POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[beachbum111111]

This is such a bullstuff argument so I'm not gonna bother addressing it anymore

Now you know what everyone else thinks of the stuff you spew

[Ad Bot]

[Juncoph]

This is such a bullstuff argument so I'm not gonna bother addressing it anymore

how to win arguments, by LeisureSuit912:

step 1: say something handicapped

step 2: have person say counterargument

step 3: call counterargument bullstuff; dodge actually defending your argument

[DrenDran]

I don't get you DrenDran. You're clearly an incredibly intelligent person, but you buy into all this weird neo-fascist stuff that even the right-wingers on the forum don't get. What's the deal?

To be fair some of the more extreme stuff is stuffposting.

But to summarize my opinion on government:

You know how governments these days provide for peoples needs like food, shelter, and safety?
Well I think they should also provide for other needs such as a need for identity, heritage, spirituality and pride.
The problem of course, is that some people do not desire these things, or desire them in contradictory ways. 
This means a prerequisite to providing these things is establishing a society where people can agree on the basics of what they identify with.
I have literally no idea how one would go about it and I do not claim to have any answers, but I do know that a greater purpose (e.g. religion without the super-natural elements) and the ability to know the person next to you has a similar outlook to you are very desirable things.

[Master Matthew²]

This is such a bullstuff argument so I'm not gonna bother addressing it anymore

Translation: I can't argue against this because it's true, so I'm going to make it sound like bullstuff by saying its bullstuff and hope it works.

Spoiler: [spoiler]It Backfires[/spoiler]

[SeventhSandwich]

the way we fix that is through the acquisition and utilization of better information as well as better judgement

And have we trended towards doing that? We still kill stuffloads of civilians, and our government is filled with people who are probably less-concerned than ever with civilian causalities.

not through doing nothing and taking it up the ass for five years

Ending US-intervention does not mean 'doing nothing'. The best hope for a better Iraq/Syria is to aid the people living in that region, on the ground, who are fighting the lion's share of the Civil War. The Republic of Iraq and the Peshmerga are the ones who are going to push out ISIL, not our drone strikes. We can still supply them with training, military equipment, and intelligence.

This means a prerequisite to providing these things is establishing a society where people can agree on the basics of what they identify with.

What do you do when society already exists and there's no single set of identity/heritage that covers all bases?

[IkeTheGeneric]

How can you talk all this reactionary bullstuff and still support the bombing of innocent civilians in the Middle East

I support the IRA

[DrenDran]

What do you do when society already exists and there's no single set of identity/heritage that covers all bases?

That's what I said. I have no idea how to put any of my desires into practice.
Even just half a century ago things were a bit easier for the west: nations tended to be ethnically, religiously, linguistically, and culturally homogeneous compared to now.
You could put a measure into practice that appealed to the majority's sentiments and even if it marginalized a small segment of the population, it would still work as intended.
Now we live in a world where the alt-right lives next to communists and radical Christians live next to secular Muslims. The fact that this has led to only a small amount of (in my opinion, rather superficial) qualities like loveuality and hair-color being allowed as sources of 'pride' is rather stressful for me.

We managed to get to the moon, for example, by convincing the nation they were an in-group and as an in-group needed to oppose the Soviet Union which acted as an out-group. We exploited people's in-group/out-group mentality to do wondrous things. But when overt nationalism, racial pride, religious extremism and the like are utterly taboo this only leaves us with things like who we voted for or what loveuality we identify as to be used as the in-group. We'll never be able to exploit people's loveuality or hair color to colonize the solar system.

[LeisureSuit912]

Constantly debating reactionaries who live in a fantasy is getting tiring anyways

[Juncoph]

Constantly debating reactionaries who live in a fantasy is getting tiring anyways

(CONTINUES TO NOT REFUTE ARGUMENTS)

That's what I said. I have no idea how to put any of my desires into practice.
Even just half a century ago things were a bit easier for the west: nations tended to be ethnically, religiously, linguistically, and culturally homogeneous compared to now.
You could put a measure into practice that appealed to the majority's sentiments and even if it marginalized a small segment of the population, it would still work as intended.
Now we live in a world where the alt-right lives next to communists and radical Christians live next to secular Muslims. The fact that this has led to only a small amount of (in my opinion, rather superficial) qualities like loveuality and hair-color being allowed as sources of 'pride' is rather stressful for me.

We managed to get to the moon, for example, by convincing the nation they were an in-group and as an in-group needed to oppose the Soviet Union which acted as an out-group. We exploited people's in-group/out-group mentality to do wondrous things. But when overt nationalism, racial pride, religious extremism and the like are utterly taboo this only leaves us with things like who we voted for or what loveuality we identify as to be used as the in-group. We'll never be able to exploit people's loveuality or hair color to colonize the solar system.

im waiting for the gay mars colony

[IkeTheGeneric]

Constantly debating reactionaries who live in a fantasy is getting tiring anyways

Nobody values your terrorist sympathizing opinions anyways

[SeventhSandwich]

Even just half a century ago things were a bit easier for the west: nations tended to be ethnically, religiously, linguistically, and culturally homogeneous compared to now.
You could put a measure into practice that appealed to the majority's sentiments and even if it marginalized a small segment of the population, it would still work as intended.
Now we live in a world where the alt-right lives next to communists and radical Christians live next to secular Muslims. The fact that this has led to only a small amount of (in my opinion, rather superficial) qualities like loveuality and hair-color being allowed as sources of 'pride' is rather stressful for me.

It's true that society used to be more homogeneous, and I can agree that certain things are made simpler when people look around and agree with everyone else that they see. But becoming a more international world has provably resulted in, or at least correlated with, a world that is more peaceful, a world with less global poverty, and a world of people that live longer.

I think that humans do instinctively search out for an in-group and an out-group, but the difference is that the 'in-group' is becoming more of a general picture of humanity rather than just a single nation or continent. And there's a good argument that the world has become better from it.

[OrangeMan²]

It's true that society used to be more homogeneous, and I can agree that certain things are made simpler when people look around and agree with everyone else that they see. But becoming a more international world has provably resulted in, or at least correlated with, a world that is more peaceful, a world with less global poverty, and a world of people that live longer.

I think that humans do instinctively search out for an in-group and an out-group, but the difference is that the 'in-group' is becoming more of a general picture of humanity rather than just a single nation or continent. And there's a good argument that the world has become better from it.

the only reason the world is more peaceful is nukes and politicians like henry kissinger who kept filthy muslims and commies from conglomerating. without america there'd be another war everyday. also only sheltered liberals are humanists.

[SeventhSandwich]

the only reason the world is more peaceful is nukes

Weird, so by that logic we should cut our sanctions and let North Korea develop nukes, since according to the Nuclear Peace Theory, they'll never declare war on us?

[DrenDran]

Weird, so by that logic we should cut our sanctions and let North Korea develop nukes, since according to the Nuclear Peace Theory, they'll never declare war on us?

I mean I do doubt he'd use them against us unless attacked.
The reason we don't want NK to get nukes is precisely because they could prevent a war between us. While I'm not saying we should invade NK right now, the possibility needs to be kept open.

[Insert Name Here²]

Constantly debating reactionaries who live in a fantasy is getting tiring anyways

Then stop replying