hit a more fundamental disagreement here. I think government intervention in the economy saved us, and the retraction of government intervention has destabilized the economy. [quote]To me, anything that varies too far from center enters the realm of potential for extremes. To use an example of my stance, communists and libertarians are far to the sides of their associations in my eyes. As I will maintain no less, I never accused anyone of being evil, just that I cannot sympathize with the right - which I belong to - on those grounds and others related. And yes, while you would be correct the "taxation is theft" crowd has existed for quite a long time, I am fairly confident that they are still a minority and not even a vocal one at that in comparison to some of their neighbors or those on the other end.[/quote][/quote] I feel there is a semantic issue here regarding the different ways we can interpret the word extreme. To say that "The farther from the center you go, the the more extremely far from the center you are" is a tautology and isn't really worth the time saying. But if you are saying that leaving the center implies violence, with extreme meaning violence, then I disagree. I think you can believe that severe changes are good and necessary without saying that violence has to happen. The Sanders movement, or the Ron Paul movement, never in themselves requested violence, so leaving a charge of violent extremism on their doorstep seems incorrect. [quote] A minority of people should not be explicitly catered to at the cost of the rest of the norm. I will repeat my opinion as preface, but I do not believe transgendered - or other - persons should be allowed to use the male or female restroom that does not match their biological sex unless they've transitioned completely to that gender. I do believe it should be requirement that there is a neutral bathroom, using the model some locations had of the "family restroom", which could be used by anyone. It is not the duty of those regularly gendered people to compromise themselves or morals for others; they can if they want to.[/quote] Personally I think gendered bathrooms is kinda silly, but I pretty much keep quiet about it because I figure as a guy I am getting me some juicy privilege by keeping bathrooms gendered, since, like, have you ever seen the line for a womans bathroom at a major event? I don't really give too many shits about this issue to be honest, though I don't really agree that there is any cost at all to the norm in this case. Though I do find the bathroom policing implication kinda creepy. [quote]You do not see me arguing that Autistic people are treated unfairly in the public eye, even being the butt of a joke here, and demanding they receive special accommodations such as non-fluorescent lighting or making the outrageous argument that wanting to treat it as an illness and cure it is a "Final Solution" type ordeal. These people in question are significantly more common, roughly 1 in 68, albeit still considered statistically abnormal. If you revert this back to my prior example and overlay the parallels, I believe my point to become clear - that the far left made a far larger deal about transgender, among other issues, than legitimately exists; they're all still people in the end.[/quote] You could if you wanted too though. If there are serious issues that make autistic people less functional, and we as a society could accommodate those issues without being too put out, then it is wise to make those accommodations. People worry too much about being too nice for some bizarre-ass reason. The point of accommodations is to make society function more fluidly, and get the most out of everyone as possible, while in turn making sure everyone gets as much out of life as possible. Personally, I don't think most accommodations of this sort put out the average person, and I say this as an average person. [quote]To change topics entirely, the fact that this behavior has been permitted at all is proof enough to me that it is not taken seriously. I would say the same for the "Alt-Right" if people began flying Nazi flags, fighting with the police, setting fire to things and other improper behavior I described. Regardless of who is doing it or why, it is uncalled for and allows a dangerous standard to set in. It does not matter how much is occurring either; it needs to be controlled and put to an end all the same. Either you protest peacefully and obey the rules, or your protest has become unlawful and needs to be disbanded. If you riot, you are to be treated as criminals.[/quote] Well, first and formost there are Alt-Right protesters flying Nazi flags. That is a thing. Second, I am fine with you arresting people who commit crimes, that's how the law works. I have a problem with generalizing the behavior of criminals as being the responsibility of the larger section of society they belong too. I don't think you have anything in common with Dylan Roof just because you are right of center, and for the same reason I'd rather people say all people left of center are the bike-lock guy. [quote]albeit I still advocate the deployment of National Guard units to restore order and as a show of force regardless.[/quote] yeeeeh, let's not do that. We are not nearly at a level that requires marshal law. I know a bar that spills more blood than Berkley every Friday night, but nobody would dream of military occupation as a response. [@SleepingSilence] [quote]Once again, if no one is taking the conversation seriously, I'm more than okay with it but I'd like for people to stop whining about me being mildly aggressive. If shitposting gets nobody to complain. <.<[/quote] Eh, I think we can only be so serious. We are all peasants after all, none of us belong to the elite, so none of our opinions really matter in the end. [quote]All of what? But, libertarian is sometimes considered a right or left wing opinion. When it actually isn't. It's just the counter to authoritarian.[/quote] Well, yeh, technically Libertarian is anything south of the authority spectrum, this is true. I'm more talking about the way the term is used in the United States, where we usually use it to apply to the right wing of the libertarian spectrum. Like, I'd definitely consider myself a left-libertarian, but I wouldn't go around calling myself a Libertarian because everyone would assume I'm a Rand Paul type of guy. Anyway, in the United States we use Libertarian to mean anything from an anti-war Republican all the way down to a foaming-at-the-mouth An-Cap. [quote]It's usually the same as private though which is my point...So both words tend to mean the same thing. There isn't a difference from what I can tell.[/quote] They are lumped together in the current system, but I do think there is a recognizable difference. Like I said, one you use the object, the other you use the income and don't interact with the object. If somebody has to take the object from you in a physical sense, it probably it's personal property. Again, this is my practical definition, not the current legal definition where personal property is non-real-estate property. [quote]Stuff like this...except if there's any snowball chance in hell for that person to win. Is not a world we should live in...but it has. Which is my point. Clearer now?[/quote] Oh that. Yeh, I'm against frivolous lawsuits. Not sure how to stop them though, short of fining people for them, which makes another messy situation. [quote]Not always true, some small businesses suck too. Big doesn't always equal a problem. But you seem to be ignoring how social media smear campaigns can outright destroy people's lives. I think forcing people to "morally" shop is a slippery slope anyway. Granted boycotts don't work usually. But "buycotts" (stealing the word) do. So there is some level of outside forces that can effect the outcome of somebody's sales. Some people lose, but they still can try again. As bad as it seems, that's a GOOD thing for the consumers and people. If businesses weren't allowed to fail. They'd need government bailouts. Sometimes products become less needed or bought, when newer and better and cheaper stuff comes out. [/quote] Yup, it is true that small businesses aren't automatically good, but I think it is generally accepted that Wal-Mart won because it was cheap and not because people admire Wal-Mart's business practices. "Wal-Mart destroyed Main-Street" has been a topic of conversation for quite some time, and a warranted one. The issue of social media smear campaigns is true, but it's not really a free-market issue. If anything, social media smear campaigns is an example of how the free market is oftentimes irrational. Also, boycotts and buycotts can work in principle, but because people's purchasing decisions are based mostly on convenience, and because social movements have a short attention span, I don't think they can be relied upon to make a system moral. Which is to say that the free market might be trusted to make a lot of cheap commodities, but it can't necessarily be trusted with all of the rest of the complications of a free society. Hence why modern economics largely leans toward a market left to handle commodities but supplemented by government intervention to handle everything the Free Market leaves behind. [quote]What does diddling the help supposed to mean there? [/quote] Err, without going up and checking, I think you had said something about bailouts in relation to a conversation we were having about what happens if a businessman sexually harasses his employees. Diddling the help would be a colloquial way of saying sexually harassing employees. [quote]politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01… Hasn't stopped people from trying. ;D[/quote] Welp, shit, a diddling bailout. That's funny as fuck. [quote]Extremes exist on both sides, but which seems to be a bigger problem right now? It seems the worst the Alt right can do, is be horrendously unfunny. I simply point it out because SJW's were started from GamerGate and that was taken quite seriously by every big media site, when it started/fueled from nothing but a farce.[/quote] Right wing is right now in political power in the US, SJW's are just bitching and throwing fists. Honestly, I think SJW's are more a threat to the left than they are to the right. No greater force of internal division has ever been devised by God or Man. I don't think they are scary though, just messy. The Alt Right scares me a little, in that I'm not sure where they came from, and their proposals are more violent than just throwing fists. I admit, the sudden appearance of ethno-states into the political discussion has spooked me. [quote]Not a citation really. And one person isn't a whole movement. So that's all I got for that.[/quote] Richard Spencer has followers. He got that creepy torchlight thing going, for instance. [quote]I didn't mean to get on your case too hard, unlike the other people nitpicking me to death here. You've tended to be respectful in the past. So if you felt in anyway I was being aggressive to you, I apologize. I have an actual reason for my slightly scattered thoughts. However, I will argue that it seemed like one to you because you replied to things, that weren't statements toward you. It was one post replying to three people and separating them would just be spam. Discussions of this nature NEED more context and as much evidence as possible. Also again, I'm not typing any more/less than the other person you've been discussing with. [/quote] No worries, I'm not easy to offend. It would be nice if I could dedicate serious energy to internet debates, but it's just too much of a pain for me. I like the casual face to face style of debating, where it's mostly trading and sharpening ideas we already have stored in our heads, with certain points taken on honor. I'm not keen on the more involved types of debate though, since it takes sooo much time and energy. And though sure, citations are more empirical, I just don't have time to unpack all of that, or to pack my own for that matter. [quote]I don't try to generalize, usually. But again, my point is kids don't even know what right or left wings even stand for. So saying their opinions are popular, doesn't make much sense.[/quote] I agree. If I recall right, and this was a while ago, the response had something to do with what teenagers were saying implying the next generation was going to be right wing?