Message from @ETBrooD

Discord ID: 620524041396158474


2019-09-09 07:28:57 UTC  

the difficulty in communication seems to be what an individual is meaning to convey when they say they do or don't *see* something. I communicate it in a willingness to convey I don't put contextual wieght on it, you communicate it to convey whether or not its physically observed.

2019-09-09 07:28:57 UTC  

Anyway, you two have fun.

2019-09-09 07:29:46 UTC  

Nice dodging the question Joker

2019-09-09 07:29:47 UTC  

neither definition is indididually correct or incorrect, we seem to have simply gone over the other's head

2019-09-09 07:29:57 UTC  

It's always great when you can accuse others of something dishonestly

2019-09-09 07:30:03 UTC  

But when that same argument gets turned on you

2019-09-09 07:30:05 UTC  

You just avoid it

2019-09-09 07:30:36 UTC  

I was identifying where I was wrong in my judgement

2019-09-09 07:30:42 UTC  

You were wrong about me being a racist

2019-09-09 07:30:46 UTC  

yes

2019-09-09 07:30:50 UTC  

Thank you

2019-09-09 07:32:02 UTC  

still, your repetitive reference to things being safe or unsafe or weak didn't help the issue

2019-09-09 07:33:50 UTC  

I don't know how to solve that issue when it concerns the matter of race and racism, because it's so emotionally and culturally and politically loaded in this day

2019-09-09 07:34:01 UTC  

I can't present nuanced arguments anymore without being accused of racism by someone

2019-09-09 07:34:12 UTC  

This didn't use to be the case

2019-09-09 07:35:29 UTC  

well its just needlessly combative laguage. when concerning the establishment of understanding, 'productive' and 'unproductive' are much clearer

2019-09-09 07:36:45 UTC  

though in the very same respect, the term "progressive" is just as unfortunately innappropriate a term for this

2019-09-09 07:37:42 UTC  

I guess maybe

2019-09-09 07:38:11 UTC  

I could be considered progressive in a few ways, too, despite overall being more conservative

2019-09-09 07:39:34 UTC  

its like how I can't say America needs "a party of the people" or a "people's party" if I wish to refer to a party that can accurately represent the democratic mandate of the citizenry

2019-09-09 07:41:00 UTC  

Well about that, I actually think democracy is overrated, when just looking at the justice system for example which is clearly undemocratic, and we're hardly ever questioning it except in specific cases

2019-09-09 07:41:51 UTC  

gotta ask, since again, mixed pol is hard to tell who's from where, referring to UK or US justice system?

2019-09-09 07:43:56 UTC  

Well I was talking more about in general in western countries

2019-09-09 07:44:55 UTC  

I understand legislation is voted for, not just decided by an authority, but the voting process is not exactly a good representation of a truly democratic system. And who knows maybe that's a good thing, I don't know.

2019-09-09 07:45:16 UTC  

Efficiency and "common sense" often trumps democracy, even in a democratic setting

2019-09-09 07:46:28 UTC  

And then there's also the issue that the democratic systems that are in place are not actually truly democratic. Which again, may be a good thing.

2019-09-09 07:47:09 UTC  

I believe democracy should be resorted to only when absolutely neccessary. I believe it's being overused, and thus abused.

2019-09-09 07:48:00 UTC  

Because after all, democracy is, in its very essence, mob rule. It must be tempered, and we do that by often simply doing.... nothing at all. No authority whatsoever. Just let things go.

2019-09-09 07:48:55 UTC  

well such is why the US isn't a direct democracy

2019-09-09 07:49:18 UTC  

Yes, and I think that's good

2019-09-09 08:55:01 UTC  

Federalism has been slowly eroded over time, in the U.S., the most prominent a Wilsonian-progressive, 17th Amendment. I've previously written in great length as to why popularly elected Senators was a negative, but to name just a few:
1) The House was meant to remain the only unstable chamber within the Congress, subject to the public tenacity district by district and localizing politics, leaving the Senate stable and apolitical, thereby preserving the sovereignty of various constitutional mechanics the Senate provides for. Take the Judiciary, the politicization of the Kavanaugh appointment, while examining all previous appointments over the past century, since the Amendment was ratified. They're mostly progressive, populist, and willing to stand for the Federal government's violation of property rights and expansion, among other key issues, such as allowing for unions to conduct racketeering, blackmail, and economic terrorism, for example;
2) The 17th Amendment made it easy for wealthy coastal areas, of greatest economic scale, to influence and dictate Senate elections to the rest of the rest of the country. Without a 17th Amendment, any influence must be made at the local, district-level House as that's the constituency they're held to account, while they were the ones to appoint Senators. It's also more difficult for, what has become a Corporate State, to dictate the elections of 435, 2-year term House seats, than it is to dictate the 100, 6-year term Senate seats. Local interests in New York or Florida shouldn't dictate the elections of 25 fly-over States. This is why minimum wage and other labor laws, for example, have been accepted by a Senate, at the cost of economic development for the inner-country majority, while all economic interests are saturated around economies of scale (economic fascism), burdening the rest of the country with market-entry barriers and various other forms of regulation that have regulated out various free-market processes within many

2019-09-09 08:55:02 UTC  

industries, leaving behind the façade, a veneer of Capitalism, as with any planned economy, leading to increased consumer and operational costs at a loss of efficiency. Certainly, alphabet-soup (the innumerable amount of federal agencies planning the economy) never would've came around, and FDR's (what do you know, another Democrat) fascist shenanigans, praised by Mussolini himself as "boldly interventionist in the field of economics," would've never come unfolded;
3) We'll talk about this some more in the future, but for now I've got to get myself a shower and lead a productive day.

2019-09-09 09:03:14 UTC  

At the end of the day, Federalism embraces the core of Democratic values, than does the direct-Democratic system, a zero-sum game of national politick. Self-governance, the core of the American way, tells us the 17th Amendment must go.

2019-09-09 09:06:18 UTC  

That's for you two, @ETBrooD & @Jokerfaic, along with any passerby. Scroll up for my comments on your conversation about "Democracy."

2019-09-09 09:16:51 UTC  

Good

2019-09-09 09:19:11 UTC  

And, this is what people should begin to recognize as the petri dish of America's corporate globalism, the firms with monopolies state-side, due to indirect planning of the economy through regulation, within our very government, who've grown to reach outside our borders and sacrifice our interests, feeding the monstrous regimes (PRC, for example) that inevitably rival us, with impunity, @ETBrooD. There are arguments to be made both for and against this system, as focusing on the interests of economies of scale has a compounding and perpetual effect of growth, but the long-term consequences just may outweigh it.

2019-09-09 09:23:33 UTC  

See this is the issue we need to address