It’s not that the entire mainstream media is in on it, only the billionaires that own it. The editors and journalists go against their best interests because they have no one else who will pay them. The liberal press isn’t profitable, so the billionaires are trying to make them accomplices in their own destruction.

Rotate the compass 45° clockwise, name the new vertical axis to state economy vs private economy, and name the new horizontal axis to left and right. At the far left(green) you have total destruction of hierarchy and flattening of power inequality, while at the far right(blue) you have absolute hierarchy and centralized power.

State centralized economies(red) lead to increased hierarchy by empowering government officials to become powerful lords. Privatized economies(purple/yellow) lead to increased hierarchy by empowering capitalists to become powerful lords. Trying to reach either the top or bottom tip of the diamond leads you the right tip.

Horseshoe theory kind of applies to Marxist-Leninists like its pro-capitalists creators imagined, but they didn’t realize that they were the other end of the horseshoe. This is because both capitalism and the state are the dangers. The problem with both stems from allowing the unrestricted accumulation of power.

Government officials use political capital, while capitalists use economic capital. They can feed off of each other, with the rich helping politicians and the politicians helping the rich. My preferred solution to both is to redistribute capital from the rich directly to the poor, growing the middle class by putting a ceiling and floor on the rich and the poor.

Governments, companies, organizations and identities seem to function as meta organisms on large scales, interested more in their own survival above all else. It’s an emergent phenomenon of many individuals, but so are all multicellular organisms. Even individual genes can work against the interests of the cells they exist in, moving themselves around in the code to avoid deletion. Companies are machines made of living organisms and shaped by evolutionary pressures. Their practices spread into new companies if they help the company continue its existence. That’s what life is, machines that secure the future existence of their mechanical processes.

People do see ads of products and associate that product with its corresponding content. That’s how ads are understood to work. It doesn’t matter what the person consciously thinks, advertising works mostly through unconscious associations. The ADL, an organization funded by genocidal nationalistic Israelis to garner goodwill from anti-hate activists, isn’t applying alien logic to advertisers. They’re applying the very logic advertisers use to design their ads in the first place.

Utilitarianism is an explicitly hedonistic ethical framework, but all other moral frameworks tie back into hedonism in some way. Kant’s categorical imperative, the Socratic inspired virtue theories used by Christian theologians for millenia, social contract theory, even the widespread golden rule. They all tie back into serving one’s own self interest if you follow their logic. It’s so implicit that it’s unavoidable. They all originate in what we think will bring us utility/pleasure/happiness/eudaimonia.

The craziest part is, we don’t even serve our own pleasure. Having kids usually makes people less happy, but we want to do it regardless. Our pleasure evolved to serve our genes, just like everything about us.

You asked about my answers to longstanding questions. I found the form of the good that Plato imagined: the evolutionary imperative. I also discovered that forms come from our neurology and aren’t inherent, so it’s more accurate to say that I found the likely answer to a high degree of certainty.

That’s ok though, I also realized that we cannot ever have certainty about anything based in reality, with all deductive reasoning being based on induction. I don’t need proof, only evidence. It only needs to be the best answer, and I can always end up being wrong. Proof doesn’t matter if one’s assumptions are wrong. Solipsism is unavoidable. Not even “I think, therefore I am” is accurate, as it assumes thinking requires an agent who thinks.

The Trump voters only voted for what they thought were their interests, it’s just that their understanding was inaccurate. It’s ok though, because even the rich and powerful people that support Trump were voting against their long-term interests.

The rich destabilize societies to gain more power by getting free market ideologues elected, pushing the workers to suffer, which leads them to radical ideolgies. The rich then prefer to avoid socialism, so they support radical right wing ideologies in the form of fascists like Trump. Unfortunately, fascists create more worker suffering, harm the economy, and create international conflict with other nations. The global rise in fascism and collapse of neoliberal policies has pushed the entire planet towards World War.

This sounds crazy, but look at what Trump did in the middle east to inflame the current conflict. He withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and killed their general in an unprovoked attack. This has made Iran pursue nukes and take a more hostile stance against US interests, as their economy suffered from sanctions and they got pushed further to the right. His reckless support of Israel led Israel to be more bold in their actions against Palestinians and confident of US support. Israel has nukes, and if the war with Iran continues to escalate, they might be used by a desperate Israel.

His support of Putin and weakening of alliances with Europe probably encouraged Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. If Ukraine gets pushed too far west, Poland will likely put boots on the ground to prevent them from being easily invaded by Russia. Trump killing the Israel/Ukraine/border security funding bill makes it harder for Ukraine to remain strong against Russia, increasing the likelihood of EU direct intervention, and increasing the risk of nuclear war in Europe.

Trump’s useless trade war with China empowered hardliners in their government to be more hostile and nationalistic, increasing the probability of them invading Taiwan. If Taiwan gets invaded, the US might interfere militarily and risk escalating to a broader conflict, although nukes are less likely than the other conflicts.

Regardless of what values the rich may have, all this danger is not good from any perspective. Nobody wins in wars they need to fight in. The military industrial complex is fucked if the US gets nuked. The entire global economy has already been harmed by these conflicts, and even if no nuclear bombs are ever used, conventional bombs are already bad enough. Modern nations can’t be conquered by direct warfare, only destroyed.

Fascists are bad for everyone in the long run, and that’s what the GOP is. They aren’t regular conservatives like in the past, they’re against liberal democracy entirely. Bush wanted to use some elements of liberal democracy to enact conservative goals, but Trump broke from it completely. The entire Republican party has been purged of anyone who might stand against fascism, from Romney who will be gone by the end of the year, to Liz Cheney who got the boot in 2022. Even fascists like McCarthy can’t survive if they don’t follow every order Trump gives.

You’re right about me not knowing what you think you advocate for, but saying pro cop people have a point isn’t advocating for reform. I think cops need to exist to some extent, but I’m willing to defund them, prosecute them, and replace the entire system to reign them in. Pro cop people aren’t giving enough criticism to make any positive change, sorry.

I also should have said conservative instead of right wing. Conservative plans will never help the weak. Values and intentions don’t matter when the solution doesn’t work. Progressive plans may not work every time, but they are the only ones capable of working.

No, you’re conservative. I don’t like labeling my beliefs either, but being pro cop and antiprogressive is conservative. In reality, self proclaimed American conservatives want to change society to be more hierarchical and unfair, not keep things as is. If you’re not applying pressure for reformation, selfish interests will cause backsliding. The battle will never end until humanity dies out. Good things require effort to maintain.

Another mistake you make is thinking progressives have more power than we do. The rich aren’t progressive. Companies pandering to diverse customers aren’t progressive, they’re just making money by expanding their customer base. The right screams about companies being woke, but the companies are often act more right wing than they would be if they were only chasing profits.

Social media companies don’t censor conservatives unfairly, instead they protect conservatives from the policies they implement to prevent brands from pulling advertising. The standards are higher for left wing causes in the mainstream media, as the rich people who own them are right wing. Accurate descriptions of reality in science and journalism tend to support progressives more than conservatives, with publications often introducing inaccuracies to prop up conservative positions.

My biggest problem when I thought like you was having an inaccurate view of left wingers as having power in society. Many agents that I thought were left wing actually weren’t, instead only supporting left wing causes for personal gain. Empirical observations are almost always in opposition to right wing plans for improving society. Exclusively right wing plans never make things better for the weak; never.

If you want fundamental truths and answers to our biggest questions, read my comment history. This comment is already long enough.

I went through a phase where I felt the exact same way. My upbringing was left wing and becoming more conservative felt like rebellion. I was never really that right wing, but I was convinced that conservatives must have some valid points. After all, how could half the country be wrong on almost everything?

Unfortunately for conservatives, I never stopped questioning, never stopped pushing ideas to their limits. In doing so, I independently came to many of the same left wing viewpoints I grew up with, only stronger and more resilient. I realized that my parents were actually right, while I was wrong.

More importantly, I realized that conservative ideas did make sense, but not at face value. Conservatives are inconsistent and contradictory because they aren’t expressing their motivations explicitly. They often aren’t aware of their actual reasoning, but there is logic behind their views. The logic is usually very cynical and cruel, dehumanizing people and valuing identity over principles.

I used to think somewhat like you, until I applied a critical lens to conservative ideas in the same way I had investigated familiar progressive ideas. Now I’m a trans woman who’s farther left than every elected representative in congress. I still believe in almost all of the leftist ideas I was raised with, only I’ve pushed them farther than my parents ever did.

Right now you’re critical of progressives, and often you spot valid flaws, but are you willing to continue? Are you willing to peer deeper into reality; to open your eyes to fundamental truths? That was my strategy, and it took me from naive progressive, to rebellious centrist, to the eventual woke queen I am today.

I continue to awaken to new truths, mostly because I like doing it. I like the feeling of discovery and understanding. Thanks to my efforts, I’ve found likely answers to humanity’s biggest questions, raised my base happiness levels from constantly suicidal to never hopeless, and became way smarter than I thought I’d ever be. I think most people can learn what I’ve learned if they apply themselves, but it’s still a tough journey. Are you willing to take it?

Yeah. To a lot of young, vulnerable people who are less minoritized, progressives feel like the authority. You’re told you’re privileged, but you don’t feel it. This is partially because we take our personal experiences for granted, but also because even the relatively privileged struggle. Some people suffer more from the system than others, but a ton of things suck for everyone.

Unfortunately, the promises of the right are a monkey’s paw at best, or a scam at worst. Even if the right succeeds, they usually make things worse for everyone in the process, even themselves.

Honestly, I blame cops. Cops proudly look like thumbs over here, so right wingers have mostly captured the bald aesthetic. Bald and aggressive white men are assumed to be fascists because that’s what off duty cops look like. It’s worse to look like a cop than a civilian Nazi skinhead.

Even bands that aren’t big on politics know to beat up Nazis at their shows. It’s just common sense.

Hating the hateful doesn’t count. Waters may be an asshole, but his politics are fairly based. Even his bad takes come from leftist viewpoints.

I guess because people still use it. It might be obvious, but it isn’t common knowledge. All people are ignorant about most things. There’s just too much to know and not enough time to learn it unless you’re forced.

Linux users are the homeowners who build and fix everything they can, but look down on people that don’t find craftsmanship fun, claiming that they’re saving money by doing the work themselves. Good on you for having that hobby, but if you don’t enjoy it, spending time to learn those skills costs time that could be spent earning more money than you’d save. Paying an expert to do things you don’t enjoy is usually the cheaper option. They can be found almost anywhere, similar to how Linux users use Apple or windows products from time to time.

Mac users are suburb dwellers who view their way of life as what everyone should aspire to, ignorant to the downsides of sprawl and reliance on cars to go anywhere. Commute times suck, while walkable neighborhoods with public transit make most people healthier and happier. There’s an important classist component, often bundled with racism, that underscores this ideal.

Windows users are people that live in urban areas for work, trying to find reasonable rent or home prices as unchecked capitalism makes everything worse, but unaware why things suck. They get annoyed when people share their passion for handiwork, and dislike suburban folks for thinking they’re superior rather than the downsides to suburban life. However, because most people live this way, and live this way for work, they usually don’t have strong identities like suburbanites or handy homeowners.

Homeless people are those who can’t afford computers, overlapping with actual homeless people, and rural people are those that don’t use computers more than they need to, socializing face to face and literally touching grass.

It’s the subjective experience of not seeing the wage growth themselves, combined with things not being acceptable for a longer time than Biden or Trump’s presidency. Things are improving right now, but haven’t caught up to people having economic security. When you’ve sunk deep enough, it takes a longer period of rising to finally catch a breath. Basically, the current growth must sustain for longer to get more people into a good position. If things continue on their current path, people will calm down.

It’s also true that necessities like housing have inflated in price far faster than other goods, again, for longer than a decade. Unnecessary goods might be cheaper than ever, but you NEED things like shelter and there are NO alternatives. Despite good competition, the demand is inelastic, so limited excess supply translates to soaring prices, plus, other factors are at play.

It also isn’t a good idea ignore subjective experiences in general. Not only are people almost always right to be unhappy on some level, invalidating their lived experiences isn’t a good idea. Democrats will not be successful if they don’t listen to people’s displeasure. Basic economic measures are essential, but not sufficient to make voters happier.

Effective individual behaviors rely on empathy and denying short term gratification for long term prudence. Empathy breaks down on large scales for most people, and denying short term exploitation to build a better world is not something even the best of us can reliably do. Good vibes aren’t useless, but they are not enough to make necessary changes.

As far as relinquishing power goes, my eyes are wide open. It’s necessary in theory, but I don’t respect laws that prevent people from living well. I respect the enforcement, but only because I must work to avoid it. I recognize that the only way to stop some bad things is violence, and that all rights must be protected by someone. It’s undeniable that violence, although often avoidable, is necessary to exist. Human made laws and concepts without enforcement will be trampled on and basically don’t matter.

Anarchists are the antithesis to authoritarians, not liberals, which doesn’t even mean they’re right. Besides, liberal democracy can support and enforce non government entities that take rights away from others. Even if you ignore slavery, where the liberal government arrests human beings if they try to gain freedom illegally, companies and owners can legally take away things necessary for life. Are the homeless, starving, and dirt poor really free in any meaningful way?

I personally think we can build on liberal democracy and the concept of private property, but serious adjustments need to be made to actually have a free society. We need, at the bare minimum, a welfare state that ensures everyone has the necessities, and access to the tools for self improvement. A society that doesn’t give people fair chances is not a free society.

I’m in favor of limiting the private accumulation of wealth and power, as people shouldn’t have the unilateral power wielded by the current ultra rich. This wouldn’t be communism, but it would maximize freedom and minimize class conflict. It would democratize economic power as much as possible. Another key change would be making it as easy as possible to check the power of those who wield violence. Police must have democratic accountability.

The most controversial thing I think we need is a federation for peace, who’s sole purpose is limiting and resolving interstate conflict. It would work to destroy or neutralize weapons of mass destruction, while also binding member states to enforce agreements made by the federation. It would be fundamentally decentralized, relying on the shared self interest of humanity to squash the selfish interests of humanity. The goal would be to prevent a single player from holding too many cards, even the federation itself. I don’t expect it to happen until people recognize that we need it, but it is a part of the puzzle that cannot be overlooked: the quest to ensure liberty must be global, as the mechanisms that take away the most liberty, mostly global capitalism and imperialism, have no borders.

Having a mentality of sovereignty won’t change much, if only because it doesn’t fix many of the inherent problems with a global human society. A big downside to capitalism and free markets are mortal limitations. We can’t predict the future or understand the full effects of our actions. We estimate based what information we have, but we can often be wrong even if we have good intentions. The externalities of our actions are basically impossible to calculate, and even when we discover them, we possess the ability to suspend our empathy and ignore potential harms.

I’m also not a fan of the assumption that we can’t tell others what to do until we put our own lives in order. Sometimes getting others to do things is essential to changing your own life and improving your own situation. On a personal level, you can set boundaries with toxic people in your life or convince others to leave you alone. On a large scale, you can overthrow an oppressive system or change laws that prevent you from living well. Telling others what they should do is not mutually exclusive to making changes in your own life.

Sovereignty is great and all, but even if widely respected by most, some will not, and those that do must step in to protect it. The way I view it, laws don’t exist for ethically behaving people, they exist because there will always be unethical people, and there’s no way to ensure that any ethical person will always be ethical.

The fundamental reality is that someone who wants to do good can participate in an evil system. Unregulated global capitalism uses child slaves and keeps people in poverty, all while pumping substances into the environment that harm everyone. You might respect the sovereignty of everyone you meet, but anything you buy can be made by manufacturers who don’t respect the sovereignty of people you’ll never meet.

Capitalism is too big for its problems to be solved by individual behaviors without changing our current system. We must change it to actually make a system that respect everyone’s anything, be it sovereignty, human rights, or the ability to live.

The problems start before Stalin. I also don’t know what you mean by capitulation or how the USSR worked less by it than capitalism.

As far as a system that everyone buys into out of their own free will, it’s probably not possible. Even in a system that perfectly ensures equality for all people, a couple of assholes will not like the system because they want to dominate others. Even anarchy would require a mechanism to uphold anarchy through violence. The best we can do is to create a system where everyone is equal and it is most prudent to uphold it from a rational point of view.

In order to own anything at all, you need a mechanism to protect that property with violence. When you have to protect your own property with violence through hired guards, it’s feudalism. A necessary quality of capitalism is that the government protects your property with violence. Capitalism cannot exist without governments that defend property with violence or the threat of it.

All modern states are the final arbiters of decisions, just like the USSR and similar governments. If business contracts are signed in America, it’s the governments that force people to follow them. If you have a property dispute, the government decides who wins through laws. The government ensures that individual rights are protected through violence, from basic rights like the right to life, to the right to have private property. Laws are backed up by violence, as laws only matter when enforced.

The issue with attempts to establish communism in the past is that their democratic mechanism either failed, or never existed to begin with. When democratic workers councils disagreed with what Stalin wanted, he just ignored them. What could they do about it? When member states of the Soviet Union got upset with federal decisions, tanks were sent in to silence any dissent. These states enforced systems that centralized power and allowed small groups, or even a single person to make unilateral decisions and never have their power challenged.

Sorry, but the protection of rights requires that governments limit freedom. All societies and nations on earth do this. If given absolute freedom, some would kill and brutalize to gain power, forcing everyone who wants to avoid this to band together and enforce rules that prevent that behavior. This is the biggest reason to rationally want a government. Even if you believe rights aren’t social constructs themselves, everyone knows they must be fought for.

Some tankies use the fact that governments inherently limit freedom to claim all governments are authoritarian, and therefore states like the PRC and the USSR are no better than liberal democracies. Your definition of authoritarianism supports the bullshit arguments tankies make.

Authoritarianism is a sliding scale, and not every limit on freedom is equivalent in contributing to a country being more authoritarian. Not having the freedom to kill others without consequence doesn’t make a country very authoritarian. Not having the freedom to publicly disagree with the government is a large factor in a state being authoritarian.

Communism and socialism do not necessitate having no freedom of speech or bodily autonomy. Communism, as defined by Marx, was the final stage socialism and anarchistic in nature.

The idea that communism is always authoritarian uses the idea of communism popularized by Marxist-Leninist movements, where dissent is highly controlled and limited. In reality, these regimes were socialist at best, calling themselves communists to claim that only their version of socialism would deliver Marx’s communism. Even to the authoritarian communists themselves, their states never achieved communism at any point.

When it comes to indie stuff or blockbusters that were huge risks for the studios like Dune, you should pay for it if you have the ability. Pirating doesn’t directly hurt most of the people who worked on the film, as they usually get payment upfront. It does hurt them in the future, as studios won’t finance similar future projects or projects with those creators. This is why you should pay for risky movies that are of higher quality.

If Dune didn’t make the money it did, the franchise would have ended there. I was surprised it did as well as it did, as while I never doubted that it would be a good movie considering the people that made it, I was convinced it wasn’t something most people would appreciate. The director’s last film, Blade Runner 2049, was better than the first movie, but not enough people saw it in theaters. I was blindsided by Dune even getting made, let alone being a financial success.

Bottom line, pay for movies you want people to make more of if possible. Pirate shit you don’t care about. If you can’t pay for media because of financial hardship, pirate away. Investors have made streaming services suck for consumers while squeezing workers into having little disposable income or time. They deserve piracy, as it’s the harvest they have sown. Property is a social contract, and by not letting workers see the benefits of ownership, they have every right to not respect it.

I’m just confused about why Clinton was even brought up. I also don’t see how she’s a class traitor when she was always wealthy. If she is a class traitor, wouldn’t that be a good thing?