Why would you discuss politics here?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Asher's fragile self esteem depends on his perception that he is "winning" some non-existent social contest. This is a long standing psychological issue of his, possibly stemming from the experienced shame of years of concealing his homosexuality from his family (or maybe he's just an *******).

People live different kinds of lives and have different priorities. The idea that there is any common accepted measure of what makes a life go well is largely an illusion. I'd rather shoot myself in the head than do what some other folks do for a living (since I find people who work in "business" to be for the most part irretrievably stupid, vulgar and dull), and they probably feel the same way about my job. Such is life.

If I were trying to win a social contest, I would be unfailingly nice to everyone on the site and have a wife with 2.4 children in the suburbs. That's not me.

I just think you've proven yourself to be, what's the phrase, "irretrievably stupid". It bothers me deeply that someone with your abilities, or lack thereof, is teaching children or young people at any level, let alone university. I think if you were ever put into a discipline where intellect and capability were paramount, you'd flounder. With academia you can just bounce around to various countries forever -- you couldn't cut it at UofT so you fled to Korea to teach, where I'd imagine their standards of English-language Plato-centric philosophy professors are not as high as they'd be over here. That's curious.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Traianvs


Being from the new continent this concept may be foreign to you, but over here we like to work for our community and our state and then getting something in return, instead of caring about yourself only.

Wake up -- communism is dead.

That said, the get-rich-quick-people exist all over the world, so you'll have to come up with something else.

Just as we have lunatic communists over here. The difference is the fundamental mindset.

[Jon Miller]

The internet, including apolyton, as well as going to college and reading books is what changed me from being homophobic in 97-99.

JM
(I was homophobic mostly because people called me gay and would write that I gave good head/etc throughout highschool and junior high.)

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Asher

He's not a professor. He's an instructor. Huge difference.

We respect them too, as well as a lot of people.

[Jon Miller]

That is a more major change, but there have been many minor changes as well.

JM

[johncmcleod]

Originally posted by Asher
Fact: the more academic one is, the less connected they are to the real world.
Fact: The less connected one is to the real world, the farther left they are on the economic scale.

Why should academics care if unemployment rises and the economy falls on its ass in a left-wing economy? They've got cushy government funding.

Now you're just sounding like an ignorant redneck. It depends more on the geography and ideology of the institution, but most professors are relatively liberal on political freedoms and very economically conservative. I'd define most of my profs as intelligent, politically liberal neo-liberals.

originally posted by Traianvs:
You seem to think everyone believes having a better house equals being happer and living a better life.

Having a swimming pool, tennis court and those 3 extra bathrooms is not important despite your capitalist convictions that claim otherwise.

Shh, let Asher live in the fantasy libertarian world where old, bad, 19th century Benthamian philosophy is a universal, scientific fact. Pleasure, contentness, happiness, and material wealth are all one and the same and can be created by the maximization of profit. Culture is nonexistent and the free market and utilitarianism are universal, instinctual concepts that existed in every society. And any society, culture, or idea that says otherwise is non-civilized.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Whoha
no we stopped with the time and energy a while ago. its all 1 liners now

mostly one liners here... but I am back though

[johncmcleod]

How did this thread get turned into a political compass thread? Oh well, I scored a -9.88 on the econ and a -7.54 on the political. It was really difficult answering some of these questions because I didn't know how to answer "ought" questions as how I thought they ought to be or how things end up working in reality. I mean in my opinion I think it's hard to disagree with the idea that we "ought" to have a well-functioning anarcho-communist utopian society, but realistically that's never going to happen. Another example would actually be in the conservative side. We "ought" to have a highly moral society like the one they think they can impose with anti-gay and abortion laws, but realistically that's never going to happen. One example is one question was if we are too open about sex in society, which I answered agree, because I do think people ought to be more mature and stop making such a huge deal about it and constantly talk about it, I think it's something a bit more personal that we shouldn't have TV shows about. But I definitely don't agree that there should be laws against it or that it is immoral to discuss sex.

Another reason I'm not too big of a fan of this test as it oversimplifies things to a two dimensional scale that are much more complicated. I think the most obvious is the idea of measuring everything (economics, political liberties, etc.) in terms of the inidividual or in terms of society. There is a fundamental difference between Greek style democracy and classical liberalism, the latter would call the former "tyranny of the masses," and simply labelling them both "politically liberal" is highly inaccurate. You could be in any of the four quadrants with either, yet they are fundamentally opposite.

Most lefties I know are very much classically liberal and firmly believe in individual rights, including on an economic level, even though they may believe in very strong government regulation, high taxes, expansive social programs, etc. there are still property rights and all of the normal economic rights the individual is given. Libertarians will scream at me and say that any governmental regulation means infringement upon econominc rights, but that's more rhetoric than reality, all the modern first world countries are strongly classically liberal and measure all in terms of the individual, including economic rights, but some have loads of governmental economic regulation are definitely not libertarian.

But you also could be an anarcho-communist type who believes everything should be measured in terms of the society and not in terms of the individual. For example, the government is highly democratic and non-authoritarian, and you believe in a command economy, but you don't believe too much in individual rights and the individual could be sacrificed for the greater good of the community.

In the other quadrant, left on economic and right on political, inherently is the most anti-classically liberal, and many communists would qualify. The economy is ordered for the greater good of society and property rights are non-existent and there are few political freedoms. You still could be classically liberal though in terms of measuring all things in terms of the individual. High governmental regulation but still strong respect for property rights and the economic rights of an individual, and politically the government measures all in terms of the individual and allows political freedoms on an individual level but is still fairly authoritarian. Probably not too likely.

On the other side, you could be more authoritarian politically and economically on the right but measure things in terms of the individual. This would definitely include the United States (in comparison with similar nations we're very conservative politically and economically, be it for good or for worse) and free market dictatorships like Pinochet and all of our friends in Central America circa late 19th century-the end of the Reagan years. Though dictatorships violate the classically liberal principles of individual freedom, economically conservative ones still probably measure all in terms of the individual. And then of course there's the opposite, Spanish and Italian fascists of the Franco and Mussolini brand who would be economically and poltically conservative, but they measured everything in terms of society. They believed the individual should be sacrificed for the greater good of society and that capitalism could end up serving for the worse interests of the society (mostly because they thought it eroded the culture of the nation and they didn't like the decadence part either). But they generally were pro-business and economically conservative because big business could be used to help the greater good.

And the final quadrant, conservative economically and liberal politically, is definitely the most classically liberal and measures all in terms of the individual. But still, theoretically it's possible that you measure all in terms of the greater good of society without too much respect for the individual. There is a democracy but it's more Greek style, the majority wins and the good of society trumps the rights of the individual, but has conservative, free market economic policies.

Oh and what was with them equating being economically conservative to being neo-liberal? The two are different. You can be very capitalist and pro business but believe in protectionism if it favors your own economy (an example in modern American politics would be Ross Perot).

What are with some of these questions by the way? When you're feeling down you should try to think about something else? Atrology explains many things?

[Asher]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Now you're just sounding like an ignorant redneck.

Don't call me an ignorant redneck when you bite blatant trolls.

Shh, let Asher live in the fantasy libertarian world where old, bad, 19th century Benthamian philosophy is a universal, scientific fact. Pleasure, contentness, happiness, and material wealth are all one and the same and can be created by the maximization of profit. Culture is nonexistent and the free market and utilitarianism are universal, instinctual concepts that existed in every society. And any society, culture, or idea that says otherwise is non-civilized.

What a retarded comment.

How many libertarians do you know that support universal healthcare? Why is culture nonexistent? I love culture, I support it, but I don't believe it should be mindlessly funded by the government.

The only thing uncivilized is you, for not recognizing obvious trolls and then for immediately following up with an obviously false characterization for issues more complicated than you can fathom.

[johncmcleod]

originally posted by SlowwHand:
Why would you, a person who hasn't been here in years, come here and discuss politics? Kick rocks.

Umm, did you read the thread? I did not for the sake of arguing and it didn't really constitute much of an opinion, I did it for the sake of discussion and see what people would think about a fairly wacky, controversial idea. Only one person wrote a seriour post though, further proof of the uselessness of the forum, you can't even have the type of discussion I'd like to have, only mindless name-calling. Props to Bebro though for writing.

[Asher]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
How did this thread get turned into a political compass thread?

The answer: posts like your post right here. It's long, verbose, and boring as ****.

The lesson: Post something interesting, and make it brief.

I don't even know who the **** you are and you expect me to read essay-posts? Get real.

[johncmcleod]

What a retarded comment.

How many libertarians do you know that support universal healthcare? Why is culture nonexistent? I love culture, I support it, but I don't believe it should be mindlessly funded by the government.

The only thing uncivilized is you, for not recognizing obvious trolls and then for immediately following up with an obviously false characterization for issues more complicated than you can fathom.

How many professors do you know? I'm not trolling, I'm just pointing out that the whole liberal-commie professor thing is the exact type of thing one of the rednecks from my area would say. Maybe it's different in Canada but MOST of my professors are libertarians. That being said, there are tons of dumb lefty professors in the lesser universities (which I'm sure you attended, since anyone as arrogant and pompous sounding as you probably wasn't exposed to a population of intelligent people and was therefore able to justifiably continue such behavior), as well as tons of dumb conservative professors.

Why is culture nonexistent? I love culture, I support it, but I don't believe it should be mindlessly funded by the government.

Don't tell me about issues that I can't fathom when you had no idea what I was even alluding to, which anyone decently well read should have been able to. I was referring to the western, ethnocentric beliefs held by people like Fukuyama, that the market is not a culture or an ideology but something scientific, rational, and instinctual. Maybe it is the best ideology in the world we live in and maybe you and most educated people (I would say most educated people are economically conservative) are correct. But that doesn't mean your ideology is in any way scientific or universal and not simply an ideology stemming from highly disputable philosophical and cultural assumptions. Just like the rest of them.

[Asher]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
How many professors do you know?

On a personal basis? Four -- two of which are married bio-chem professors (friend's parents), and a couple CompSci professors I've met through work in the summers when they do research projects. My brother and two of my closest friends are going through grad school right now as well, but in real disciplines (computer science, computer engineering, mechanical engineering) -- not something flimsy like filosofy.

I'm not trolling, I'm just pointing out that the whole liberal-commie professor thing is the exact type of thing one of the rednecks from my area would say.

I've already told you it was a troll, point blank. You still don't get it. If I say it again will it sink in?

Don't tell me about issues that I can't fathom when you had no idea what I was even alluding to, which anyone decently well read should have been able to. I was referring to the western, ethnocentric beliefs held by people like Fukuyama, that the market is not a culture or an ideology but something scientific, rational, and instinctual. Maybe it is the best ideology in the world we live in and maybe you and most educated people (I would say most educated people are economically conservative) are correct. But that doesn't mean your ideology is in any way scientific or universal and not simply an ideology stemming from highly disputable philosophical and cultural assumptions. Just like the rest of them.

Oh my God, you are everything I hate about academia.

You missed the point but you did not miss the opportunity to namedrop Fukuyama where it was not necessary in the context.

I was simply pointing out that your characterization of my beliefs was way-****ing-off, and you responded to that by ranting about Fukuyama. Completely clueless, and you've no clue that you're clueless. Recipe for professorship in an arts program of some sort, I'd reckon.

[Kidlicious]

To be fair, you do sound like a redneck sometimes.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kidicious
To be fair, you do sound like a redneck sometimes.

Only to pinko commies.