Spicy's plan for utopia

[Spicyryan]

So people who have found happiness and stability should just surrender it for a slim chance of better world?

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

You are missing the fact of how their material reality was constructed and is supported. Ignoring that they are the beneficiaries on a sliding scale of grossly excessive inadequacy.

What exactly are you picturing when you say this?

[Mrbeansman]

Yeah the far left just loves to talk about how awfull the privileged are despite their only sin being born into it.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Spicyryan]

Yeah the far left just loves to talk about how awfull the privileged are despite their only sin being born into it.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

That's not how it works.

Woe is the privileged and their desire to absolve themselves of guilt or think beyond the surface. "I know I didn't ask the people in Honduras to make this shirt. I worked hard to earn this. Besides, it just gives them a better paying job in their country anyway!"

[Mrbeansman]

So they should just what go picking through dumpsters for scraps untill we make a perfect world for everybody?

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Spicyryan]

So they should just what go picking through dumpsters for scraps untill we make a perfect world for everybody?

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

You accuse me having a warped view, but damn, son. I'm not exactly sure on how to cut through your ignorance in this case, but such conditions do exist in your own country or even your own town.

[Roranora]

This shits at 223 posts and I haven't read any of it. Y'all having fun in here?

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

while they all been working on housing, healthcare, and governance, with Zel's help we quickly and quietly rammed legal sex work through legislation

[Salodin]

while they all been working on housing, healthcare, and governance, with Zel's help we quickly and quietly rammed legal sex work through legislation

It's no use if your wife still yells at you for it ;_;

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Mrbeansman]

You accuse me having a warped view, but damn, son. I'm not exactly sure on how to cut through your ignorance in this case, but such conditions do exist in your own country or even your own town.

Your just here telling people they should throw away what little happiness they have been been able to scrap togather with no guarantee their lives will be better for it. Yes people are suffering that doesnt justify adding more suffering for a slim chance that things could get better.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Spicyryan]

Your just here telling people they should throw away what little happiness they have been been able to scrap togather with no guarantee their lives will be better for it. Yes people are suffering that doesnt justify adding more suffering for a slim chance that things could get better.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

It's a mischaracterization of reform and revolution, but damn is it self-centered.
I'm not asking you to live out in the woods with a compositing toilet. I'm asking to reject a system of exploitation where the wealthiest three families in the US own more than the entire bottom 50% of the country.
Not just because it is amoral, but because it at the expense of the vast majority and their quality of life and happiness. Which you'd think, despite being afraid of any change, be something you be onboard with.

[Tymon]

So where is the revolution going to start? Is there gonna be a Facebook invite? Will the revolution be televised?

[Roranora]

It's no use if your wife still yells at you for it ;_;

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

hm well if she can't change her tune after a ride at one of our lady brothels (still working on a name) then you might have to limit your experience to consenting amateurs and leave the pros for the rest of us. you can grab the mic instead of your wallet

[Mrbeansman]

It's a mischaracterization of reform and revolution, but damn is it self-centered.
I'm not asking you to live out in the woods with a compositing toilet. I'm asking to reject a system of exploitation where the wealthiest three families in the US own more than the entire bottom 50% of the country.
Not just because it is amoral, but because it at the expense of the vast majority and their quality of life and happiness. Which you'd think, despite being afraid of any change, be something you be onboard with.

I'm not disagreeing with this sentiment I'm disagreeing with your methods of fixing it.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Spicyryan]

I'm not disagreeing with this sentiment I'm disagreeing with your methods of fixing it.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

You aren't demonstrating any groundwork of a thought process to support that you agree with the sentiment. Just that it's a comforting thought like saving the Rainforest or some shit.

As for the methods. I agree with your apprehension in general, but not the extent of it. Reform is only part of it, and not the entire solution.

[Zealot]

The key difference is that I have identified a win condition (the greatest good) and have presented a falsifiable premise to judge that win condition (maintenance of American hegemony preserves the optimal amount of life and the highest quality of life compared to any likely transition orders)

I'm "right" because I win on body count. He can present/defend a metric from which to judge the two models other than body count, or he needs a geopolitical argument so to how a transition can take place and why it would result in a preferable world.

You still present a zero-sum outcome game (these people die so these people live), your insistence upon such being almost a parody of your Kings-era obsession at this point. Between the two of you, Spicy presents the more favorable ultimate goal of a free and happy world, his issue is he shares your impression of real human lives as abstractions that can be broken down into numbers and if millions are better off for longer later, it justifies millions suffering and dying in the short term.

Given society's current shape, the goal should be using the neo-liberal order and the tremendous excess of wealth and material resources it has generated to end suffering and conflict by cutting off the lack which is usually at their center. The current world order does a fairly good job at maintaining peace on a global scale, but has decided that horrendously bloody regional conflicts and the occasional genocide are a reasonable price to pay. Also for all of the effort put in to simply maintain what we have, societal infrastructure worldwide has deteriorated to the point that fascism and dictatorships are becoming more commonplace, and a world governance structure beholden to economies which rely on China, India, and Saudi Arabia are geared specifically toward allowing it to happen in the name of greater economic stability. U.S. hegemony did little or nothing to stop China from making financial inroads across the Middle East and Africa which will shake up the entire basis of the global economy in the next 10-20 years, and our systems in place are designed to simply roll with it since some people will be getting wealthier and no one will be going to war.

The calculus of your system may save the most lives but the question of if they will ultimately be worth living continues to get murkier.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

[Byrthnoth]

So where is the revolution going to start? Is there gonna be a Facebook invite? Will the revolution be televised?

Is "The revolution will not have an evite" our generation's "The revolution will not be televised"?

[Andalusian girls]

You still present a zero-sum outcome game (these people die so these people live), your insistence upon such being almost a parody of your Kings-era obsession at this point. Between the two of you, Spicy presents the more favorable ultimate goal of a free and happy world, his issue is he shares your impression of real human lives as abstractions that can be broken down into numbers and if millions are better off for longer later, it justifies millions suffering and dying in the short term.

Given society's current shape, the goal should be using the neo-liberal order and the tremendous excess of wealth and material resources it has generated to end suffering and conflict by cutting off the lack which is usually at their center. The current world order does a fairly good job at maintaining peace on a global scale, but has decided that horrendously bloody regional conflicts and the occasional genocide are a reasonable price to pay. Also for all of the effort put in to simply maintain what we have, societal infrastructure worldwide has deteriorated to the point that fascism and dictatorships are becoming more commonplace, and a world governance structure beholden to economies which rely on China, India, and Saudi Arabia are geared specifically toward allowing it to happen in the name of greater economic stability. U.S. hegemony did little or nothing to stop China from making financial inroads across the Middle East and Africa which will shake up the entire basis of the global economy in the next 10-20 years, and our systems in place are designed to simply roll with it since some people will be getting wealthier and no one will be going to war.

The calculus of your system may save the most lives but the question of if they will ultimately be worth living continues to get murkier.

capitalism and the liberal order that bears it have done more to end human suffering, diminish interstate conflict, and increase aggregate happiness than any other system in the history of the species.

this is the most peaceful epoch in human history, the one with the least amount of material want, and the one with the greatest amount of both positive and negative liberty. it is right to wish for better, it will always be right to wish for better, but it is grossly ahistorical to not recognize the achievements of capital. i mean China's extreme poverty rate went from 88% in 1981 to <1% today after their economic liberalization. this is not ancient history or immaterial, this is hundreds of millions of individuals for the first time having access to a life not defined by want and hunger and the threat of starvation. it is a more humane achievement than any ever affected by socialism or communism.

[Spicyryan]

Can we examine the claim that global capitalism and the subjugation of the majority of the world preserves the greatest quantity and quality of life? It keeps getting repeated, but even when you look at how the wealthiest country in history. Has millions going hungry, not receiving medical care or affordable care or even access to care, homelessness, etc. Even still thats in the better place to experience those realities compared to the global south that supports these countries. Given the nature of wealth concentrating towards the hands of the few instead of the many under this system.
Where does that translate to preserving the optimal quantity and quality of life?

"Ending" conflict is not a claim capitalism can make anymore than enslaving others or being a feudal lord can. Subjugating people to ensure order and causing conflict to consolidate power isn't a genuine preservation of anything admirable.

[Zealot]

capitalism and the liberal order that bears it have done more to end human suffering, diminish interstate conflict, and increase aggregate happiness than any other system in the history of the species.

this is the most peaceful epoch in human history, the one with the least amount of material want, and the one with the greatest amount of both positive and negative liberty. it is right to wish for better, it will always be right to wish for better, but it is grossly ahistorical to not recognize the achievements of capital. i mean China's extreme poverty rate went from 88% in 1981 to <1% today after their economic liberalization. this is not ancient history or immaterial, this is hundreds of millions of individuals for the first time having access to a life not defined by want and hunger and the threat of starvation. it is a more humane achievement than any ever affected by socialism or communism.

I should have specified that my attention was not directed at capitalism, since as I stated it has generated tremendous prosperity across the globe, but rather the the systems in place to prop it up have grown so as to tolerate practically anything in order to maintain it, including aiding and abetting despots and ultimately giving sway to fascism should it protect the economic order. What we see now is mass wealth concentration and the hoarding of resources which are not particularly scarce, when ideally what should have happened would be repeats of what happened in China. Capitalism itself has produced tremendous good (s and services) in the world but we can and should strive to back away from the precipice we've been brought to in order to perpetuate it.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

[thetruepandagod]

So people who have found happiness and stability should just surrender it for a slim chance of better world?

surrender it for a huge chance at a worse world actually

[Andalusian girls]

I should have specified that my attention was not directed at capitalism, since as I stated it has generated tremendous prosperity across the globe, but rather the the systems in place to prop it up have grown so as to tolerate practically anything in order to maintain it, including aiding and abetting despots and ultimately giving sway to fascism should it protect the economic order. What we see now is mass wealth concentration and the hoarding of resources which are not particularly scarce, when ideally what should have happened would be repeats of what happened in China. Capitalism itself has produced tremendous good (s and services) in the world but we can and should strive to back away from the precipice we've been brought to in order to perpetuate it.

that is fair. i am more deontological than Gred's blunt utilitarianism, and there are ethical boundaries within which capitalism ought operate regardless of net gain. moreover capital itself can be short-sighted and exploitative, and ought be constrained to some extent by social welfare (ending child labor, preventing global warming, etc).

also freely acknowledge we are not at the end of history, there is no end to history. capitalism, liberalism, these are not the final epochs in human civilization. i simply find them superior to all others that have been attempted or formulated. what is to be in 500 years is likely a system i cannot presently imagine.