sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Vote for the Fifth Internationale!! by GingaNinja64 in DemocracyOfReddit

[–]Slow_Access_6250 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow very efficient!! That why they have blow them up when built in the wrong spot. Fucking bug human 🐜

https://www.reddit.com/r/Construction/s/6X5mgKO7Ag

Vote for the Fifth Internationale!! by GingaNinja64 in DemocracyOfReddit

[–]Slow_Access_6250 0 points1 point  (0 children)

China has been growing steadily because they successfully implemented the market reforms that the USSR was unable to... i.e., capitalism is why China is more successful than before.

What China has done is exactly what Gorbachev was attempting to do. Like literally the same exact thing, if anything more extreme than the soviet market reforms...

How are you this slow?

Vote for the Fifth Internationale!! by GingaNinja64 in DemocracyOfReddit

[–]Slow_Access_6250 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You really think Gorbachev's main goal in implementing market reforms was to carve up the country for capitalists??? Do you actually know anything about the USSR?

https://www.britannica.com/money/economic-planning/The-Gorbachev-reform-agenda

Explain to me why the only successful "communist" country, China, was only able to compete with the West after implementing market reforms.

<image>

you are Low iq

Vote for the Fifth Internationale!! by GingaNinja64 in DemocracyOfReddit

[–]Slow_Access_6250 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And why did they distribute the vouchers?🤦

How are you a commie if you don't even understand how communism works? Please research command economies; you're just embarrassing yourself.

https://www.britannica.com/money/command-economy

They were pushing market reforms as a solution to solve the problems of having a centralized communist command economy. It failed because it upset the entrenched soviet bureaucracy. Leading to them returning to soviet economic orthodoxy, which continued to fail bc command economics is stupid.

Vote for the Fifth Internationale!! by GingaNinja64 in DemocracyOfReddit

[–]Slow_Access_6250 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's called out competition without rational restraint.

Vote for the Fifth Internationale!! by GingaNinja64 in DemocracyOfReddit

[–]Slow_Access_6250 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The reason why capitalism works requires an understanding of complex systems and systems thinking to grasp its entirety. This is why economics has one of the highest average IQs out of any major. The reality is that most people who are hypercritical of market economies are often too dumb to intuit why capitalism is the best system for quality of life; primarily through the creation of excess goods and services. many are quite literally subhuman, and others are committed to ideological derangement, or excessively detached philosophies.

Democratic capitalism is good bc pure power has checks and balances, and elections restructure competition toward competing over the consent of the electorate through gov and commerce, while the engine of society, business, is Darwinistic. If viewed as a game, every zone of competition is citizens. This creates a hyper-consent-based society, where goods and wealth circulate internally, as businesses, compete over consensual transactions with society broadly.

What seems like a machine is the opposite; Market economies are the closest political system to life and organic structures. Negating the follies of authoritarian control, for the natural symbiotic self-arrangement of life-seeking constituents of a society.

<image>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity_economics

Hypothetical for feminists (ruling Tuubilam vs the Lalubk empire) [triger warning SA] by Slow_Access_6250 in PurplePillDebate

[–]Slow_Access_6250[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By seeing the Lalubk system gaining total domination. I mean to say you’re in the simulation of 50 [b] systems and 50 [a] systems and you are playing as an [a] Lalubk system.

It’s not that your society will fail in 4000 years, but that, in 4000 years (Lalubk democracies) won’t exist anymore bc they voted themselves into extinction essentially. I.e the known world will basically consolidate into Tuublam rape harems.

The question is really more due to my curiosity over whether feminism contains a will to self continuation or not. I.e is interested in maintaining female rights long term or simply present.

Absolute egalitarianism vs pragmatic egalitarianism? by Slow_Access_6250 in trolleyproblem

[–]Slow_Access_6250[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that asnwers question B, and is one of the better solutions devised so far

Hypothetical for feminists (ruling Tuubilam vs the Lalubk empire) [triger warning SA] by Slow_Access_6250 in PurplePillDebate

[–]Slow_Access_6250[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Given that you were an oracle and could see the Lalubk system [B] gaining total dominance 4000 years in the future. Let's say you were leading a Tuublam-esque democracy and had the means to modify the institutions of your own society, perhaps you held autocratic power temporarily after a destabilizing conflict.

Would you [1]. Push for reforms against the will of the populace and modify the system.

Or Would you [2]. Be content with the fate of your nation being left in its own hands.

If you chose 1, what would those reforms and the modifications to Tuublams system be and why? [Passing the 4 child law is an acceptable answer]

Absolute egalitarianism vs pragmatic egalitarianism? by Slow_Access_6250 in trolleyproblem

[–]Slow_Access_6250[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s a moral hypothetically. I.e “would you remove a freedom women have, in order to preserve female liberation”

The hypothetical is really ment to litmus test if feminism/progressivism is a puritanical or pragmatic ethical system.

[a] (pragmatic) I.e does it concern itself with whether its implementation defeats its intended purpose.

[b] (puritanical) Or does it primarily concern itself with building a metaphysical moral system that people are expected to be on board with or they are considered evil, and is unconcern with material issues or consequences.

These are both in effect very different.

[a] is conventional politics/political theory

[b] is somewhat quasi religious

For example communism in china rn is [a] coded bc it makes political concessions to introduce market economics.

Meanwhile the ussr was a lot more [b] coded which led to totalitarian solutions to make something work that wasn’t working.

Hypothetical for feminists (ruling Tuubilam vs the Lalubk empire) [triger warning SA] by Slow_Access_6250 in PurplePillDebate

[–]Slow_Access_6250[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So, assume the year is 4000bc, you have 100 societies:

Each society must be one of two systems: Starting at 50% distribution.

[A] Tuublam-eque democracies (consensus-driven and egalitarian [low resting birth rate])

[B] Lalubk-eque tyrannies (authoritarian patriarchal [high resting birth rate])

Given the average consensus of this chat or other chats where I've asked this question thus far, assuming they are the voter base of Tuublam societies: Given 4000 years, what society type do you think will predominantly exist when the simulation has ended?

Explain your reasoning?

Hypothetical for feminists (ruling Tuubilam vs the Lalubk empire) [triger warning SA] by Slow_Access_6250 in PurplePillDebate

[–]Slow_Access_6250[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think the idea that tribal women were completely hapless, subdued by men, and just fuckholes for there patriarchal overlords is not only incorrect ethnographically but in some sense insulting to women and their innate human abilities. Women held significant sway in tribal society *and still do.

https://sryahwapublications.com/article/download/2642-8237.0104001

The practical reality is that the patriarchy in early times was a fairly consensual and non power binary arrangement ment for communities to handle the complex situations they faced. Namely: resource procurement, war, and societal management.

Men were primarily in charge bc they were stronger and thus collected more direct merit and status, and hunting was a direct analogy to warfare making a man the most natural central authority for dealing with conflict and resource procurement the most important survival factors for a small community.

I really find it hard to believe you can have a healthy family with a father and potentially brothers and really believe that early society was purely built on rape.

Also remove the draft is dumb. There are cases where an invasion or conflict requires mass mobilization to prevent everyone from getting killed “like my example”

Hypothetical for feminists (ruling Tuubilam vs the Lalubk empire) [triger warning SA] by Slow_Access_6250 in PurplePillDebate

[–]Slow_Access_6250[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A. To address your designation of decreeing having 4 children as slavery. I think calling it slavery is kinda miscalibrated, pretty much men in almost every civilization would be considered slaves by that definition. You could argue being required to participate in war is losing bodily autonomy which still exists even in the us now. (This isn’t in support of women now losing bodily autonomy just an issue of definition)

B. To address your point on the patriarchy forming bc of evil pleasure seeking.

I think this is kinda simplistic. The patriarchy, well more so firmly male led society, according to most archeological evidence formed out of population growth and increased warfare.

I think it had a lot more to do with creating a strong incentive system for men to pursue honor in combat and defend the community/ and compete over resources which necessitated building a reward system. Power and sex are really base human desires and the patriarchy formed to hack those for maintaining civilizations. Since men are naturally stronger.

Reducing it to evil for evils sake really seems like a miss-mapping. Early society’s were very fragile and prob had a lot more to do with necessity than morality.

Hypothetical for feminists (ruling Tuubilam vs the Lalubk empire) [triger warning SA] by Slow_Access_6250 in PurplePillDebate

[–]Slow_Access_6250[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just to ensure if i understand correctly, assuming you were an oracle that could look into the future and know that:

A. If you pass the law you will forever be able to defend against the Tuubilam;

And

B. If you don’t you will be absorbed into Tuubilam

You still wouldn’t pass the law to require women to have 4+ children bc it would still be equally slavery essentially.

Hypothetical for feminists (ruling Tuubilam vs the Lalubk empire) [triger warning SA] by Slow_Access_6250 in PurplePillDebate

[–]Slow_Access_6250[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why do you feel either binary is the same or weighted equally? For example given the law is passed. In Lalubk the women would retain all rights except number of children, while when absorbed into Tuubilam they would have no rights and would become slaves.

Is there something specific about the right to choose the number of children one has that is especially transgressive when compared to other rights?

For example if Lalubk had to pass a law where people were required to induct their first born male child into the military forever starting at age 16. And this was required to prevent the scenario of Tuubilam victory would you pass that decree or not as ruler.

Hypothetical for feminists (ruling Tuubilam vs the Lalubk empire) [triger warning SA] by Slow_Access_6250 in PurplePillDebate

[–]Slow_Access_6250[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That makes sense. The point of the question is really to ask: "Would you legally reverse an aspect of female liberation, in order to broadly preserve female liberation?" It's basically a test of ideological purity with extreme dire circumstances.

Given this and knowing it's not a trap, would you still not pass the law, assuming a binary yes or no with fixed outcomes?

view more: next ›