I would say right wingers who want some sort of eugenics because muh social Darwinism. its rather ironic that they think we can plan out our own evolution but we can't plan out the economy.
What are the people most pointless to argue with?
Benjamin Morris
Asher Lopez
Stalin pls go
Mason Carter
What the alternative? Market socialism?
Charles Evans
NEETsocs usually. Their actual ideology is/was so ill-defined (even in its own time) that people who adhere to it can claim it's anything that's convenient to argue for in a given debate. They're socialists; they're capitalists. They're isolationists; their imperialists. They care for their people; they practice social Darwinism.
Planned economy doesn't always mean Stalinist-style, especially with the advent of better computers and computer networking that can handle a lot of the process that in the past might have been handled by slowly-processed paperwork and do that processing efficiently in a relatively decentralized fashion.
Dominic Miller
I don't believe in horseshoe theory in terms of real world institutions, but in terms of changing regular peoples minds who have no financial interest in the current system in which they dwell in, extremes tend to bode well with other extremes. It's easier to convert ancaps to other forms of anarchism. It's easiest for fascists/militarist righties to become tankies.
The hard part is converting "moderates" of all stripes. The problem is no matter how mush you get through to them "conventional" wisdom comes back like a seesawing hammock to bring them down to centrism again.
Lincoln Reyes
Processing power won't solve anything. Ever heard the phrase "garbage in, garbage out"? The Soviet system had issues with lying/exaggerated production reports all the fucking time which made it difficult to meet demand in an efficient way.
Dylan Williams
globalists
Ryder Lewis
just fucking stop
David Jones
Libertarians can literally pull a taqqiyya on you. Also have you heard of 'argumentation ethics'? ie. the fact that you are arguing instead of resorting to violence means you in fact accept libertarianism/
James Ortiz
my god, I was spooked all along, violence really is the answer
Aiden Phillips
...
Dominic Gray
wew
Blake Green
1231Good thread bump 81231
Nathaniel Morales
Hardcore nazis. Doesn't matter how much you give them evidence,they simply do not listen
Noah Long
Hegelians in general, especially so if you're not a Hegelian/ you are influenced by (late, mainly) Kierkegaard; Anarcho-Transhumanists if you are an Anarcho-Primitivist (and they are aware of it) and vice versa, finally, any non-academic-ish/ armchair/ antagonistic discussion often leads nowhere (other than petty, misguided feuds), at least so in my experience.
Brody Torres
Part of the problem was, if Mikhail didn't meet production quotas, he or his family get's thrown into a gulag and tortured, or forced hard labour.
If you had human rights and individual protections, so people aren't killed over not meeting quotas, then people would have less incentive to lie or exaggerate their production reports.
Colton Young
...
Ayden Cooper
I don't know to argue with eugenicist. Your only argument is
Anthony Bennett
The trick is to not kill people over missing quotas.
Also the trick is to not let people manually report stats, you can take most of them directly from their automatic systems.
Oliver Cruz
Ideological centrists. If your ideal is literally "nothing should ever really change", it is very hard to convince you that all of society should be broken down and rebuilt from scratch.
Zachary Watson
this
Joseph Gonzalez
Isn't that literally the definition of conservative?
Cooper Fisher
Voluntary eugenics is a good idea and completely compatible with communism.
Jack Butler
It's an out dated idea from an old time that will not fix anything at all. DNA is not as programmable as you think it is just by choosing which people fuck. Indeed, the most talented people are usually flawed in such a way eugenics and your fascistic wet dreams would cull them outright.
So basically you're a cunt. A stupid cunt who thinks they're smart.
Eli Thomas
If people with heritable genetic diseases don't have children, we won't get people with genetic diesases. That's what i'm talking about. Not only letting "talented people" (whatever the fuck that mean) have children.
Angel Barnes
This is unethical in itself because demanding people not have heritable diseases casts out an enormous enough amount of the population.
There is no negative that can be fixed by simply telling people with them not to reproduce. It's also inherently impossible to enforce, life wills itself, it breaks through barriers and its chaotic. Seeking to control reproduction outside of a strict totalitarian way will not work, and even then, it will not work. For a variety of reasons.
I'm not saying talented people don't reproduce, I'm saying talented people were born of what people in eugenics would cull.
Noah Torres
.>>1221270
Spooky
Do you understand what voluntary means?
Irrelevant
Jaxon Jackson
Good luck getting medical professionals on your side when it violates their oath lmfao
That's even less possible.
No, it's relevant.
Bentley Morgan
Which oath? Hopefully you aren't one of the people who think modern medical professionals actually take a centuries old oath
What is this even supposed to mean? I from the start said "voluntary".
Read this article: dailystormer.com
Asher Cooper
…..lol
And I said it's impossible to achieve much from that, to the point you might as well see the results as impossible.
>Read this article: dailystormer.com
No
Levi Wilson
You'd know all about being 100% Hippocratic (or, consistent, really, about anything, except your palate for shit)
opendemocracy.net