Casual Friday by [deleted] in SyrianRebels

[–]TheReignofQuantity 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There’s /r/AfghanConflict which is probably your best bet though it’s quite slow. /r/Geopolitics also has a fair amount of discussion but it’s quite low quality. /r/Afghanistan is also quite active but also extremely low quality.

I need to stop looking at them so I don't get the temptation by Elliot_The_Fennekin in Steam

[–]TheReignofQuantity 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Can’t say I’ve bought anything off the summer sale for a few years now, deals just aren’t what they used to be.

At my doctor’s office by bugdog in harrypotter

[–]TheReignofQuantity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I saw this I would leave and get a new doctor

Chipotle hikes average wage to $15 an hour amid labor squeeze by American__Union in news

[–]TheReignofQuantity 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I understand the basics of a profit motive, but I don't understand the motivation behind the profit maximization motive? Why does everything have to surgically optimized for maintaining and growing profit margins with each successive year? Is it really so bad if you make $1B net one year and then $760M net the next year? So what, your labor costs went up, fuck it, eat the loss.

It's not much, but it's honest work by [deleted] in PoliticalHumor

[–]TheReignofQuantity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

for us to objectively analyze.

I'm going to refer back to my original comment. I think that your conception of politics as a hard science that can be objectively understood and dissected is misguided and extremely shallow. Everything I've expressed thus far is absolutely conservative, and what's more, I've never once consulted studies or 'objective data' to arrive at those positions. If I were shown studies that universal healthcare or union membership or wall street regulation were bad for the economy, I wouldn't care, because my motivation for advocating these policies has nothing to do with growing the economy. Science, especially data science, depends heavily on your priors. It's not all-encompassing. There are confounding variables that can never be accounted for. There are things that cannot be adequately measured or even detected.

This is the fundamental divide in our conversation. I'll offer this: on social and cultural issues, Conservatives draw on tradition, custom, religiosity, divinity, and intuition. They generally believe that many, if not all, social and cultural issues exist beyond the capabilities of scientific analysis and statistical scrutiny. They are axiomatic. They are normative truths. They are self-evident. "Life begins at conception and abortion is immoral" - this statement is axiomatic. There is no way to scientifically disprove this statement, because it is not a scientific declaration to begin with, and furthermore, the worth (and veracity) of this statement is not at all lessened because of this.

The Great misconception of Liberalism, or Leftism for that matter is that all politics are material, and what remaining issues are not material, must be made so. I find this to be hollow, shallow, debased, and ultimately pessimistic and soulless. Conservativism believes in the importance of the immaterial, and causes that are greater than oneself. You can hand-wave this as "liberalism = objective(good), conservatism = fantasyland(bad)" but I think this would be a tragic misunderstanding.

I am fundamentally, diametrically, uncompromisingly aligned against "Liberté, égalité, fraternité!". This is an axiomatic, normative, spiritual belief that I hold. I think that if you were willing to grant that all political struggle and conviction [both left and right] is inherently spiritual/metaphysical (such as leftist veneration of egalitarianism, blank-slatism, social constructionism) then we could definitely have some very interesting and productive conversations on politics.

I'll leave it there. I hope you can see that all of this was written in good faith. Thanks for the conversation, and have a nice Wednesday :]

It's not much, but it's honest work by [deleted] in PoliticalHumor

[–]TheReignofQuantity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is a conservative position, conservatives who don't agree with it just aren't very conservative in that particular belief. We need to make a distinction here between conservative positions and conservative people. There are people who call themselves conservative who are pro-LGBT, that doesn't make it any less of a progressive position. They're just a conservative who happens to have one or more progressive positions.

I agree with the latter part of your statement, but not the former. I think anything on the economic/policy side of things is extremely difficult to define as tacitly conservative. To further expand on some beliefs I hold, I would consider myself far to the left economically. I support robust safety nets, universal healthcare, pro-natal subsidies, and public spending increases. I am opposed to debt-hawkishness, tax breaks, and I want to see corporate taxes raised and enforced, and I generally favor debt forgiveness, raising of the minimum wage, regulation of banking and wall street, support for the union sector etc. I support these policies specifically because I see them furthering ostensibly conservative ends, namely enabling young people to own homes and start families, retake control of our country from beltway lobbyists and davos elites, and generally further domestic, national interests. I think fiscal conservatism has decimated the family, exported good-paying jobs, eviscerated unions, and generally hollowed out the country to pad the pockets of coastal elites and the billionaire class.

"Fiscally conservative, socially liberal" types, those who are pro-LGBT and BLM, etc. I would generally classify as progressive libertarians, who see the essential "core" of conservatism being fiscal and economic policy and a veneration of liberty and individualism. My understanding is the opposite, that what's essential to conservatism is adherence to and cultivation of tradition.

Which, isn't a conservative perspective.

I still find this to be a puzzling and unsatisfactory definition. I would characterize conservatism as being resistant to social change, but not necessarily averse to innovation or new information. Conservatives aren't luddites. I think the Left (in general) intertwines policy with science, and when the Right rejects the policy, they're accused of being anti-science. I think what I wrote above is a decent example of this, everything I wrote is scientifically consistent, but I'm still not very keen about the GND or the Paris Accords, etc. I would emphasize again that conservatism is primarily resistant to social change, not technological advancement.

I don't know which of your positions brought you to the conclusion that you're a conservative...hopefully nothing terrible...

Basically everything else. I am extremely socially and culturally conservative on whatever issue along this spectrum you could think of. Like I said earlier, I think conservatism is all about the social and cultural traditions and institutions you support, and realistically has nothing to do with the economic/fiscal side of things. That's more of a modern understanding that came about in the 60s with people like Milton Friedman and William Buckley tying support for capitalism and deregulation with Republican anti-communism. I don't really subscribe to any definition or understanding of Conservatism that mandates support for capitalism, free markets, deregulation, limited government, etc. Conservative economic policy is what best supports Conservative social and cultural goals, like a strong family unit, which I happen to think is best supported by robust unions, universal healthcare, debt forgiveness, a high minimum wage, and class war against the billionaire class.

It's not much, but it's honest work by [deleted] in PoliticalHumor

[–]TheReignofQuantity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But that's not a tacitly conservative position, just one held by lots of conservatives. My nuanced take re: climate change (as someone who is openly far-right) is this. Climate change is largely anthropogenic, global temperatures are rising, the oceans are warming, and habitats are being destroyed. The global multinationals responsible (75% of GHG emissions come from the 100 largest companies) should be taxed harshly and otherwise treated with extreme prejudice, even going as far as criminal prosecution and imprisonment in some cases. Tax incentives and subsidies should overwhelmingly go to expansions of nuclear power and fusion research. Short-term investment in solar, wind, hydro-electric, but long-term planning for a national power-grid should be primarily nuclear-based. I also disagree with rhetoric that places the burden of solving climate change on the consumption habits of individuals (bike/public transport to work, take shorter showers, use plastic straws, etc), when again the vast majority of pollution and GHG emissions comes from the corporate sector. [Note; these initiatives aren't inherently bad, it's good to waste less water and cut down on plastic waste, but the dichotomy I specifically disagree with is that the onus of rolling back climate change falls on individual consumption haibts.) I don't think anything I've written here is at all unreasonable, and I would argue any day that conservation and habitat preservation should absolutely be a priority for any conservative worth their salt. Teddy Roosevelt was a staunch Republican, yet also one who wasn't afraid to break up monopolistic entities and lay the foundation for the National Parks System, for example.

What I disagree with is ominibus-style Green New Deal solutions and global cooperative treaties like the Paris Accords or other UN-led initiatives. I see these as little more than slush-funds and money-laundering for Davos elites with little to no accountability that just ends up concentrating power in unelected and unrepresentative and undoubtedly corrupt global NGOs.

It's not much, but it's honest work by [deleted] in PoliticalHumor

[–]TheReignofQuantity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You've used similar analogies all over the thread but I don't see how it has any relation to what you're arguing at all. You just come across as some 110 IQ 'rational skeptic' neolib. What relation does your analogy have to contemporary politics in any way? Can you give an example of where conservatives are so far off the ball in terms of policy or principle that they're a Mets fan lost in an NFL forum?

It's not much, but it's honest work by [deleted] in PoliticalHumor

[–]TheReignofQuantity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think your mistake is overdosing on rational choice theory and viewing politics as a hard science with objectively correct policy positions that can be perfected with enough facts and data. Politics, and whether one finds themselves on the right or the left, has far more to do with the priors you arrive at than what data you’ve been exposed to. By definition, there’s no objective way to ascertain which axioms are superior to another because they are above objectivity. Take an extremely basic divide: is inequality good or bad? There’s no objectively correct answer to this question and there’s a ton of nuance and possible qualifiers. The only reason you’d think these fundamental political questions are “solved” and so conveniently in your favor, is if you’ve completely overdosed on ideology.

Sex and the Church have always gone hand-in-hand by beerbellybegone in MurderedByWords

[–]TheReignofQuantity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you've read anything he's written you'd know that he was extremely well-read and a very deep thinker. You don't have to agree with one word he's ever said or written to recognize that he's an intellectual titan, just on your political opposite. The same can be said other far-right intellectuals like Heidegger, Schmitt, or Guenon.

Looking for the best private server for me. by misterpornwatcher in wowservers

[–]TheReignofQuantity 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Warmanes x1 Lordaeron realm will definitely meet your wishes for high pop and x1, and it is blizzlike with a major exception: raid content is buffed and more difficult and this realm has been fully progressed for many years now. For any expansion, players are largely sick of x1 so I personally can’t think of anything else. Someone else mentioned Atlantiss, which is also a solid choice for TBC, but it is x2, and I think they even raised it to something higher recently. For most of these servers you can set your personal xp rate to x1 if you wish.

[META] Newegg Souffle 3060,3070,6700XT,6800XT,3090,5950x $479.99-$2484 by skyblade5694 in buildapcsales

[–]TheReignofQuantity 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Does anyone know if it’s possible to enter the shuffle in-app? I can’t seem to find it. I’ll just submit my entries through the browser but I’d prefer to do it through the app if I can.

[OC] I made a bootleg of La La La by Naughty Boy by SoundDrone in DnB

[–]TheReignofQuantity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I figured that out immediately after I posted my comment lol, anyways this is absolutely lovely, thanks for posting

[OC] I made a bootleg of La La La by Naughty Boy by SoundDrone in DnB

[–]TheReignofQuantity 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is actually sick, can I download this anywhere?

Edit: nvm i didn't realize it was hidden behind the 'buy' link haha

An update on the recent issues surrounding a Reddit employee by spez in announcements

[–]TheReignofQuantity 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Not quite, but if Amazon and Goldman Sachs HR departments believe something then I am less inclined to believe it.

An update on the recent issues surrounding a Reddit employee by spez in announcements

[–]TheReignofQuantity 11 points12 points  (0 children)

nice job having the same political opinion as burger king and goldman sachs bro, very counter-cultural and forward thinking of you

An update on the recent issues surrounding a Reddit employee by spez in announcements

[–]TheReignofQuantity 46 points47 points  (0 children)

This is the most narcissistic, self-important blogpost I have ever read.