SJWs, NPCs, Alt-Right, Nazis, Anti-SJWs, Woke, Far-Right, Far-Left, Left...

[SG854]

Because it isn't one. ASVAB tests your existing knowledge of various fields and trades, not your ability to pick up on new concepts.

Also a person can have knowledge of various fields and trades and still be a complete idiot.

If it’s G loaded. The yes it can. It tests have fast you learn and pick up concepts which is related to intelligence.

 

[Xzi]

Also a person can have knowledge of various fields and trades and still be a complete idiot.

True, but my point being that there are also jobs available in the military for people who suck at everything. MP, for example. They don't care if you "fail" the ASVAB, they'll find something for you to do.

If it’s G loaded. The yes it can. It tests have fast you learn and pick up concepts which is related to intelligence.

There are tons of study guides available for the ASVAB, you aren't required to go into it blind by any means. It's not an IQ test.

 

[notimp]

He wants cultural identity and the very idea of nationalism completely obliterated. Is it such a crime to want your nation and cultural identity to survive?

Get it.

The only thing I can add ist, that there are people who come from a position of "imigration is good" because it actually increases intellectual proliferation (big word), if societies are roughly on the same level. In fact, thats what we were partly (not in those terms) told in school. (Mosaic (america), vs. Melting pot (europe) - meaning, that the americans were "more successfuly" as societies, because of it.).

The point they are making, even is "social darwinistic" in a sense, since some of them often seem to talk about, that the people who make it to another country - first (before you close your borders.. ), are actually the strong and motivated ones.
If you need a mental bridge, americans owe heir moonlanding project (and many technological advances because of it (people collectively solving problems for a target for about a century)) largely to a few german scientists. ("Competition about the best minds" - never looked at people through a racial or cultural lense.)

Then, and this is a better point - imho: Cost of labor for pretty much our entire parents generation always declined. First baby boomers, then women in the workforce, then automation, ... There basically always were people "willing to take the job" - if it was offered. Companies very, very seldomly had to actually raise pay, or benefits, just to entice people to take jobs. It kind of always was a "if you dont want to - someone else will" kind of environment. This to them immensely keeps costs down (stagnation in wage growth (while the economy growths, mind you) for 20 years and counting). Now the demographic switch over will be in 10-15 years (when the babyboomers get older), and companies dont like that one bit - their entire cultures arent set up do deal with it, basically.

So - "big business" in its entirety was pro Merkel "temporarily" opening Germanys borders for immigrants - because they wanted "demand side competition". Now Germany not only did it because of that, but also because Italy essentially told them, we cant handle it anymore, if you dont do anything we'll just open our borders unilaterally (chaos) - and the thing that no one had in mind was that Merkel being "very welcoming" (just a tactic so you get people in your society to be a little more welcoming as well) kind of "backfired" in that it actually had a "draw" effect, because of online media. That then quickly became the story, and the whole thing stopped. (Via democratic means.) Now we have a push back in action, where entire societies actually started to lean more toward rightwing positions. I dont like it, others do. In our country we have a homeland ministry for the first time ever, because of it. That is now into preserving old song books, or whatever they do over there as days become longer..

So what I want to say is, that there are all kinds of factors behind any single decision of that magnitude. Rich political benefactors play a role - but then the outcome is varied. Its hard to align trajectories at the right time - is the main lesson here. (See brexit having caused people to actually question the European Union project again... ) And maybe, that the concept of "intelligent planning" on most things political, is slightly overblown. At least from my perspective.

Of course there is always the question of who is paying for laws, or building economic syndicates, but even those change and crumble throughout history.
(Coin Francis Fukuyamas "The end of history" quote/concept. )

 

[WD_GASTER2]

@notimp
just out of curiosity, are you from japan?

So what I want to say is, that there are all kinds of factors behind any single decision of that magnitude. Rich political benefactors play a role - but then the outcome is varied. Its hard to align trajectories at the right time - is the main lesson here. (See brexit having caused people to actually question the European Union project again... ) And maybe, that the concept of "intelligent planning" on most things political, is slightly overblown. At least from my perspective.

Perhaps. However you could say that the negative consequences of miscalculations when people disregard "intelligent planning" can be brutal.
I just think that we so intertwined at a global scale now that reverting the clock is a excercise in futility (and from my beliefs, maybe thats for the better if not atleast so we could all learn some empathy from one another and that the actions of some governments will have effects on others)

 

[supersonicwaffle]

@SG854 if we buy into what you just said for just a second.... One is inherently more dangerous than the other.
Consider this a rorschach test. which would you consider more pressing. (not taking sides on this one, just curious)

Which doesn't mean the less dangerous should be given a pass. Why can't both be really bad to a differing degree?
As someone who considers himself a centrist (within the German soceity), it's incredibly frustrating that some people on the left turn a blind eye to their problems.

It's like this post here: https://gbatemp.net/threads/sjws-np...ight-far-left-left.537924/page-2#post-8627861
Obviously, reasonable people have no problem with the concept of being anti fascist but dancing around the issue that Antifa as a loose organization is also involved with the following is really frustrating.

 

[WD_GASTER2]

Which doesn't mean the less dangerous should be given a pass. Why can't both be really bad to a differing degree?
As someone who considers himself a centrist (within the German soceity), it's incredibly frustrating that some people on the left turn a blind eye to their problems.

It's like this post here: https://gbatemp.net/threads/sjws-np...ight-far-left-left.537924/page-2#post-8627861
Obviously, reasonable people have no problem with the concept of being anti fascist but dancing around the issue that Antifa as a loose organization is also involved with the following is really frustrating.

never said one should be given a pass. I just asked which one is more pressing. To which i ask of you as well.
Also, I am not blind to the faults of the left. I just have the prospects of possible nuclear war or global catastrophy higher in my list of worries.

 

[deinonychus71]

Here's the problem. Socialism is associated with communism and it's not even American propaganda. The liberal part of the socialist movement made a clear distinction in the early 20th century, dropped the marxist definition of socialism, wanted to work in a democratic framework and called themselves social democrats. They went on and became a major political force across Europe.

My parents grew up under a socialist regime and while they would probably be more aligned with democrats, because of their rhetoric alone they would likely never vote for them and that's a big problem. My parents still roll their eyes and grind their teeth when they hear social democrats refer to each other as comrades, talk about traumatizing and problematic history!
Heck, I even remember TYT not being very happy with Bernie calling himself a socialist instead of a social democrat during the 2016 election because he was obviously referring to European social democracy.
It's not a propaganda thing! If you hear someone describe themselves as a socialist it means either of these:

• they're imprecise and mean they're a social democrat
• they're ignorant of the part of history where the socialist movement has dropped authoritarianism in the early 20th century and want to reform it all over again
• they're actual authoritarians

For someone seeking to be elected into a position of power I wouldn't be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this.

With regards to health care, I can see where both sides are coming from. I'm living in a country with a socialized health care system and it's exploiting health care workers like crazy. It's gotten to a point where no one wants to work in health care and the lack of nurses has caused hospitals in big cities like Munich to close entire stations. It's not cheap either, we're paying between 200€ and 800€ a month depending on how much you earn and as soon as you're getting close to the upper end you want to switch to private insurance because coverage will be much better and they can't change it willy nilly because it's an actual agreed upon contract.
Right now I would say it's really a question of whether you prioritize quality or availability, but it's not that easy because even availability over here is kinda bad, it's not uncommon for people to have to wait months for appointments. Availability for emergency care is good but that causes people to show up to hospitals as emergencies for silly stuff because getting a regular appointment in a doctors practice would take so long.

I lived most of my younger years in a country that thrives in socialism (France) and I do feel that there is a large misconception of what socialism is over here (USA).
That's the thing with "socialist" democrats... they're not... socialists. They're a fraud. I believe Bernie was absolutely right.

If you think Germany is bad, France is worse! I experienced it first hand and lost friends over this, but that doesn't mean the core concept is to throw away. You can't let people die, not because you're an idealist (well, yes...), but because it brings a whole lot of other issues, including social movements and disease. The US is the extreme opposite. No safety net. Great if you have good incomes, but you better not be working at walmart and having to go to ER. I've had to take someone there, it ended up costing them $4000 for a couple hours -with insurance-
I believe society needs a good balance between socialism and capitalism. Equality of chances is essential (severely lacking in the US), but not equality of outcome (the European problem, and far-left biggest misunderstanding).

 

[SG854]

@SG854 if we buy into what you just said for just a second.... One is inherently more dangerous than the other.
Consider this a rorschach test. which would you consider more pressing. (not taking sides on this one, just curious)

Inherently dangerous what do you mean? People with lower intelligence are not inherently more dangerous.

 

[supersonicwaffle]

never said one should be given a pass. I just asked which one is more pressing. To which i ask of you as well.
Also, I am not blind to the faults of the left. I just have the prospects of possible nuclear war or global catastrophy higher in my list of worries.

Instinctively I would say climate change is the more pressing issue.
However, I would also say that you can only really judge it by instinct. We know how bad the effects of climate change are because a lot of serious science has gone into it. We have no idea what the increase in political division will be doing to our social fabric. Instinctively I would also say that it feels like politically motivated violence is ramping up.

Ideally, I'd prefer we would take care of both issues.

 

[WD_GASTER2]

@SG854 re-read your post then re-read my question. different issue.

 

[SG854]

I lived most of my younger years in a country that thrives in socialism (France) and I do feel that there is a large misconception of what socialism is over here (USA).
That's the thing with "socialist" democrats... they're not... socialists. They're a fraud. I believe Bernie was absolutely right.

If you think Germany is bad, France is worse! I experienced it first hand and lost friends over this, but that doesn't mean the core concept is to throw away. You can't let people die, not because you're an idealist (well, yes...), but because it brings a whole lot of other issues, including social movements and disease. The US is the extreme opposite. No safety net. Great if you have good incomes, but you better not be working at walmart and having to go to ER. I've had to take someone there, it ended up costing them $4000 for a couple hours -with insurance-
I believe society needs a good balance between socialism and capitalism. Equality of chances is essential (severely lacking in the US), but not equality of outcome (the European problem, and far-left biggest misunderstanding).

Yes, I agree we need a good balance between socialism and capitalism.

 

[WD_GASTER2]

Instinctively I would say climate change is the more pressing issue.
However, I would also say that you can only really judge it by instinct. We know how bad the effects of climate change are because a lot of serious science has gone into it. We have no idea what the increase in political division will be doing to our social fabric. Instinctively I would also say that it feels like politically motivated violence is ramping up.

Ideally, I'd prefer we would take care of both issues.

You see this feels like a sincere answer to me for which i thank you. I just happen to believe we solve the one that can possibly end our existence, while we have a disscussion on social issues where BOTH sides can concede something. On climate change denying wont fix squat.

 

[SG854]

@SG854 re-read your post then re-read my question. different issue.

I’m getting bombarded right now it’s hard to keep up to exactly what point you mean. You talking about left vs right, what’s more dangerous? You weren’t clear since there is many different topics people are talking about.

 

[WD_GASTER2]

read my conversation with @supersonicwaffle. He answered the question, to which i ask the same of you. go to the last page and re-read.

 

[supersonicwaffle]

I lived most of my younger years in a country that thrives in socialism (France) and I do feel that there is a large misconception of what socialism is over here (USA).
That's the thing with "socialist" democrats... they're not... socialists. They're a fraud. I believe Bernie was absolutely right.

If you think Germany is bad, France is worse! I experienced it first hand and lost friends over this, but that doesn't mean the core concept is to throw away. You can't let people die, not because you're an idealist (well, yes...), but because it brings a whole lot of other issues, including social movements and disease. The US is the extreme opposite. No safety net. Great if you have good incomes, but you better not be working at walmart and having to go to ER. I've had to take someone there, it ended up costing them $4000 for a couple hours -with insurance-
I believe society needs a good balance between socialism and capitalism. Equality of chances is essential (severely lacking in the US), but not equality of outcome (the European problem, and far-left biggest misunderstanding).

Could you elaborate on what you think the difference between socialism and social democracy is? I feel like we have vastly different idea on what socialism is.

 

[SG854]

read my conversation with @supersonicwaffle. He answered the question, to which i ask the same of you. go to the last page and re-read.

Ok just asking jeez don’t have to be a dick about it.

Ditto what supersonic said.

 

[WD_GASTER2]

I am not. I just didnt feel like re-posting.
Also, having a mixture of capitalism and socialist programs is not the end of the world. Our post office is great (lets keep it that way) Also our fire departments (In the US firefighters are loved by everyone actually) seem to be doing ok.
@supersonicwaffle. I do draw the line at the government taking the means of production (to which i say hell no) However i dont think anybody is advocating for that here in the US

 

[SG854]

I am not. I just didnt feel like re-posting.
Also, having a mixture of capitalism and socialist programs is not the end of the world. Our post office is great (lets keep it that way) Also our fire departments (In the US firefighters are loved by everyone actually) seem to be doing ok.
@supersonicwaffle. I do draw the line at the government taking the means of production (to which i say hell no) However i dont think anybody is advocating for that here in the US

I agree with everything you say.

 

[deinonychus71]

Could you elaborate on what you think the difference between socialism and social democracy is? I feel like we have vastly different idea on what socialism is.

Historically socialist countries tend to give more power to the government, through ownership or regulation.
It's not -necessarily- a bad thing even though as usual, too much of it can be catastrophic as well. Without some regulation, if you let the market regulate itself, you end up with situations of monopoly (hmmm comcast ~ hmmm disney).

When I mention socialism, I usually like to focus on what I consider are the important bits to take from it: Safety nets. Everyone should be given a chance in life, as fair as possible. What they do with this chance is up to them. But typically, some children have weaker bodies, or are born in poor families and can't afford proper education. That's where safety nets are necessary imho.

And these are real issues that we never hear about nowadays since it's all about far-left hyper-communautarism and far-right insistence on evil immigration.

 

[supersonicwaffle]

You see this feels like a sincere answer to me for which i thank you. I just happen to believe we solve the one that can possibly end our existence, while we have a disscussion on social issues where BOTH sides can concede something. On climate change denying wont fix squat.

Well, one issue has the capacity to end mankind, the other has the capacity to end liberal and free society, which would be something I wouldn't regard as being worthy of protection. I'm not going to pick my poison here. Letting extremist violence from either side thrive won't fix squat either.