Ben No.3

Name me one ideology that has not and could not produce extremists. Let's start with one!

Well the West won the ideological war against Communism and it will obviously win the war against Islamic extremism....what lesson should we learn?Essentially, what it means for freedom and freedom of speech. The Cold War took away everyone's opinion who was himself a communist or just somewhat around that spectrum in the name of security and te American way. Black List and all, does that ring a bell?Now, it takes on different forms with Islam, namely the constant surveillance. But in essence, it is the exact same thing all over again. Another thing is that the ideologies in question become senselessly defied in pure black and white patterns. Very few in the Cold War bothered to read Marx, Engels or even Lenin. Very few today bother to read the Quran (even though it would do good-one of the last few Textes even specifically tells Muslims that they have their religion, others have their own religion, and everyone should just get along). This of course does not only result in the waging of a war against the abstract concept of a certain ideology, but it also creates so much unnecessary fear, justifying the measures I've previously mentioned in the first place. I know the high level views of Marx and guys like Lenin and I haven't read even a single page of the Quran but I doubt reading these works would change my view that I am fundamentally opposed to both Communism and Islamic Extremism..... I know you not suggesting I should read them but what would the benefit be? Well let's differentiate... you don't need to agree with Lenin in order to agree with Marx, and you don't need to fully agree with Marx to see that he has a point (in some cases.... admittedly, other cases are just moronic). But let's not go there, that's not the point. So I recommend you read the Quran, just because it is simply well written. It contains, even when translated, quite beautiful poetry. And some none of us speak Arabic, to my knowledge, it appears we are missing out on some true art. And of course, itll be a huge cultural benefit. But anyway, you can't really oppose the extreme version of an ideology (be it Marxism-Leninism or Islamic Extremism) if you don't understand the ideology it is based on (Socialism or Islam). If you try to do that, then you are not opposing something, you are just being ignorant. And then of course, ignorance leads to unreasonable fear, a dogmatic world view and unnecessary, unhelpful and useless prejudice. There are communists/socialists and Muslims out there who genuinely want to make the world a better place. And they are even the vast majority of said groups. Of course there are extremists, but this is true for any ideology. But if you just oppose their entire ideology, without fully understanding it, how will you ever tell the difference between an extremist and someone who simply has a different point of view? So I will stress this again: you need to read the Quran.

Sartre and de Beauvoir are two very interesting fellows anyway. As an example: Even though they were in a life long relationship, they'd always talk very formal with each other using vous instead of tu (which basically is a more formal way of addressing people). They also both had many many affairs with many many students, and sometimes even with the same student. I'm sure that must have resulted in interesting discussion. Considering their communist sympathies, I think it is fair to say that they were sharing the means of production. And of course, it seems like neither size nor looks really matter in the end.

See, even if I told you I had, it would be useless ^^ And always such ad-hominem. Can't we just all agree that that is an useless form of argument?

:lol: Does the word "Oxymoron" ring a bell??? How so? Is regulation by private entities such as ISPs or media companies more palpable than if it comes from a state?Well essentially the hope is that the state gives up the power the companies have right now. Freedom that enables people to control others doesn't deserve the name. Of course, it would be horribly easy for states to abuse this. Thus, forcing the companies to split up seems more reasonable.

Well the West won the ideological war against Communism and it will obviously win the war against Islamic extremism....what lesson should we learn?Essentially, what it means for freedom and freedom of speech. The Cold War took away everyone's opinion who was himself a communist or just somewhat around that spectrum in the name of security and te American way. Black List and all, does that ring a bell? Now, it takes on different forms with Islam, namely the constant surveillance. But in essence, it is the exact same thing all over again. Another thing is that the ideologies in question become senselessly defied in pure black and white patterns. Very few in the Cold War bothered to read Marx, Engels or even Lenin. Very few today bother to read the Quran (even though it would do good-one of the last few Textes even specifically tells Muslims that they have their religion, others have their own religion, and everyone should just get along). This of course does not only result in the waging of a war against the abstract concept of a certain ideology, but it also creates so much unnecessary fear, justifying the measures I've previously mentioned in the first place.

I'd recommend Animal Farm for you.I read it. And 1984. Don't worry But I have a deal... I reread animal farm, you (re?)read homage to Catalonia, and we talk about it?

Someone's around here told me to read more George Orwell. Was it chill out? Anyway, I picked up homage to Catalonia. It'll be an interesting read.

Not everyone appealing to the proletariat is a commie -.-

Did US citizens freedom not already suffer enough from this fight against "Islam"? Did you really learn nothing from your fight against "communism"?

"Bernie Sanders is a complete moron. He can never get the funding. His plans will never work." "Let's spend 54 billion on the military to try and fight the abstract concept of a specific ideology we neither like nor understand. But radicals blow up our stuff and that never happens with any other ideology so therefore every penny is justified." Hmmmm But the left is hypocritical? But seriously... I'd be asking myself some serious fundamental questions if my country ha the biggest military in the world but not free education. Just saying

Still advocating for Utopia. Don't worry I meant this to be a discussion about how to handle fake news. I guess it backfired. But oh well

Also, thanks for the compliment.

Oh don't get me wrong.... I'm all in for a completely unregulated and free internet... In fact, i think companies like google and Facebook should even be made either public property or forced to split into smaller companies. Right now they hold FAR TOO MUCH power, especially for companies. And of course, NSA-style is also completely unacceptable. How that can be solved, I do not know. Regarding fake news, people simply need to be more educated. This only strengthens my demand for lifetime access to free college courses (of course, "actual" students get much better courses, but I think some level of constant public education at universities for everyone to walk in is necessary... I imagine it kinda like an almost "intellectual church" kinda deal... people go to university every Sunday, hear a philosophical or political or whatever topic, and have something to talk and think about) The reason I included the proposal of censorship is to give somewhat of an antithesis to my own views. Dialectic and so on Na, i just didn't want to make the first post too opinionated.

Look, WOD sees the problems with having a right wing politician as the man of the working class You can't have both a deregulated economy and a cared for working class. You can't have both low taxes and fair distribution of wealth, i.e. a large middle class.

Why would Trump want to drain te swamp? He is part of the swamp, and I bet you he likes the swamp as well.

@Longknife An excellent Diagnosis. I think I might just add some thoughts, though i don't pretend to have the same insight as you appear to have. I think the situation you describe is an inevitable consequence of both having only two major parties and that those two parties are, politically, in fact very close to each other. Because their differences are, on average, not tremendously big and they are the only parties, this creates a situation where they don't have to cooperate at all. Because they are ideologically fairly close, the elections will also become elections of emotion by reason. The dogma, the villainification (is that a word? I think you know what I mean...) of the other, and the almost complete absence of reasonable discussion are the consequence. You don't only need more parties, you also need more parties on the political spectrum than just Center/Center Right (though admittedly Trump and his cabinet seem to turn out more conservative than the average).

I don't know enough about US laws to comment on that though :/

I find it amazing that people still support Trump. Wasn't your sides biggest argument against Obamas efforts regarding gun control always that it "goes against the constitution"? Yet you support a president who went against the constitution only after a few days in office? The constitution is not the bible. You can't cherry pick the parts you like and ignore the parts you don't. And you can't and definitely shouldn't listen to those who do so every week.

With all happening, we see the many faces of the internet. It appears everything has two sides: -Anonymity and fearlessness of persecution -Access to all information and constant flow of misinformation -The pushing of start ups (for example through kick starter) and the total dominance of a few companies -A political tool for the people directly and huge heavily funded campaigns, and of course even terrorist organisations -The biggest anarchic experiment and the most tools to create total conformity between customer and company And so on and so on... The question is of course how are we to handle the Internet? Should we ban misinformation? Should we allow internet tracking? Should we force the biggest internet companies to split up, breaking their monopolies? And so on and so on.... Essentially, the question we have to face is what we want the internet to be and who we want in control of it.

I have a question. So you say state funded health care should cover ONLY the most necessary operations. Now, that means you will have to decide which operations are necessary. That then of course means you will get to decide which operations the poorest will be able to afford. So instead of working those extra 0.78 seconds (thanks for that number), you instead spend hours dictating what treatment the poor are allowed to get? Seems both logical and fair.

It gets worse Okay I'll stop

Hey, they started. And I just had to

That's true. But te question has to be WHY such things can happen and are accepted. Which brings us pretty quickly to failed interventions. Bennie I want to you ask you a simple but relevant question, all that is required is an answer ...no real debate Do you agree that Russia and Putin are responsible both directly and indirectly for real human rights abuses and more than likely war crimes in Syria and places like Aleppo? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/25/russia-accused-war-crimes-syria-un-security-council-aleppo https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/07/syria-russia-war-crimes-inquiry-john-kerry http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/syria-un-pressures-russia-over-war-crime-of-aleppo-attacks-1.2805158 Yes of course. My turn: do. you agree that failed western interventions is one of the big causes that lead to the rise of fundamentalism and religious extremism?