Why is there so much liberal and socialist bias on the escapist?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Brett Dumain:

ElectroJosh:
In "free societies" (a general term) generations tend to be more liberal over time socially.

Yes but is that trend natural, ie an awakening of the moral side of humanity, or more a "well I dont want to be shunned for holding unpopular views so Ill go along to get along." Case in point: The word "nigger" is anathema in today's world. No one uses it unless they want an insta-banning from social circles. But is that because most people think it is a hateful word, or because they dont want other people to be mad at them for holding antiquated views?

Different way to put it: if you get beaten over the head enough times that X is bad, eventually you accept that X is bad just to stop the beating.

Is it "natural"? Hard to say. Obviously human nature encompasses a wide range of attitudes and values. In my view some people are more naturally empathetic and have strong sense of justice/reciprocity; currently they appear to be driving a lot of cultures forward. This also has had massive advantages for a lot of society who were, historically, considered dispensable (children, foreigners), lesser status (poorer classes, women) or outright evil (homosexuals, those of different religious views). It probably coincides with ideas around freedoms as well; particularly freedom of thought. Historically the conservative forces pushed against moves to decriminalize private consenting sexual expression between adults and freedom of thought (polically, religiously and the like).

There are sweeping generalisations in what I said, of course - but there does seem to be a tragectory going on.

Overusedname:

Kinguendo:

JRslinger:

The public education system in the U.S. is dominated by liberals. Thus many young people get indoctrinated to be liberals.

Its almost as if all the more intelligent and thoughtful people are Liberals, how weird?!

Seriously, did you not see that gigantic trap you walked into? You should have, given that you set it up yourself.

Also, your comment doesnt really explain for the fact that people from the rest of the planet can access this site too and are also pretty Liberal-minded ladies and gents. Although there is the obvious answer that pretty much everyone has already stated... Reality has a Liberal bias. I am sorry that the world cant keep on sucking ass and being awful forever, but someone has got to clean up your mess.

And you should be thankful... if this is what Liberal bias looks like then you should count yourself lucky because we have seen what Conservative bias looked like back in the 40's and 50's and last time I checked you werent being arrested for being Liberal and then being branded as a "Communist" and blacklisted.

Suck it up, wimps. This isnt what persecution looks like.

I'd phrase it more politely (or at least...pretend to) but...yeah. Quite frankly I'm tired of being labeled as 'biased' and 'agenda-pushing' for being someone who wants more equal opportunities, and make black, gay and female people feel safe when they walk down the street.

I guess I'm a commi. None of my policies are political, I'm a humanist. I've been called liberal, yes, but well...labels don't benefit anyone. Maybe one day people will misuse humanist as a term. Until then, it's the only label I'll apply to myself. I don't consider equality and empathy to be controversial.

Just out of curiosity, where exactly are these places that "black, gay and female people" don't feel safe to walk down the street? Seeing all three of those classes of people walking fearlessly down the street is a daily sight where I live, where are these regressive communes in your experience?

lowhat:

Overusedname:

Kinguendo:

Its almost as if all the more intelligent and thoughtful people are Liberals, how weird?!

Seriously, did you not see that gigantic trap you walked into? You should have, given that you set it up yourself.

Also, your comment doesnt really explain for the fact that people from the rest of the planet can access this site too and are also pretty Liberal-minded ladies and gents. Although there is the obvious answer that pretty much everyone has already stated... Reality has a Liberal bias. I am sorry that the world cant keep on sucking ass and being awful forever, but someone has got to clean up your mess.

And you should be thankful... if this is what Liberal bias looks like then you should count yourself lucky because we have seen what Conservative bias looked like back in the 40's and 50's and last time I checked you werent being arrested for being Liberal and then being branded as a "Communist" and blacklisted.

Suck it up, wimps. This isnt what persecution looks like.

I'd phrase it more politely (or at least...pretend to) but...yeah. Quite frankly I'm tired of being labeled as 'biased' and 'agenda-pushing' for being someone who wants more equal opportunities, and make black, gay and female people feel safe when they walk down the street.

I guess I'm a commi. None of my policies are political, I'm a humanist. I've been called liberal, yes, but well...labels don't benefit anyone. Maybe one day people will misuse humanist as a term. Until then, it's the only label I'll apply to myself. I don't consider equality and empathy to be controversial.

Just out of curiosity, where exactly are these places that "black, gay and female people" don't feel safe to walk down the street? Seeing all three of those classes of people walking fearlessly down the street is a daily sight where I live, where are these regressive communes in your experience?

And this is kind of my issue. This mentality that hate is over.

Familiar with Trayvon Martin?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOpGAOXL5Uk

Or any hate crime info?

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/hcrn99.txt

The justified paranoia of gay and lesbian kids?

http://www.dropoutprevention.org/statistics/gay-lesbian-youth

The 'conversation' with no scientific basis about 'legitimate rape':
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/myth-about-rape-and-pregnancy-is-not-new/

But meanwhile, in the land of science:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/21/health/rape-pregnancy/index.html

One my best friends can't even come out to his parents, and he's becoming a social recluse because he's terrified of people knowing this tiny insignificant part of himself. Do you recall the string of gay suicides and murderous hate crimes against LGBT people? He doesn't feel safe. And black kids can't so much as wear a hoody? And woman will be blamed for their own rape if they don't wear a burka?

Actually they'll still be blamed. Here's another nifty story, though it's not american, it's still very modern.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2114884/Moroccan-girl-16-kills-judge-forced-marry-man-RAPED-her.html

Overusedname:
And this is kind of my issue. This mentality that hate is over.

I've never been harassed for being a minority, I don't see what the minorities are complaining about.

thaluikhain:

Overusedname:
And this is kind of my issue. This mentality that hate is over.

I've never been harassed for being a minority, I don't see what the minorities are complaining about.

Want some examples?

Not entirely sure what the couple of post before this one has to do with the topic at hand, which is why there seems to be (whether or not htis is true is technically unproven) 'liberal' bias on the escapist forums?

GunsmithKitten:

thaluikhain:

Overusedname:
And this is kind of my issue. This mentality that hate is over.

I've never been harassed for being a minority, I don't see what the minorities are complaining about.

Want some examples?

Pink is the new sarcasm font. Just saying.

Frission:

GunsmithKitten:

thaluikhain:

I've never been harassed for being a minority, I don't see what the minorities are complaining about.

Want some examples?

Pink is the new sarcasm font. Just saying.

I suspected that, simply because no one suddenly uses a different font for no reason on the internets. I've never seen that anywhere else though. When you say new, is this like BRAND new web culture shenanigans?

Overusedname:
I suspected that, simply because no one suddenly uses a different font for no reason on the internets. I've never seen that anywhere else though. When you say new, is this like BRAND new web culture shenanigans?

it's been adopted for a while in R&P because sarcasm and other such humorous remarks have a way of being taken seriously in print in this prickly environment unless you very obviously flag it.

You're shocked to see liberalism so pronounced on an international video game site? No offense, but really? With the media becoming gradually more open to things like same-sex relationships, I don't think companies like Bethesda would like to rub shoulders with FOX. Of course, such things are social and not economic issues which is another monster entirely, but I don't think you'll find many anti-capitalists here. Socialists maybe, but you can *in theory* have your cake and eat it too if that's the case. I think most people on Escapist want a capitalist system with some restrictions to prevent worker abuse and pollution, which really isn't a capitalist killer. These are of course sweeping generalizations, but so is the very subject of this thread.

AlotFirst:

Xanthious:

Vivi22:
Oil is going to run out.

snip

You know I feel ashamed knowing that for a moment, I actually thought the information in that research was correct. I'm glad that common sense and google led me back to the correct path.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=115
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/08/05/206530/institute-for-energy-research-bp-shakedown/?mobile=nc
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/institute-for-energy-research/

Fella, two of those links are sites directly related to the terrorist organization known as Greenpeace and the other may as well be as it's towing the same line that the environmental extremists like Greenpeace and The Sierra Club like to tow. These are both organizations with a radical agenda and in Greenpeace's case a history of violent terrorist activities. The only thing that Google led you too was extreme leftist propaganda meant to further an agenda rather than represent reality.

Sleekit:

Overusedname:
I suspected that, simply because no one suddenly uses a different font for no reason on the internets. I've never seen that anywhere else though. When you say new, is this like BRAND new web culture shenanigans?

it's been adopted for a while in R&P because sarcasm and other such humorous remarks have a way of being taken seriously in print in this prickly environment unless you very obviously flag it.

Understandable. We can't hear people's tone of voice through text, and even if it SHOULD be obvious, it's been proven people will say some genuinely hateful things without a hint of irony.

NemotheElvenPanda:
You're shocked to see liberalism so pronounced on an international video game site? No offense, but really? With the media becoming gradually more open to thinks like same-sex relationships, I don't think companies like Bethesda would like to rub shoulders with FOX. Of course, such things are social and not economic issues which is another monster entirely, but I don't think you'll find many anti-capitalists here. Socialists maybe, but you can *in theory* have your cake and eat it too if that's the case. I think most people on Escapist want a capitalist system with some restrictions to prevent worker abuse and pollution, which really isn't a capitalist killer. These are of course sweeping generalizations, but so is the very subject of this thread.

What this guy said. In my personal experiance, the majority of people fall into this 'Capitalism with humane regulation' camp. The extremes of that vary, (we do have some classical republicans who support human rights and ethics on this site, after all) but most people I've talked to fit somewhere in that category. And we're also international, and a butt-ton of us have gay friends, friends of different race, religion etc.

If I close my eyes and go 'lalala' and act like Xbox Live is a myth, Gamer's start to look very open-minded in general.

I like that you note acceptance as social and rights issues. I wish the federal government would. :(

Vivi22:

Is your argument really that because the poor use more social services it will balance out in the end? Because I'm not sure they'd feel the same about having less money for their monthly essentials, and I'm also not sure how you intend to pay for expanded social programs when the people paying the most in taxes now are paying less with a flat tax.

The sad thing is that over the years, I've found so many people either the same age as me at the time or very much older who would probably say "YES! This is fair!" and not think anything more of it. And whilst I did allude to potential problems such as lack of funding to provide state services in my previous post, I feel that Hop-Along Nussbaum* is saying that those who are earning a decent wage (e.g. 50k+/(US)$80k+) would have to pay their own way and those earning a less than optimum wage would receive assistance.

To give a practical real world example, further education colleges will provide tuition for free if you're on state benefits or earning exactly or less than 15,999pa - with only an occasional low administration fee (usually 10) and that's only for the issuing of a pass. And that can normally be paid in instalments. Now if a person was earning 16,000pa or above - and taking into account the amount they earn - they'll either pay a reduced figure through receiving funding from the college itself or the full amount (again, with the ability to pay in instalments).

Now that's not saying Hop-Along Nussbaum's idea is flawless - it isn't - and as you've noted, I've already pointed out that it is unfair from the get-go. I know from experience, that if I'm just taking home 200 a week then, after all living costs are taken out, I'm lucky to have 40 for myself (or as I would put it, what I bent over backwards for *ba-dumph-TISH!*). But could his plan work? Handled properly, it might. Given the typical conservative elected representatives though, the chances drop dramatically.

* = You quoted my username in full, so I felt it only proper to return the compliment. :)

Xanthious:

Fella, two of those links are sites directly related to the terrorist organization known as Greenpeace

I don't have a great deal of respect for Greenpeace at all (not least because they are frequently full of shit), but calling them a terrorist organisation is intellectually bankrupt. They very clearly do not systematically use violence to induce fear as a means of forcing policy change.

They do occasionally use various forms of mild violence against property as a statement to highlight problems. No-one can pretend these actions instill fear in society. The term used for such low-level behaviour is "direct action", and frequently considered a viable form of citizen protest. Given that all Western countries are pretty hot on banning terrorist groups and allow Greenpeace to freely operate, this should be a fairly good sign it is not a terrorist group.

NemotheElvenPanda:
You're shocked to see liberalism so pronounced on an international video game site? No offense, but really? With the media becoming gradually more open to things like same-sex relationships, I don't think companies like Bethesda would like to rub shoulders with FOX. Of course, such things are social and not economic issues which is another monster entirely, but I don't think you'll find many anti-capitalists here. Socialists maybe, but you can *in theory* have your cake and eat it too if that's the case. I think most people on Escapist want a capitalist system with some restrictions to prevent worker abuse and pollution, which really isn't a capitalist killer. These are of course sweeping generalizations, but so is the very subject of this thread.

Eeeeeh. I'm conservative, but for the matter of same-sex relationships...I don't see the problem with them. Homosexuality is a natural thing exhibited by other animals like Giraffes, Swans, Hyenas, etc (Of course, gang rape, prostitution, and substance abuse are all things that other animals exhibit as well. But don't take this statement to be me equating homosexuality with gang rape, because I'm not.)

I won't fight for same sex relationships being called marriage (Nor will I fight against them. Names are only used for clarification- regardless of what it's actually called, if people understand the meaning of the word used, then the specifics don't matter), but I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be afforded the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. (That's the big issue for me. There are legal benefits that come with marriage, like being able to visit your significant other in the hospital, and those definitely should not be withheld simply because you're in a homosexual relationship as opposed to a heterosexual one.)

Kopikatsu:

Eeeeeh. I'm conservative, but for the matter of same-sex relationships...I don't see the problem with them.

I won't fight for same sex relationships being called marriage (Nor will I fight against them. Names are only used for clarification- regardless of what it's actually called, if people understand the meaning of the word used, then the specifics don't matter), but I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be afforded the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. (That's the big issue for me. There are legal benefits that come with marriage, like being able to visit your significant other in the hospital, and those definitely should not be withheld simply because you're in a homosexual relationship as opposed to a heterosexual one.)

This. im sick and tired of automatically being labeled a homophobe because I self identify (or my arguments out me as) a modern day American conservative. I am above all a classical liberal, championing individual freedom as the right of every human on the planet (meaning you do what you want and Ill keep my nose out of your business, but I expect you to extend the same courtesy to me.)

As for why there are so many socialists/leftists on this forum-a lot of the users are from Europe. The predominant political alignment of most Europeans (at least from an American perspective) is extreme left wing. Granted that also makes us American conservatives damn near look like Hitler to them (somehow, despite us wanting MORE freedoms for everyone, not less)

Brett Dumain:

Kopikatsu:

Eeeeeh. I'm conservative, but for the matter of same-sex relationships...I don't see the problem with them.

I won't fight for same sex relationships being called marriage (Nor will I fight against them. Names are only used for clarification- regardless of what it's actually called, if people understand the meaning of the word used, then the specifics don't matter), but I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be afforded the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. (That's the big issue for me. There are legal benefits that come with marriage, like being able to visit your significant other in the hospital, and those definitely should not be withheld simply because you're in a homosexual relationship as opposed to a heterosexual one.)

This. im sick and tired of automatically being labeled a homophobe because I self identify (or my arguments out me as) a modern day American conservative. I am above all a classical liberal, championing individual freedom as the right of every human on the planet (meaning you do what you want and Ill keep my nose out of your business, but I expect you to extend the same courtesy to me.)

As for why there are so many socialists/leftists on this forum-a lot of the users are from Europe. The predominant political alignment of most Europeans (at least from an American perspective) is extreme left wing. Granted that also makes us American conservatives damn near look like Hitler to them (somehow, despite us wanting MORE freedoms for everyone, not less)

I guess the problem is that American conservatives ideology, nomatter how you set it up. Leads to least freedom for the most people, whereas redestribution leads to the most freedom for the most people. Using social-capitalism a welfare state can be balanced with a working economy... Which should be what the world as a whole should strive for, maximum happyness for the most people possible. Not like its even gonna hurt the economy a whole lot more, less lowerclass more middleclass, more money gets spent on buying. Companies earn more.

The money will move, not disappear. And more money being in the hands of more people rather than more money being in the hands of less people can most only be seen as a positive. Its already like this in many places, and I must say. Being able to actually have a hobby alongside school and not being forced to take high interrest loans I could never pay off or work 3 jobs while taking an education.... is nice.

That being said, there are no socialists on this forum.. I've seen like one selfproclaimed socialist and he was more of a social-liberalist... what the heck is it with republicans and classifying everything to the left of classical liberalism as socialist.

Republicans vision of More Freedom:

Less rights for minority groups.
Less social mobility.
No minimum wage.
Increasing the ammount of taxes paid by the lowerclass in favor of decreasing taxes for the upperclass (Effects of flat-tax)
Favouring one religion over another.
And the list goes on---

Nikolaz72:

Brett Dumain:

Kopikatsu:

Eeeeeh. I'm conservative, but for the matter of same-sex relationships...I don't see the problem with them.

I won't fight for same sex relationships being called marriage (Nor will I fight against them. Names are only used for clarification- regardless of what it's actually called, if people understand the meaning of the word used, then the specifics don't matter), but I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be afforded the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. (That's the big issue for me. There are legal benefits that come with marriage, like being able to visit your significant other in the hospital, and those definitely should not be withheld simply because you're in a homosexual relationship as opposed to a heterosexual one.)

This. im sick and tired of automatically being labeled a homophobe because I self identify (or my arguments out me as) a modern day American conservative. I am above all a classical liberal, championing individual freedom as the right of every human on the planet (meaning you do what you want and Ill keep my nose out of your business, but I expect you to extend the same courtesy to me.)

As for why there are so many socialists/leftists on this forum-a lot of the users are from Europe. The predominant political alignment of most Europeans (at least from an American perspective) is extreme left wing. Granted that also makes us American conservatives damn near look like Hitler to them (somehow, despite us wanting MORE freedoms for everyone, not less)

I guess the problem is that American conservatives ideology, nomatter how you set it up. Leads to least freedom for the most people, whereas redestribution leads to the most freedom for the most people. Using social-capitalism a welfare state can be balanced with a working economy... Which should be what the world as a whole should strive for, maximum happyness for the most people possible. Not like its even gonna hurt the economy a whole lot more, less lowerclass more middleclass, more money gets spent on buying. Companies earn more.

The money will move, not disappear. And more money being in the hands of more people rather than more money being in the hands of less people can most only be seen as a positive. Its already like this in many places, and I must say. Being able to actually have a hobby alongside school and not being forced to take high interrest loans I could never pay off or work 3 jobs while taking an education.... is nice.

Youre confusing economics with social policy, but nice try anyway. Most American conservatives want to see as many rich people as there can be, because they LIKE IT when people are well off. Might seem strange, but most of them are not idiots: they know that the more money people have, the better off most of us are. The problem a lot of them have (and I include myself in this) is the seemingly permissive attitude towards those who refuse to take any responsibility for themselves or their position in life. I personally can understand someone who has fallen on hard times needing a hand up, and I will gladly help that person to the best of my ability. I take special issue, however, with someone demanding I help them simply because they are entitled to (insert name of entitlement here.) See the difference? Though again that doesnt touch much on social policy, but I can save that for a later time I think ^>^

Brett Dumain:

Nikolaz72:

Brett Dumain:

This. im sick and tired of automatically being labeled a homophobe because I self identify (or my arguments out me as) a modern day American conservative. I am above all a classical liberal, championing individual freedom as the right of every human on the planet (meaning you do what you want and Ill keep my nose out of your business, but I expect you to extend the same courtesy to me.)

As for why there are so many socialists/leftists on this forum-a lot of the users are from Europe. The predominant political alignment of most Europeans (at least from an American perspective) is extreme left wing. Granted that also makes us American conservatives damn near look like Hitler to them (somehow, despite us wanting MORE freedoms for everyone, not less)

I guess the problem is that American conservatives ideology, nomatter how you set it up. Leads to least freedom for the most people, whereas redestribution leads to the most freedom for the most people. Using social-capitalism a welfare state can be balanced with a working economy... Which should be what the world as a whole should strive for, maximum happyness for the most people possible. Not like its even gonna hurt the economy a whole lot more, less lowerclass more middleclass, more money gets spent on buying. Companies earn more.

The money will move, not disappear. And more money being in the hands of more people rather than more money being in the hands of less people can most only be seen as a positive. Its already like this in many places, and I must say. Being able to actually have a hobby alongside school and not being forced to take high interrest loans I could never pay off or work 3 jobs while taking an education.... is nice.

Youre confusing economics with social policy, but nice try anyway. Most American conservatives want to see as many rich people as there can be, because they LIKE IT when people are well off. Might seem strange, but most of them are not idiots: they know that the more money people have, the better off most of us are. The problem a lot of them have (and I include myself in this) is the seemingly permissive attitude towards those who refuse to take any responsibility for themselves or their position in life. I personally can understand someone who has fallen on hard times needing a hand up, and I will gladly help that person to the best of my ability. I take special issue, however, with someone demanding I help them simply because they are entitled to (insert name of entitlement here.) See the difference? Though again that doesnt touch much on social policy, but I can save that for a later time I think ^>^

No need to be condescending, i pointed out how decreasing social mobility and dividing the gap between classes is harmful to universal freedom.

I have no trouble taxing someone who earns 10million 90%... Nobody should earn that much in the first place. I see how you can use 200.000, nice home. Something to push back into the business if you so wish, a good ammount to spend on luxurygoods. Anything above is too much and should be taxed accordingly.

I see people who are abselutely useless at what they do reap the rewards, Nintendo CEO (Who didnt have nearly those wages) takes wagecuts to keep some employees onboard, then we have the guy with the golden parachute who fires 6000 takes a golden handshake of 20mil and gets hailed a hero.

Despite what you might think, I dont hate rich people. I hate assholes.

And if possible I certainly wouldnt mind an asshole tax. And said asshole tax going to a fund for the people the asshole ruined the lives of.

Course that isnt possible. But if it was I'd be happy, as for your comment about people who mooch. You do know how I've gone on about my countries welfare system? We have this discussion quite often over the radio... You realize that we dont have a whole lot of those dont you?

No need to be condescending, i pointed out how decreasing social mobility and dividing the gap between classes is harmful to universal freedom.

I have no trouble taxing someone who earns 10million 90%... Nobody should earn that much in the first place. I see how you can use 200.000, nice home. Something to push back into the business if you so wish, a good ammount to spend on luxurygoods. Anything above is too much and should be taxed accordingly.

i see people who are abselutely useless at what they do reap the rewards, nintendo CEO takes wagecuts to keep some employees onboard, then we have the guy with the golden parachute who fires 6000 takes a golden handshake of 20mil and gets hailed a hero.[/quote]
I wasnt being condescending I was pointing out what most conservatives believe as opposed to what most people think they believe.

As for how much someone makes, who are you to determine that "x" is too much? What special qualifications do you possess to make that kind of determination? A better question: why do you want to live in a society where the person paying 90% of their income....might be you?

Brett Dumain:

I wasnt being condescending I was pointing out what most conservatives believe as opposed to what most people think they believe.

As for how much someone makes, who are you to determine that "x" is too much? What special qualifications do you possess to make that kind of determination? A better question: why do you want to live in a society where the person paying 90% of their income....might be you?

I do not possess the qualifications to make that assessment, however others do. People I agree with more than the guy who fires 6000 to increase his own wages and leave with a huge bag of money and a couple of friends clapping him on the back telling him how awesome he did.

As for the second question, lemme answer that with another question.

Why would you like to live in a soceity where a few people hog the quite limitted resources on the planet, more than they could ever use for themselves. While a whole lot of other people, whom arent even lazy but were denied the possibility of ever earning said ammount, or were maybe even fired by this guy. Has to starve/live on low goverment support?

And you cant tiddelywank around that issue, that is the soceity the conservatives strives for. This is what their ideology, their policies. Lead to. One that is even worse than we have now, and the one we have now. As stated with my examples above, is already pretty bad.

Private sector has proven itself unable to behave properly without being watched. As such they have to be regulated inorder to work.

90% was a manner of speech, I meant that people whom ruin the lives of others, although not punishable by law should get punished SOMEHOW. I thought punishing them by making them pay wages for the people they tried to ruin the lives of while they find a new job was suitable.

Since I told you to stop sidestepping my issues I will try to answer yours as honestly as I can...

(This is an exaggeration as this subject is personal to me and it makes me angry thinking about it, it is not directed at you but it might answer your question) Im not a greedy assfuck who would ruin the lives of thousands of people inorder to build a sandcastle out of dollarbills and recieve a parachute made out of gold to then retire wealthy as a man who literally ruined the business he left behind leaving a huge load of people unemployed.

I actually feel that I owe something to the goverment that gave me a chance and will happily pay my fair share in the future inorder for others in the future like me who will also need a helping hand. And I will ignore those whom deem that the two or three examples on radio is enough to mark the entire system as useless.

I do not possess the qualifications to make that assessment, however others do. People I agree with more than the guy who fires 6000 to increase his own wages and leave with a huge bag of money and a couple of friends clapping him on the back telling him how awesome he did.

As for the second question, lemme answer that with another question.

Why would you like to live in a soceity where a few people hog the quite limitted resources on the planet, more than they could ever use for themselves. While a whole lot of other people, whom arent even lazy but were denied the possibility of ever earning said ammount, or were maybe even fired by this guy. Has to starve/live on low goverment support?

And you cant tiddelywank around that issue, that is the soceity the conservatives strives for. This is what their ideology, their policies. Lead to. One that is even worse than we have now, and the one we have now. As stated with my examples above, is already pretty bad.

Private sector has proven itself unable to behave properly without being watched. As such they have to be regulated inorder to work.

Since I told you to stop sidestepping my issues I will try to answer yours as honestly as I can...

(This is an exaggeration as this subject is personal to me and it makes me angry thinking about it, it is not directed at you but it might answer your question) Im not a greedy assfuck who would ruin the lives of thousands of people inorder to build a sandcastle out of dollarbills and recieve a parachute made out of gold to then retire wealthy as a man who literally ruined the business he left behind leaving a huge load of people unemployed.[/quote]So your argument basically boils down to, and I hope Im not oversimpliying, "I dont like people who are mean, so Im gonna make teacher make him not be mean, despite the fact he is perfectly entitled to do so"? Life isnt fair. Wishing it were will not make it so. And trying to make it fair for everybody will just make it so you switch places, and now youre the one on top and everyone else is on the bottom. Which might be fine for you, but you dont seem like that kind of guy.

Since youve asked me to be straightforward, quite honestly, that world you posit would suck, provided I wasnt one of the few who had the resources. I however reject that your bleak portrait of the world is one we actually live in. We live in a society (I assume-if you arent american ignore this) that cherishes freedom, and implicit in that is the freedom to be an asshole. I know it sucks, and yes I do wish there was a better way, and if you can find it without having to limit people's freedoms I would support you wholeheartedly. But I find it just as abhorrent to treat people worse for having more money as I do treating them better because of it.

Brett Dumain:

Since youve asked me to be straightforward, quite honestly, that world you posit would suck, provided I wasnt one of the few who had the resources. I however reject that your bleak portrait of the world is one we actually live in. We live in a society (I assume-if you arent american ignore this) that cherishes freedom, and implicit in that is the freedom to be an asshole. I know it sucks, and yes I do wish there was a better way, and if you can find it without having to limit people's freedoms I would support you wholeheartedly. But I find it just as abhorrent to treat people worse for having more money as I do treating them better because of it.

Obviously that isnt exactly what I meant, but it is along the lines of it. I prefer a soceity where rich people dont earn ungodly sums in the first place (They dont in the country I live in, in my country the wealth is spread out over a huge middleclass and despite the country having less wealth than the US, each citizen is averagely richer)

That is the soceity I'd want. The one where nobody is superrich, but nobody is poor either. And aye, that probably takes away the freedom to be superrich. But personally, living in a country which currently is like that... I dont mind it, the rich who live here dont mind it. And I dont really see how anyone else would mind it.

Lets take some Freedoms in America I personally dont agree that people should have.

The Freedom to openly lie to people on the news - Fox News won in court when someone called them out for lying. They now have the right to lie, on the news. For all time. Because its the viewers choice to do the watching and believing in it. And they could just watch something else if they didnt wanna watch lies. Again, in my country its against the law to do false advertisement, lying on news is covered by that.

The Freedom to bribe politicians. You frequent this forum, I dont really need to inform you of how the American system works. I find it distasteful that you can pay politicians to do what you want..... IN my country thats illegal.

The Freedom to cheat people. Youknow what I would hate? Living in a country where I would have to buy an insurance to have my health covered. You know what I would hate even more? To be told when I am entitled to use said insurance to pay for a treatment that -- because of this and this one line somewhere that I missed I am not entitled to have my treatment paid for.

And woah has this happened a lot in the past, maybe not a whole lot now that Obama has made some reforms making that illegal. But a whole lot of reps were against that reform, so youknow.. I sorta lob you in with those guys (Even if thats a little unfair for now you are the devils advocate)

Then, there is the freedom to intrude on others funeral to berate the dead. In my country that is also sort of illega, but I guess that is because we have a state-church (Despite being a secular country.. One of the things im against but in this case I make an exception) and the area around it is a place where you cant be unless you have business there.

The Freedom to shoot people for walking onto your property..

The Freedom to sue people to oblivion for something minor (I spilt coffee on myself, it was hot. Better sue Mcdonalds so I can earn lots of money) like a missing 'this drink is warm' mark.

Anyway, the list goes on. I guess we are opposites at that point, I honestly dont mind a whole lot theese freedoms being taken away. People cannot be trusted to act responsibly around them.

There are certain other things I would always want to defend though, like Freedom of Speech and the right to own Property that the state cant just take away and stuff like that...

But I also support the right to live, the right to have food and a roof over your head, and the right to have an education.

Certain things that. Apparently, a lot of republicans wants to take away.. Its just.. Well.. Nghh.. *sigh*

Nikolaz72:
Youknow what I would hate? Living in a country where I would have to buy an insurance to have my health covered. You know what I would hate even more? To be told when I am entitled to use said insurance to pay for a treatment that -- because of this and this one line somewhere that I missed I am not entitled to have my treatment paid for.

And who should pay for your health coverage? Who should be paying the doctors? Who should be paying the scientists to do the research on life saving drugs? You see, what liberals fail to realize when talking about healthcare is that it costs money. Doctors don't work for free. Medicine isn't cheap. You are not entitled to free healthcare for simply existing. Insurance companies can't survive by paying out more than they take in. The money has to come from somewhere and it's not up to other people to pick up the tab for you or anyone else.

Nikolaz72:
But I also support the right to live, the right to have food and a roof over your head, and the right to have an education.

Again, who's paying for all this if you can't? The Left expects everyone else to pick up the tab for those who can't because god knows it's to each according to their need and from each according to their ability to give. You have no right to education. You have no right to food or a roof. All those things cost money and, again, it's not up to others to pick up the tab for the lower class.

So yeah, while you have a right to live you don't have a right to live off the hard work and success of others. The right isn't trying to intrude on your right to live and make your own way. However, being able to make your own way means you might fail. It's not up to those who succeed to support everyone else who doesn't.

Ack, Double Post!

Xanthious:

Nikolaz72:
Youknow what I would hate? Living in a country where I would have to buy an insurance to have my health covered. You know what I would hate even more? To be told when I am entitled to use said insurance to pay for a treatment that -- because of this and this one line somewhere that I missed I am not entitled to have my treatment paid for.

And who should pay for your health coverage? Who's should be paying the doctors? Who should be paying the scientists to do the research on life saving drugs? You see, what liberals fail to realize when talking about healthcare is that it costs money. Doctors don't work for free. Medicine isn't cheap. You are not entitled to free healthcare for simply existing. Insurance companies can't survive by paying out more than they take in. The money has to come from somewhere and it's not up to other people to pick up the tab for you or anyone else.

Nikolaz72:
But I also support the right to live, the right to have food and a roof over your head, and the right to have an education.

Again, who's paying for all this if you can't? The Left expects everyone else to pick up the tab for those who can't because god knows it's to each according to their need and from each according to their ability to give. You have no right to education. You have no right to food or a roof. All those things cost money and, again, it's not up to others to pick up the tab for the lower class.

So yeah, while you have a right to live you don't have a right to live off the hard work and success of others. The right isn't trying to intrude on your right to live and make your own way. However, being able to make your own way means you might fail. It's not up to those who succeed to support everyone else who doesn't.

The point, look at the point *Points* damnit you missed it. Right over your head too. If you read my post next time instead of just mindlessly replying from reading the last sentence, you might see it next time. Dont worry, you will have plenty chances of seeing points in the future.

By the way, everyone is entitled to their opinion but... Yours is wrong. ; ). (Pinktext?)

There is a right to have a chance, and a life aint enough for that. And I know that it really grinds your gears that there are countries in existance which puts this into practise. But I guess you will just have to live with that mate.

Unless you commit suicide, but then your money would get taxed on inheritance to whomever inherited it, and that would go to pay for public schools.. So I guess you are screwed either way. Sorry.

Xanthious:
Fella, two of those links are sites directly related to the terrorist organization known as Greenpeace and the other may as well be as it's towing the same line that the environmental extremists like Greenpeace and The Sierra Club like to tow. These are both organizations with a radical agenda and in Greenpeace's case a history of violent terrorist activities. The only thing that Google led you too was extreme leftist propaganda meant to further an agenda rather than represent reality.

Even assuming you're correct about Greenpeace being a radical terrorist organization (which Agema has quite effectively argued they aren't given that today's anti-terrorism climate wouldn't allow them to continue to exist in the western world were it true), you offered no rebuttal for their third link which isn't associated with them. I can only assume you don't have one if you didn't mention it.

And what do you have to say about the fact that the organization who's study and website you linked to and quoted earlier is funded by people in the oil industry? What do you have to say to the rebuttals offered by CaptainOctopus regarding that groups assumptions. As usual all I'm seeing from you here is picking the low hanging fruit and acting like it proves your point, despite the fact that the only evidence you've offered is just as, if not more questionable than information from Greenpeace. Are you going to at least attempt to defend your argument?

Xanthious:
The money has to come from somewhere and it's not up to other people to pick up the tab for you or anyone else.

So those who have money and means should be allowed to simply stand by while those who can't afford healthcare suffer from treatable conditions or die of preventable causes? How is this even remotely moral or ethical?

So yeah, while you have a right to live you don't have a right to live off the hard work and success of others. The right isn't trying to intrude on your right to live and make your own way. However, being able to make your own way means you might fail. It's not up to those who succeed to support everyone else who doesn't.

Why is it that whenever you explain your view of the world it can so easily be distilled down to "if you fail, too bad, I'm too selfish to help you and you can feel free to die in the streets"?

I mean, this is what it boils down to. You're unwilling to live a slightly less affluent, but still very comfortable life, to help others get a leg up so they can provide for themselves, or provide necessary healthcare or other support to those who can't afford it so that they don't suffer and/or die needlessly.

Look, I'm honestly trying to see your side here, but it always seems to boil down to you being selfish and having no compassion for, nor valuing the lives and welfare of other human beings. Which is a rather frightening bit of cognitive dissonance on your part considering you yourself have admitted that a friend of yours was willing to give you a place to live and help you get your life sorted out when you were at your lowest point. But for some reason, you don't think other people are deserving of the same opportunity?

And here's one last point I want to make because it cuts to the heart of an issue I have with the economic policies of the right. There seems to be some assumption that government should be run like a business, that money should only be put to things which turn a profit, or attain some easily measurable goal. But government isn't a business and shouldn't be run as though it is. It's primary goal is safeguarding the lives and well being of it's citizens, as well as maintaining their rights and freedoms and providing an environment where they can themselves be successful. Making you pay slightly more in taxes does not materially impact the latter, and if the government isn't meeting the needs of the people on the former, they are fully justified in raising taxes however they see fit to provide the services necessary to meet those needs. You seem to struggle to understand both the role of government, and it's powers of taxation, which is why your ideology, and most of your arguments in favour of it, are inherently flawed. Even if we ignore the simple moral and ethical implications of what you propose, which are utterly frightening in their own right.

Vivi22:
Look, I'm honestly trying to see your side here, but it always seems to boil down to you being selfish and having no compassion for, nor valuing the lives and welfare of other human beings. Which is a rather frightening bit of cognitive dissonance on your part considering you yourself have admitted that a friend of yours was willing to give you a place to live and help you get your life sorted out when you were at your lowest point. But for some reason, you don't think other people are deserving of the same opportunity?

You are confusing private charity given willingly versus a government welfare state forcibly financed by punishing the success of others. There's a big difference between someone choosing to help a personal friend and the government taxing successful citizens into the ground in the name of helping the poor.

I've never said I oppose people getting charity. There are many great charitable organizations out there that do great work. I think it's great if people want to support those charities that help the less fortunate. However, I don't think people should be forced into helping others.

Before LBJ introduced the welfare state debacle we know as The Great Society people down on their luck primarily relied on private charities and fraternal organizations when they found themselves down on their luck. They were given aid until they were able to get back on their feet but that help was certainly finite.

Today the government will support people indefinitely at the expense of others and a lot of times they have little incentive to pull themselves up. Why should someone take a minimum wage job at McDonald's when they can have a higher standard of living unemployed off welfare, foodstamps etc? There's no incentive.

Frission:

GunsmithKitten:

thaluikhain:

I've never been harassed for being a minority, I don't see what the minorities are complaining about.

Want some examples?

Pink is the new sarcasm font. Just saying.

[Color=magenta]Wait, WHAT? Why would you claim such a thing? Are you saying Homosexuals are always sarcastic? Why do the Gay-color get mixed up with Sarcasm?
This is exactly what I am talking about! Conservatives trying to pigeonhole those that do now their their views![/color]

(And the color is Magenta)

Frission:

GunsmithKitten:

thaluikhain:

I've never been harassed for being a minority, I don't see what the minorities are complaining about.

Want some examples?

Pink is the new sarcasm font. Just saying.

[Color=magenta]Wait, WHAT? Why would you claim such a thing? Are you saying Homosexuals are always sarcastic? Why do the Gay-color get mixed up with Sarcasm?
This is exactly what I am talking about! Conservatives trying to pigeonhole those that do now their their views![/color]

(And the color is Magenta)

Frission:

GunsmithKitten:

thaluikhain:

I've never been harassed for being a minority, I don't see what the minorities are complaining about.

Want some examples?

Pink is the new sarcasm font. Just saying.

'

Wait, WHAT? Why would you claim such a thing? Are you saying Homosexuals are always sarcastic? Why do the Gay-color get mixed up with Sarcasm?
This is exactly what I am talking about! Conservatives trying to pigeonhole those that do now their their views!

(And the color is Magenta)

Bloody hell, why are my posts being delayed!?!?!? Ignore this, another double post it seems. . . .

Overusedname:
I suspected that, simply because no one suddenly uses a different font for no reason on the internets. I've never seen that anywhere else though. When you say new, is this like BRAND new web culture shenanigans?

Although seemingly independantly invented here, I've also seen it developed (and forgotten) some time ago on another forum (about the Australian satirical comedy group the Chasers, as it happens). They had all sorts of colours meaning all sorts of things, but sarcasm was still pink (though not magenta, as here).

Xanthious:
You are confusing private charity given willingly versus a government welfare state forcibly financed by punishing the success of others. There's a big difference between someone choosing to help a personal friend and the government taxing successful citizens into the ground in the name of helping the poor.

Except that private charity can't handle the load that would be placed on it if the government didn't step in to fill the gap. So if the government cut all social programs, things would be substantially worse for the general population than they are now.

Also, just stop with the hyperbole about "taxing successful citizens into the ground." It doesn't happen. The wealthy in your country pay lower taxes than they have in decades and control more capital and wealth than ever. The idea that the tax burden is some crippling thing preventing them from maintaining their wealth is a lie, so quit using it as an argument.

However, I don't think people should be forced into helping others.

They're not. Government is helping others, they're simply being taxed to pay for it. And if you don't think they should be taxed to provide necessary services such as food stamps so people don't starve to death, how do you justify taxing them to build roads, traffic signals, maintain the justice system, etc.? Surely if it's wrong to tax people to help others then we should be forcing people to build their own roads, maintain their own private security, etc.? Except I don't think any sane person would try and argue that having a government funded, impartial justice system isn't in the best interests of everyone. Just like the people who aren't starving in the streets aren't the only ones who benefit from living in a country that doesn't let people starve to death in the streets.

Today the government will support people indefinitely at the expense of others and a lot of times they have little incentive to pull themselves up. Why should someone take a minimum wage job at McDonald's when they can have a higher standard of living unemployed off welfare, foodstamps etc? There's no incentive.

First, provide evidence that this statement is true. Second, prove that people who are unemployed don't take low paying jobs to get off welfare. There are more incentives at play in a person's life than solely financial ones. Most people want something better than just scraping by on welfare, and understand that working is the only way to get it. You make a lot of statements about how things are but never offer any evidence.

I'd also like to reiterate my previous questions regarding the link you provided earlier in the thread. It's validity has been called into question by myself and others but you refuse to address this and try to defend your argument. Either come up with a defense of that argument, or admit that you don't have one and can't demonstrate that the potential to run out of oil in the next few decades isn't very real. If you choose to ignore this again, I will simply assume that you don't have a defense for that argument and move on maintaining the belief that you are wrong and are simply avoiding the issue so you don't have to admit it.

Kopikatsu:

NemotheElvenPanda:
You're shocked to see liberalism so pronounced on an international video game site? No offense, but really? With the media becoming gradually more open to things like same-sex relationships, I don't think companies like Bethesda would like to rub shoulders with FOX. Of course, such things are social and not economic issues which is another monster entirely, but I don't think you'll find many anti-capitalists here. Socialists maybe, but you can *in theory* have your cake and eat it too if that's the case. I think most people on Escapist want a capitalist system with some restrictions to prevent worker abuse and pollution, which really isn't a capitalist killer. These are of course sweeping generalizations, but so is the very subject of this thread.

Eeeeeh. I'm conservative, but for the matter of same-sex relationships...I don't see the problem with them. Homosexuality is a natural thing exhibited by other animals like Giraffes, Swans, Hyenas, etc (Of course, gang rape, prostitution, and substance abuse are all things that other animals exhibit as well. But don't take this statement to be me equating homosexuality with gang rape, because I'm not.)

I won't fight for same sex relationships being called marriage (Nor will I fight against them. Names are only used for clarification- regardless of what it's actually called, if people understand the meaning of the word used, then the specifics don't matter), but I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be afforded the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. (That's the big issue for me. There are legal benefits that come with marriage, like being able to visit your significant other in the hospital, and those definitely should not be withheld simply because you're in a homosexual relationship as opposed to a heterosexual one.)

I agree completely. Just because one is conservative doesn't make them bigoted or short-sighted. The whole political spectrum in America overall has shifted to be more inclusive for such things. However, when the most prolific -or more than likely, loudest- conservatives blatantly scream their disgust for homosexuality and try to limit human rights in law, people are going to raise their eyebrows.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked