Centrists are the worst

b-but the overton window right? horseshoe theory is shit btw. here's my 2D representation of the only issue as complicated as religion. it's totally from Hitler's secret documents (who btw totally owned a frog).

The more of a change you want to make, the more existing infrastructure needs to be destroyed for it to be created, social or otherwise, thus extremist views require authoritarian measures to accomplish this. It doesn't just happen naturally, either way you end up stepping on many toes.

...

...

for once "no u" is correct.
It's really everyone except for centrists that thinks everyone but themselves is dumb. Centrists think there is some truth to most of their oppositions arguments. But knows one side can't have all the answers on their own, and would be tyrants if allowed to have all the power they really wanted.

Centrists apply the "everything in moderation" philosophy to something it inherently doesn't apply to.
No, retard. It's a matter of which policies from each side should be utilized for the best society. If you were perfectly centrist and the government were as well, but the government went left everywhere you leaned right and vise versa, the government would be just as centrist as you, but now everything's fucked in your opinion. And it's quite likely that one side is correct on more issues than the other so the government should lean that way.

On more specific issues:
Again, moron, it's not about balance, it's about selecting the policies that work. If you made it illegal for a company to have over a hundred employees, that would be a protectionist policy with horrible consequences. It doesn't matter how free market the rest of the economy is, that particular protectionist policy would be retarded regardless of how you try to balance it.
Once again, balance is not the issue. It's about individual policies that work. If you let companies indiscriminately pollute drinking water but strongly protected the air, you're still a fucking retard. And balancing those isn't the solution either because there shouldn't be ANY dumping in drinking water and air pollution is dependent on which chemicals are being released.
Nigger, are you fucking retarded?

In short: identifying as a "centrist" says literally nothing about your views.
Get a coherent framework with which you come to the conclusions you come to and identify as that if you don't like nebulous terms like "left" and "right."

Truth. However, there are constants. Remove the horseshoe and replace it with a shovel on a chain that takes swipes at our existence with every reactional (this time it'll be diff) swipe from "left" to "right"

Nice strawman faggot. Balance doesn't mean literal half and half. You actually stated what it means in your own post, using policies that work, regardless of where they come from.

I should be more nice to you though i guess, taking things to literally is a tell-tale sign of severe autism.

I don't think of it as a balance between left and right, but a balance between the people who hold left and right ideals.
The point is to maintain harmony between people so they can focus on more important things than getting at each others throats.
It's to keep as many factions in society content so that it can thrive without constant disruptions.

We're to the portion of the program where morality is being legislated.
abortion?
You're picking at semantics and coming out more of a fool than your enemy (both retarded) because you have no concept of reality.

The solution is not about balance at all. I am actually going on literal conversations I have had with these people. It's often the most benign statement people make about politics that "we need to not go too far one way or another."
Then you shouldn't identify as a centrist. Find something which accurately describes what you generally think works, no matter how rough this generalization may be.
I'll even help: what logic do you generally use to determine whether a result is good or bad?

Disharmony is going to arise through interaction with those they are disharmonious with. If harmony's what you want then you're either advocation for an apathetic populace with little ideological conviction of the separation of those who are at odds ideologically.

That is literally the whole point of legislation: to enforce a moral standard.
the abortion debate is (usually) and argument of definitions. Most people in western society consider human life valuable in itself. The question is whether you consider a fetus to be a human life.
no u.

*advocating* for an apathetic populace with little ideological conviction *or* the separation of those who are at odds ideologically.

Glad you're keeping up. This feels like /n/, thanks faggot.
So what then, do you propose in a society that is half fee fees (morality) based? Those "policies that work", as you propose, are completely misaligned with regards to effectiveness

You say that almost like it is a bad thing.
A healthy populace has nothing to complain about.

morality isn't just "feelings." There usually is a level of emotion applied in the axioms of a moral theory, but moral standards are the result of logic utilizing these axioms. Literally EVERY law in existence is for a moral purpose (however misguided it may be in your view). If you don't think so, name one that isn't.

Perhaps an apathetic society is a good thing in your view. Give them their bread and circuses and they'll be content. Tbh, that's the ONLY way a [classical] liberal society can function in my estimation.

Nah, you crept back into your shell.
Morality is the epitome of subjective as you stated. You're at odds with yourself. Follow it through without some bullshit pride. You're user, no on fb. Let me spoonfeed a bit:

...

While absolute left/right with no in between is a false dichotomy, the "centrists" who claim having any leanings whatsoever makes you an extremist really do need a swift, firm kick in the dick.
I don't even hate marxists as much as them, and I wouldn't shed a tear if every marxist suddenly caught on fire.

You're assuming your own conclusion.
Let me guess: you're an anarchist. lol.

As I said: a level of emotion is required to establish an axiom, but LOGIC turns those axioms into moral rules.

On the contrary all I see is extremists say any sense of restraint is betraying the cause.

You really interested in this? You've got some programming to undo. I'm in no ways perfect, but there's some shit you've been fed that's glow in the dark.

LOGIC as you call it has replaced with subjective consumption of backing facts. Would you agree with this? Or do you think that everyone you view is full of shit is just full of shit for lulz?

...

"assuming your own conclusion" in an argument is FAR different from "assuming someone you're arguing with has x viewpoint." But i guess that kind of conflation is to be expected from an intellectually dishonest cunt. lol

Logic and facts are unrelated.
As an analogy: facts are the tools and raw materials. logic is the process of making something with them.

Axioms are assumed self evident.In morality, they are the essence of what you consider to be a good or bad thing. The moral rules resulting from logic are the things which are logically result from or contradict these axioms.

And now i gotta do something. Ill be back to discuss this more.

If that's all they want from me, that's ideal.
The less they are worried about the better.

You were willing enough to quarter my opinion into a pre-concieved group. Why you'd shy from that when there is an objective right is glaring to the reader.
Incorrect on so many levels. Random thought: We've lost all semblance of the trivium and quadrivium way of approaching education at all ages. Even places that advocate and teach it don't follow it (see: searx or google if you're a faggot) We've all been fed bullshit our entire lives, shouldn't have to argue that with you but I will if need be. We've also been fed a false dichotomy, meaning that both sides play into the same goal. There are also interested, and sometimes paid, groups to enforce a way of thought online.
Is there any part of that you disagree with?
To whom?
You're a step ahead of yourself. Back up, because someone got to you. Just for shits and grins apply that statement to a subjective meaning of one of those terms.

Critical theory is the worst fucking thing to ever happen. However, it is still a reality. Thus, you are removing part of the populaces morality and forcefully imposing your own against their will. Sadly, this goes against your take. The solution is right in front of you m8.

Militant Centrists are the best group tbh

because you seemed to imply laws were arbitrary and that this was a bad thing. but i guess calling them bad would be assuming you had your own moral framework. so eh.
I didn't necessarily say we had an objective moral system nor that it would be glaringly obvious if we had one.
Perhaps "unrelated" is the wrong word. But valid logic using false premises IS STILL VALID LOGIC.
no, each moral system has a different set of goals. Now, if you're talking about the leaders manipulating the people for self interest, that's quite likely. But if you have no moral code you can't justify the notion of this being a bad thing.

whoever declares and agrees with them. clearly not everyone agrees on what these are and that's what results in different moral theories.
examples:
bentham's utilitarianism
pleasure=good, pain=bad
kant's categorical imperative
One should always act as if they are the absolute moral authority in the universe and that the rules they make are not in any way dependent on circumstance under the assumption that everyone else should follow the same rules as you.
Rand's objectivism
everyone should always act in self interest

Elaborate?
oh, so you DO have moral standards?

the issue is getting your populace to that point. This may require controlling the information they consume. Ideology can be like a virus, once the idea is out there, people will become less content with an imperfect system.

start of:
end:

How this doesn't tell you how far off base you are is telling, but I like arguing so here we go.

No. I explicitly (to me) stated that your framework was off and continue to beat my head against that same wall. We fill in gaps with what we have on hand. In your case, it's bias.
No, you continue to state that there is a "right" way to go forward. Even though you are aware we are policing morality. The problem is your lack of understanding with morality and where it comes from.
I'll ignore the ignorance you realized at the end of the post. Yes, and the both serve the same ends. "Do it for the children" applies to both banning free speech as well as pedophile from a certain morality.
Stop trying to combat that, it's the crux of the argument. You know at least enough to pretend to be afk while you look up differing moral philosophy. Now apply it to your statement that there is a "right" way to move forward.
Done.

I actually quite liked the way that turned out. You can eat a dick if you didn't.

I provided no particular framework, as far as i know at least.
Yes, but i didn't say which way was the right way.
Yes, that is the point of law. Not all laws are right though and not all right is law.
I explained this. You refuse to listen or you refuse to rebut.
Nice strawman. Most people mock people who say that shit. Hell, the fucking Simpsons developed a caricature around that line of reasoning.
the fact that people disagree on something doesn't make the whole thing arbitrary.
I was eating dinner and walking the dog, retard.

As quickly as I was reminded of good old /n/ discourse, you reminded me of what it has become. Do you faggot. You've got a future ahead of you that I really hope you document.

Kek.
You lost the argument, faggot. Just admit it.

I can't help you if you don't listen. ShareBlue has this all explained in detail and makes some really good points. imkampfy posts on sa btw you parroting facist scum

i do listen. I have responded to all of your points. It's you who fails to respond to mine.
Yes, because disagreeing with you makes me a fascist.

YOU'RE A FUCKING FACIST M8. THE GOD DAMN STICK ON YOUR STUPID BOARD HAS LOGICAL FALLACIES ON IT AND YOU DUMB CUNTS IGNORE IT COSTANSALY.
fuck

The capslock seems to imply this is satire. But just in case: what fallacy did I use and where?

just read people's minds more.
fuck off lad. the whole internet is against you and we will win

Well I did generalize the fuck out of centrists for the sake of hyperbole. And I didn't say I have no opinions. They just aren't the focus of this debate.
well, you're the one who's disregarding the arguments I made. Now, I didn't say that's what makes you wrong. The "loser" of an argument can still be correct. I just think you're incorrect because of the arguments I provided.

You faggots lost me at about this point.

seriously, your whole schtick is when we used to argue against stormfags, with an added touch of dismissal.
the dismissal was brought about first when (((they))) made different opinions get their own board in Holla Forums, then again when Trump mentioned censoring the internet during the campaign. i've tried explaining and there's just a disconnect (the massive irony of our disagreement is lost on you), so i thought i'd bring entertainment out of it.

Call me stupid, but I can't make heads nor tails of this sentence. Literally what are you even saying here?
Yes, because the Jews made Holla Forums.
source? i think i know what you're talking about but im gonna give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not that stupid.
Help me see the truth then, oh enlightened one.

that was sarcasm, just to be clear.

for the love of God, someone explain to me what the fuck a centrist is. how can we have a discussion if we're all operating on different senses of the same term?

typical newfag

not an argument :^)

I really don't think you've any intention of being genuine, but I've got 20 minutes till my german wife gets home.
no, just unaware. the same shit that used to be mandatory to call out is repeated as nauseum. go read cointelpro and pay attention to Holla Forums discourse.
oh boy. you really are clueless. Holla Forums mods forced that. they got tired of arguing (spreading the truth as Holla Forums and progenitors should value (and still do, weird))
the fact i even have to relay this is proof you don't know shit but:
gizmodo.com/trumps-plan-to-fight-isis-online-is-so-fucking-vacant-i-1746760567
businessinsider.com/trump-attacks-plan-transfer-oversight-icann-from-us-wrong-censorship-2016-9
shit's internet old and takes 5 seconds to look up. if you freak over actual quotes due to the source so help me…
the whole disagreement is one of applied morality. the whole crux of your inane stupidity. the fact you still have any capacity to feel smug, let alone question, just proves me initial reaction

You seem to be operating under the assumption I'm a Holla Forumsack. Drop it.
I'm aware. That's why I used /n/ until the introduction of /newsplus/ basically killed it.
That is EXACTLY what I assumed you were talking about. Fucking idiot. He said he would cut off internet access in certain regions. This is not an attack on free speech any more than blowing up railroads is.
In a sense. Legislation is applied morality. They are an attempt to enforce rules which everyone has to live by for a functioning society.

...

you argue exactly like them. ignorant as fuck, confident as hell, completely unaware the audience is smarter than you.
You're an sjw lad. Just like Holla Forums is now.
Now that I understand that you have to talked to like a retard to understand anything, is there anything I can clear up?

i could say exactly the same about you and have just as much to back up my claim..
so if i don't pay my isp, is my right to free speech being infringed if they cut it off?
nigger, I told you EXACTLY what i have been telling you. yet the fact that we've been arguing implies you somehow have problems with it.
It's clearly YOU who has comprehension issues.

I'll give your dumb ass 5 minutes, then it's family time.

k
nice chat lad. maybe a fap thread will come up

I'm not sure who is taking the bait.

don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.
obviously i wouldn't be paying to transport shit by rail if the railroads were blown up.
you implied that me saying "Legislation is applied morality. They are an attempt to enforce rules which everyone has to live by for a functioning society" was somehow a new development. That has been the CRUX of my fucking argument this whole time.

based militant centrism tbh

It's probly me. I doubt anyone could unironically be as dumb as this guy

i win :^)
wife says hi btw. reflect on this, grasshopper.

I like arguing. I don't care if the person im arguing with is being sincere.

nigga, you lost twice

Kek, if you're sincere, keep arguing about the topic at hand.

funny timing. pissed me off coming home, and could use an outlet.
what are you lost on? succinctly. if you want to continue being a cherry picking obstinate dong, i can do that as well.

frankly, where the point of contention is. What do we really even disagree on?

that you feel there is a central nexus for which it is logically right for the government to move forward on.

DEATH TO DIRECTIONISTS

HAIL THE CENTER

Ah, ok. I'm kinda wishy washy on what that nexus even should be tbh. But I would contend that, whatever central nexus we choose, it would be ideal to focus on that thing rather than try to pander to every ideology.
I think I would probably be a bit of a Utilitarian with nationalist sentiments.

I guess, to develop a thesis about my views, a nation's government should seek maximum pleasure and minimum pain for its people and only its people. I don't think we necessarily have jurisdiction nor should have desire to deal with the affairs of other countries which are not actively working for or against our particular interests. Have any arguments against this philosophy?

Imma centrist
AMA

What framework do you use to determine your views?

They wish to be divided?

Heh, I can oblige.

I do have contention.
pleasure leads to sloth m8. also, you're relying upon, at least in theory, a democracy. Who is going to decide on the most pleasurable aspects? There will always be an increasing divide stemming from even the most homogeneous populace. Shit splits ad infinitum, it's human nature.

I agree that ethno-centrism is a good starting point, but it's a bandaid on the tumor. There really isn't a good answer aside from the few precious moments of our starting point. imo

The end point is probably whatever authoritarian bullshit this guy has in mind

No, it's the natural course. Destruction into smaller society and rebuilding.

Mostly socioeconomics.

You mean to say society will collapse or what will happen?

Ah, this is where we get into a bit of the nuance in utilitarian philosophy: "the logic," as it were.

If I may go on a tangent, let's talk about drugs: The worst of them result in short term pleasure, but long term pain. So, while they may appear great in a utilitarian framework at first glance, they actually result in a net negative.

Back on topic: people are happiest when they are working away at something they find joy in doing. While living in an automated society where everything is provided for the people without labor may sound fantastic when you look upon it from outside of the thought bubble, there is no better way to turn yourself into a depressed heap than to not do anything. We should put our people to work for things they can take pride in. But we should also find ways to eliminate the shit work that nobody actually wants to do.
and democracy runs on the people's decisions. Ideally, of course, we'd have a dictatorship with a benevolent, competent leader. But we need a way of determining those people. If you have a better method than democracy, maybe we should do that. I am fully aware of democracy's many, many, imperfections but it's pretty much all we got atm.

The people, i suppose. That is, unless you got something better than democracy to decide a good leader.

well, unless you have the government control the media, educational system, public speech, etc but that's a can of worms.

Maybe. I believe strongly in self determination. I would like to see ethnostates of every race alongside multicultural nations. The only universal rule i believe in is the right to leave the country.

I don't really like utilitarianism too much because it assumes knowledge we might not have. Seeking maximum pleasure and minimum pain can lead to more pain than avoiding it all together.

that doesn't decide whether something's good or bad.
What, in your opinion, is the essence of your morality?
Like, if i were to cuntishly utilize the socratic method and asked questions like "what makes that a good thing?" "why is that a bad thing?" "how do you figure?" etc. ad nauseum, where would you have to stop and say "it's self evidently good/bad?"

wut. these things seem contradictory.

that's not what utilitarianism is though

every society collapses to some extent, we can't help it. humans strive in that.

How is that realistic, when we have such a complex society? The only ones capable of achieving your dream must also attain massive influence. It's a catch 22.
Ignorance (fill in the blank) or adjust the size of societal rule.
Mostly agree on the rest.

I reject the notions of "good" and "bad". Not that I don't believe in them, I just believe they're subjective, flimsy concepts that'll eventually fail scrutiny, so they're not very useful.
Instead, I choose to guide my beliefs and aspirations in terms of "efficient", "effective", etc. Objectively quantifiable terms.
I believe that the end justifies the means, by extension

I'm not really too clear on it, what is it?

As a former centrist i'm going to be brief on the believe structure. All Centrist do have beliefs, they just don't subscribe to and ideal way of thinking. The only thing they believe in is "whatever works best".

Video for more info

...

Same, but that's where the problem lies. Your end point will never match other faggots completely, which leads to the starting point of goal=method. There's either respect of morality, or telling everyone to fuck off. We're too big. Ted K was right about almost everything.
t. faggot you've been arguing with

That can happen in any society though

this is an argument I have heard. Bentham and Rand would probly agree on a lot of things tbh. Bentham was quite a libertarian guy by today's standards. He figured the happiest possible society would be one where people are free to make their own decisions.

these are absolutely contradictory. that's why i added the caveat, "unless you got something better than democracy to decide a good leader."
which I said is a can of worms. there's a lot to go into there but the short version is that this assumes something better than democracy can be used to determine a good leader.

You're right, the ideal isn't something that can ever be truly obtained. But we can get as close to it as we can.
Honestly, I don't like the idea of large countries. I think all countries should be small enough to truly represent the people they govern.

they aren't really. If the ends justify the means then you are implying the ends are a good thing. Efficiency and efficacy are contingent on the things you're striving for.

...

according to those who agree, everyone else is up shit creek. the reality is we're in a fucktoobig society due to tech brought even "closer" by tech.
we're in uncharted waters, and there isn't a solution other than accept it as a bluescreen and hump the reset

No? that sounds like anarcho individualists or egoists? or libertarians bc they oppose any statism? centrists are about compromise and, in the case of radical centrism, doing things from all sides of the spectrum depending on what's neccesary.

STOOOPPPP!!

uscentrist.org/about/party/what-is-centrist

It wasn't, it was a mass scale d&c plot by the jews to set white men against each other.

Well the idea is to make as many people as possible as happy as possible. If it's a huge amount of people who are made discontent by these measures then obviously they were the wrong measures. But frankly, if nearly everyone found something they enjoyed doing and had the opportunity to do that for a living, I don't see much to complain about.

I'm gonna get shat all over for saying this, but perhaps the best solution is a sort of convoluted socialism. The people need to be convinced that they MUST do something to earn a living, but that something no longer has to provide any value to society for them to make that living. We might want to gear the populace into liking the idea of working with automated systems as that will help eliminate shit jobs, and the shit jobs should be the highest paying so as to convince people to actually do them. But frankly, if people are told they can do nothing and survive, tons of people will sit on their ass all day and this inevitably results in a massive wave of depression, as anyone who's spent long periods of time being unproductive knows.

whom?

lol okay they arent about compromise

The solution is meme mines. A whole bunch of people in isolation coming up with original memes. If they're not good they starve.
The egyptians never had too many slaves because they could just build more monuments. We just need to realize that more memes is always better for society and that people are a fine casualty when memes are being produced.

Get some perspective

so all white men fought against their will? shit, you better call the republicans.

we're split 50/50 man. the case can be made for thought control, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter. it's a solipsism argument.
only works in small communities, and meritocracy is better for the individual as well as your goals. you could put my autistic brain in jar for focusing on effectiveness and make people happy, but it doesn't play out like that. look at right fucking now and who supports what. apply either of the populace to the other. there is absolutely no way around a reset.

They were tricked by jewish propoganda.

the left/right dichotomy is a social control mechanism. Americans treat political membership like football.

that's not a coincidence. even the roman empire divided people up into (literal) sports teams, and this had a major influence in politics. You'd have an emperor whose entire power base was followers of the Blue team etc

oh, the teams were just colours. Blue vs Red vs Green etc.

sound familiar?

that's the point, retard. there isn't a difference when you don't know.

That's because the only iota of value in politics is entertainment, so we treat it as such.

haha no you idiot it's designed that way

you've heard the expression "bread and circuses", right? circuses refers to stadiums and colluseums. it means sport.

nah, people get invested. it's more left hand v. right hand fapping without the ability to look at your dick.

But much of what will make them happy is not mutually exclusive. Look at antifags, for example:
They are mostly college educated cunts who work at convenience stores if they have jobs at all. Of course they're pissed. Obviously, they shouldn't have chosen gender studies for a degree but that doesn't mean they won't stop causing problems when they actually have something they enjoy doing apart from subversion. Let them do the shitty performance art they want to do and throw enough money at them to have a decent living. Now you got more shitty musicals that some morons will go see and less burning trashcans.

that's why I wanted the convoluted twist to it. Ie, they NEED to work to get payed, but that work doesn't need to have any value whatsoever.

It all comes down to giving people something they enjoy doing, eliminating the shit no one wants to do, and mitigating the stress involved with money issues.

That's the point, retard. The only reason I even cared enough to pay attention to current events and even know that we had an election last year was because it was so entertaining to watch with the memes and banter.

well there goes the thread

so in other words, even though you have a massive stake in governance, you're patting yourself on the back for being a passive spectator

just according to keikaku

THE JEWS DID THIS!

Except I don't. I didn't vote, I don't give a single shit what the outcome was, I was in it for the journey. I think if you're passionate about it you should involve yourself, go ahead, I'm not trying to convince anyone to live their life differently.

Desire doesn't matter. It's all style, no substance. There's millionaire CEOs that are pissed. You can't believe every one of them are playing the social currency lotto?
People are ramped up on "purpose" and the ever more convoluted "meaning". You can give them cush as fuck jobs with real life VR waifus and they'll bitch. The fantasy you talk about is already here.

Far as interpreted value of work, there isn't any if it's not tangible. Good fucking luck finding that in 10 years. All comes back to tech. Shit has NEVER been like this, because we've never been this disconnected (funny how words play out).

are jews even real honestly

every time bankers are up against the wall, society suddenly turns on "the jews" and meanwhile the financiers all just fuck off to their residences in northern europe

like this has happened repeatedly for a couple thousand years at this point

usury (banking basically) was against the law in the roman empires from at least Constantine onwards, unless you called yourself a "jew"

which is kinda convenient, right?

yeah man you aren't a stakeholder in your own government

ladies and gentlemen: indoctrination

ladies and gentleman: reality
did you even bush sr?

Nope, and neither do I desire to be. I'd live innawoods if I could.

disenfranchisement isn't the same thing as not holding a stake!

asaaaasdjkhaslokifhaslkifujopasfik

Hold this! *whips out dick*

...

can voting be rigged? do politicians keep promises?
talk about indoctrination lol

YES. Even Marx talked about this issue. Being rich and hating what you do with half or more of your waking life still means hating half of your waking life if not more.

get them to LOVE tech. Get them to think we're all gonna reach the singularity but NEVER LET THE SINGULARITY COME.
People like to think they want to liberate people from work, but the truth is work is liberation from the mind.

Damn looks like its getting heated in here, yall can use some freedom

you dumb fuckers

you're completely right about those things

but you're a stakeholder even if you feel disenfranchised

instead of becoming passive and allowing the ruling class to do whatever they want, you should be getting angrier every fucking minute (in between animes)

feeling somehow smug about being completely politically passive is the whole purpose of the BREAD AND CIRCVSES meme

...

you fucking faggot lol, saw this shit coming.
heavy handed and ya blew it

we going to shoot up congress, m8? you bringing the ak's?

I'm not disenfranchised.
I don't give a shit. I am 100% apathetic.

And you sound like you're trying to indoctrinate me with your own propoganda, so fuck off faggot. I must be doing something right if there are people so hellbent on converting me to their side.

CHOOSE YOUR COLOURS

or not

thinking the only option is futile violence or passivity is a rich man's trick. like super obviously

what is with you faggots and false dichotomies

Progress takes time, comrade!

but no, seriously. Have you ever been stuck in a position where it has felt like your life has stagnated? Like there's nothing you can do to make it better? Even if your life is alright, that is absolutely depressing. And that's what a decadent life without the need for labor entails.

what's my propaganda exactly, user?

please tell the class what i'm pushing exactly besides the literal definition of the word "stakeholder"

Holla Forums needs to be eliminated from this site

you fucking water head. what do stakeholders do when they're not represented and can't vote?

SLAVERY IS FREEDOM

You're trying to make me invest myself into something you are passionate about.

?

pretend they don't hold a stake, apparently

that's called self-delusion, user

There is no greater prison than one's own mind. Work gives people a break from that.

it's just part of the discussion?

god dammit. thanks for ending this bullshit i guess. i hope you all finally get up the courage to exit bag.

Yes, goy! Working for me is a great opportunity! You should be thankful.

know how anarchism uses red and black, while "anarcho-capitalism" is yellow and black…

what do you think red means here? yellow? black?

Black is the color of pirates
red makes you hungry
yellow, I don't know what it does

The blood of the bourgeois.

What's a better alternative?
Let the singularity come and have the people (especially introverts) be depressed fucks the rest of their lives?

It's all subjective and the guy who chose the colors will tell you what they mean

Neet lyfe. Keep on slaving away, wagecuck.

I'm surprised it took this long for smug anime

Where do the memes stop and the existential dread begin?

When the anime market crashes.

lol you're mistaken my friend Anarcho-Communism is Red and Black. Anarcho-Capitalist is Yellow and black. Anarchy is straight black

Red = Communism
Yellow = Capitalism
Black = Anarchy

Also they're more Anarchy flags than the ones in the pic

What does brown stand for?

not sure

i don't think you understand how singular the singularity is

imagine perfect mind-machine interfaces. the ability to create and live within worlds indistinguishable from reality. eventually the loss of any certainity that this reality was ever real in the first place

the barrier between our senses and our technology dissolving is the same thing as the distinction between mortality and godhood evaporating

not saying that isn't depressing, though

I mean yeah it's all subjective and arbitrary, but haven't you noticed a general common language when it comes to the usage of these colours in civic contexts?

like do you think it's a coincidence that both france and the US have a hard on for blue, white, and red?

that's got to be an anachronism, from what I know of history.

i've actually never heard of "anarcho-communism" and it sounds like a retarded contradiction in terms, are you sure you didn't swallow some bullshit there user?

The funny thing is anarcho communists and anarcho capitalists both think the other is oxymoronic. Anarcho capitalism implies property rights, which cannot be defended without a government. Anarcho communism implies communal ownership, which cannot be enforced without a government.

or capitalism/communism is a false dichotomy in the first place, which would explain the paradox

Privatized defense?

What history?

tbh the only one that sounds real to me is anarchic-primitivism

Yeah but then you have privatized offense.

I mean obviously we're specifically talking about historical anarchists and the colours they operated under, where applicable?

?….Elaborate

It sounds like if the end goal of anarchists isn't anarchy, shouldn't they just be called rebels or something?

you gotta remember that anarchism itself is a scare-word

like if you remove the government/empire, the world will be plunged into an "anarchic" horror show

historical anarchists are people who were exposed to this meme and thought, that still sounds better than what you niggers are doing. fine i'm an "anarchist"

Name examples, provide records

It sounds like you can just take other peoples property by force if they can't defend themselves

well yeah

anarchists is what the ruling class called rebels

see

it's just that eventually people tend to integrate labels. see also: nigger

First, Ancap follows the NAP. Second, If that happens, the Private Defense would lose money as a company.

How come?

How? They have property now. Farmland, real estate, mineral rights. They could even sell shares of the expected loot up front to investors to defray the risk.

i love when anons decide they have the authority to issue pop quizzes

if you're genuinely interested you oughtta ask nicely

Let say a neighborhood has a privatized police that everyone pays for. One day the Police decide to forcibly takes another persons property. Now the customers are scared and have a thought going through there minds saying, "If they're willing to take someones else property because they can't defend themselves what stopping them from coming to take mine?". And soon customers will going to another alternative Police Defense. Making the old Police out of funds.

A simplistic scenario but you get the idea.

? Never said you had to, but if you're going to claim something its better to have sources.

How do you do, I am a centrist. I voted for Barack Obama and then I voted for Mitt Romney.

you're right but are you asking or are you thumping the barrelhead

They're called instructions. Never said you had to follow them

when everybody is a monster and our voting systems are electornically wide open, i don't blame you

what of political basilisks

I was thinking more of one neighborhood or property owner raiding a weaker one using their private police force, and then seizing that property as their own.

Well there's your problem. Whales don't eat krill one at a time. What happens if they forcibly take the entire neighborhood's property and displace them all in one go, in the same night?

Well war is expensive and such an event isn't always guarantee to. Plus if such and event went done the neighborhood or property owners source of revenue would disappear since word would get out that they would approve of such a thing.

we don't have a social context for you to be issuing me instructions

i'm suggesting some information in support of my argument that i'm pretty sure i can conjure up, and i'm supplying this information to the thread because the conversation here seems productive and worthwhile

but fuck anybody who can't ask nice? nothing personal though user. why are you asking?

i heard something a while back from an user saying his grandmother used to say "the difference between us and nazi germani is your door getting kicked down in the middle of the night"

well we're past that

i'm not even in America but I've heard police here say "at least we're not american" to justify doing… whatever they were gonna do anyway

Well that would be pretty hard since every would have a gun (or most) and second how would the the "evil police force" get paid?

there are vinyards everywhere right

for no reason?

Are you going to provide something or not?

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. That police wouldn't turn to banditry out of a sense of community? You just replaced community with money. Why would someone act in the interests of an extinct idea instead of the one that rules their world?

American cops aren't that bad. They'll shoot a handcuffed person in the back if they're black but they'll never try to solicit a bribe.

The police presumably have the most experience in the use of force since it's their job, and they're guaranteed to be better coordinated and equipped than a neighborhood rabble that was until very recently paying the police to keep order because they couldn't do so themselves.

I already said how they'd get paid, looting and property. Sell anything portable, auction off everything else to a small clientele. If the people you ran off come back, put on your badges and do some police work, nobody likes the homeless hanging around.

How have they been financed for ages? Loot.
Land is also valuable, and you can rent it out to people.
You pick your battles wisely and expand slowly through conquest.

I mean this is nothing new, it has been done for ages.

why they hell would somebody be doing something (that takes a lot of effort to do) that is a waste of their time. I'm pretty sure people including the bad ones would want to make money rather than just being evil for the sake of it.

Yeah, remember that video of a homeless man camping in the Hollywood Hills, and the police crying out in excitement as they empty entire magazines into him? And you can tell from the voices there were at least half a dozen of them?

I heard police don't spend much time at the range, and I mean normally you'd expect that from people versed in firearms safety and application, but maybe they don't need it.

Not trying to say they're shooting a lot of people regularly, I'm just saying you don't have to be that much of a marksman when you're mostly putting down dogs.

...

First, Bank Security
Second, The "Loot" wouldn't last for long
Third, Thats a huge risk bet your salary on unknown savings.

Land is also valuable, and you can rent it out to people.

Why would someone rent land from somebody that just robbed the very people who where there last?

We are not really. Countries are still playing these games even today. Sure, in your scope it is not like that anymore, but that's because there is an overwhelming central authority to keep everyone in the country in line.

Get rid of that and opportunists will be crawling out of the woodwork.

Oh sorry, what I meant was police literally kick down doors in a regular basis in the US.

And nobody else needs to literally kick down doors when all they can say "we aren't bad because we aren't doing like the americans with the doors, so literally everything i do to you is justified, Citizen"

except police will never use the word citizen and they laugh when you do

Presumably a police organization that was planning on turning to banditry would be a little more discriminating about recruiting and put in some time at the range. It's not like American cops are outstanding specimens.

Your private police can provide them more security than your victims. Again, the greater part of human history worked this way. I don't understand why this is such a strange idea. More land means more profit from rent, means a larger police force which means you can expand more effectively.

Haha sorry I thought we were both talking about asset forfeiture for a second. I mean highway robbery is banditry in almost the purest literal sense of the fucking term, right?

see

The people who would rent to be there would be scared of becoming the NEXT victims. So they wont rent.

It's my property, what are they scared of? Me seizing what is already rightfully mine?
They are safer living under my rule and paying my reasonable rent than they are being my neighbor. Or they can desert their land to move away from me, but then I can just seize it and put my employees to work there to replace them.

Hell, if they know my history and have a good deal of infrastructure invested, they might even forfeit their land to me to avoid my wrath. They will choose to pay my reasonable rent just to avoid the risk. Who says it all has to be violent?

I do, motherfucker.

that's black and orange for those playing at home

Which one is that?

Ok now you're just talking nonsense.

Do you want to live where someone can just come in and take your stuff without your permission. Oh wait, like you said its not your now is it.

You don't know how a business works do you. And who made you in charge? Also where would you get the money to pay said employees. Also if you have all these people who is the say they wont turn of you?

AND ON A LARGER NOTE.
HOW THE HELL WOULD THIS MAKE YOU ANY MORE MONEY THAN YOU WOULD HAVE IF YOU JUST KEEP YOU PRIVATE POLICE JOB.

All you measure are economically unsound, highly impossible, and all effort wouldn't even pay off. THE COST IS MORE THAN THE BENEFIT

Lot of places to get seed money. Lets say I was extremely profitable in the previous government, own lots of land already. But because of your ancap schemes I no longer have my government subsidies to keep me afloat, and my company is slowly losing profits. Well I guess it's time to reorient my business. So I wisely reinvest my money in the aid of several of the more shady police organizations that pop up. I purchase some military grade arms too.

I can then go and conquer neighborhoods and businesses with them and charge a rent on the people who use that land, essentially something like 20% of their profit goes to me. I can use this to pay my burgeoning police force and continue to expand indefinitely or until defeated by a powerful enough rival business.

Nothing to be mad about here, I'm just shooting the shit. I just don't understand who is stopping me from doing it.
Yeah there are some economic factors that might incline someone to just do business instead, but hell, taking risks is nothing new.

Forget the corporate bandit scenario. If things start getting tight, who do you think a "security" force with authority over a civilian population will squeeze when they start losing luxuries?

I wonder what is going on in Argentina right now.

...

it's like a riddle wrapped in the obvious

FAILURE IS, you are going to fail. What you are saying is highly impossible and would not work nor happen. There are way too many variables, you would end up dead.

what do vineyards have to do with government breaking your legs?

You're a funny guy, user

A wise guy, some might say

I'm not going to bleed them dry, just enough to maintain my police force and make a profit. There wont be any social services supplied by me. I'll also make sure that no one on my property is allowed to carry weapons unless they are part of my police force.

They can still make a living, and receive improved protection from my police, which they would be unlikely to ever be able to afford themselves. If other powerful people make the same plans, it would be good for them to look for any protection they can get.

That just sounds like what you want me to think.
I bet plenty of people will try, and I'm not going to be caught off guard by some fucker who pulled the trigger first.

lol you responded to yourself

And in return they just have to be a giant pen of unarmed cattle just in case times ever get hard for you or your men.

And no one will succeed

Your economics are off
You ant like people can't fight back and win
Your "employees" would lose more than they could gain.

War is expensive, and that does look good for someone with a budget that running low. Even if you had the budget, it doesn't mean you could win it.

Oh you don't know the half of it.

You forget I'm not "waging war" against countries, I'm seizing helpless unorganized neighborhoods and smaller businesses.
They will be entirely outclassed, and that is if they bother to take the risk on their lives to begin with, which I doubt.

Their land becomes my land, they pay the reasonable rent to use it, and life goes on.

>>>/midpol/
Centrism is the answer to all life.

...

Centrist: both of you shut the fuck up or my puppies will eat you for breakfast.

How did you seize the neighborhoods if no one sold to you to begin with?
How did you convince men to risk their lives to die for a few pennies you will give them? - If money, how did you make more mone than it cost to pay the men with guns - how did you keep them from turning on you?

Marketing?

You sure "seized" it

Not the same ano, user. But user was talking about a private security force of some sort, right?

If the strategy ends with your private militia having dominion over a settlement, whether or not you can apply the word "siezed" seems pretty academic?

if you hate both, then you're a centrist.
i hate leftist scum and rightie rednecks.

That's so convenient! I wish I was a "centrist" like you. I wish I could vote for someone who isn't a republican or a democrat haha. It's not like these parties are actually different, I just think they are because i'm brainwashed like you are.

nigga what the fug is wrong with you

TIL that libertarians are centrists

okay, my statement was a fucking stretch. you're not a centrist because you hate hillary or trump. but centrists probably do hate them.
i'm saying that centrists don't have SJW retardation (read: "progressism") like UGH YOURE A FUCKING WHITE MALE CHECK UR PRIVLAGE ONE DOLLAR 70 CENTS IM TRUGGERED AND PANSEXUAL and no MUH FREEDUMS ELITE CLASS ILLUMINAUGHTY JEWS AND FAKE CLIMATE CHANGE

What the fuck is wrong with you, wigger? There is no left-right paradigm, it's all the same shit pandering to the other side over and over again. There is no left and right, there is only specific parties. Are you a Nationalist or are you a communist? That's basically the left and the right. If you say you are a "centrist" you are basically claiming that you are apolitical.

i am bread.

it's actually corporatist vs communist

communists are nationalist as FUCK, like… obviously

sure thing, Chaim

black is white

im not actually jewish but thanks for anticipating how hard i would own you

You really are fucking stupid

I am apolitical, what are you going to do about it, bitch?

Exploit you.

How will you exploit someone who refuses to vote?

...

...

centrists are generally elitists with a misplaced sense of superiority

I'll make you turn a big wheel, I think.

Wat

To make flour?

How is that exploiting me?

...

...

And that's the sort of jewish argument tactics that is going to get you put in a gutter during the centrist uprising.

You don't get to keep any of the flour, user.

That's pure evil.

...

LOL what? Why would you pay shady police officers? If you did that what would stop them from coming and taking your money?. You are richer aren't you.

Statist are hilarious

MOAR!

this is what life would be like under a centrist utopia

Sign me up.

SIGN ME UP INSIDE

holy fug Holla Forums is the easiest board to trigger

...

This is literally the most tame and yet diverse political discussion I have seen in years. If anything it has restored my faith in Holla Forums as the rightful leader of all imageboards.

Do you think the property and money I already have just disappears after ancap begins? Taking that from me would violate NAP.
There is no central power. These guys can probably afford a small police force and a few arms for themselves from previous earnings.
I can afford the equivalent of ten police forces and artillery. Hell, forget the police, I can afford trained mercenaries.
The point is the more money I start with, the more I can acquire by force and eventually terror.

And I would not be the only one to do this. It's anarchy, there is a power vaccume to be filled.
It would be in my interest to acquire power to help defend myself from rivals.

In the end the point is that an-cap is just anarchy, there is no capitalism without security.
Without law you can not have capitalism, without law you can not have communism.

What is stopping them from turning on you?

It would be in my interest to acquire power to help defend myself from rivals.

You make it seem like people won't band together to fight against a aggressor.

plus the good guys banding together could be profitable. It gives credibility to their defense organization showing that "hey we will protect you against bad guys, watch this". Generating revenue and growing their business.

You have to pass the initiation test. Bring me one commie scalp, one nazi scalp, and one ancap scalp to receive your entry card. (We do DNA testing to make sure)

Happy hunting!

I joj'd. Lolbertarianism is about seeing who can guzzle as much corporate cock as possible.

Historically speaking, this hasn't stopped powerful people from acquiring land in chaotic conditions.
Of course it could happen to someone, but I'm thinking of all the powers at play.

And then large groups of people buy their service.
I sure hope all that money and power over people doesn't go to their head.
The point is you either have a centralized power or you don't.
Centralized power can lead to corruption but without it there is disorganization.
There are no good guys and bad guys, people are all the same in the end.

Eventually anarchy is a slippery slope to statism.

It's not even a strawman, you're just making shit up at this point.

I'm centrist and I laughed, it's just banter.

Of course it could happen to someone, but I'm thinking of all the powers at play.

They mostly had some form of hierarchy, but if not, please provide an example.

I sure hope all that money and power over people doesn't go to their head.

If they fail to provide, someone else will come in for profit. If THEY fail to provide someone else will come in profit. If the next on fails to provide SOMEONE ELSE WILL COME IN PROFIT.

ITS CALLED COMPETITION.

This is why "historically speaking" revolutions broke out because people were fed up with the shitty government system always providing shit services.

Anarchy means no leaders, not no laws. Anarchism derives its power from a direct democratic government, anarchists are not opposed to governments (unless you're a Post-Left Anarchist), but "the government" which is the shithole we live under now.

When you take central power away, people organize along horizontal lines. coercive hierarchy is naturally bad for human relations. I suggest reading book related.
Historically, Anarchism was an alternative routs to the classless stateless society envisioned by Marx, but skipping the whole "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" phase. Anarchism lacks a transition state, it does not utilize a state-capitalist mode of production (like what happened in the USSR) in order to "set the stage" for socialism. Anarchism skips the transition stage and goes directly to stateless socialism.

Anarchism abolishes the profit motive & money because it produces goods & services based on need, not profit. When the means of production are in the hands of the workers, there's no reason to transition to a state-apparatus because it wouldn't help anyone, no one is going to hold a direct democratic vote asking if everyone wants to go back to laboring for some jackass while he takes all of your surplus labour and forces you to obey mindless laws like saying you can't paint your house red. The goal is to get rid of the state, which rests on violence and exploitation of the people, once that goal is met the society has become an independent power so far along that transitioning back into statism will be made impossible. Think of the same as technology: we have made so many advances in medicine, biology, maths, etc. that the thought of us going back to primitive tribal societies is unthinkable, and unaccomplishable.

[Obligatory screeching about Holla Forums goes here]

But that violates the NAP

Non-centrists Aren't People

...

I'm only a centrist because i love playing devil's advocate.
When i meet a leftist, I lean slightly to the right, and when i meet a right wing, i lean slightly to the left.
Fite me.

tbh I just like to play devils advocate.

No, you'd just lean out of the way of my punches, fucking bender that you are.

My lovers do say that bending is my strongest quality now that you mention it ( ° ʖ °)

No, you're justing missing all of your punches

What about central power taking itself away?

What about actually designing your anti-government using modern heuristic systems/modelling?

When you authoritatively say "people organise along horizontal lines", you appear to be stating a case that under all circumstances, all homo sapiens primates follow this behaviour pattern. Independent of hor "anarchy" is achieved. Independently of where or who.

Independent of the fact that the year is current and any data anybody could possibly have on the subject is already obsolete.

Anarchism was originally a slur.

Herr durr I have done one semester of politics at college, and I know everything hurr durr

do you know what happened to the stasi

Fuck off OP. I'm allowed to think for myself & look from both sides of the coin. People on the left & the right are fucking morons brainwashed by the candidates they support. Bush, Obama, Trump are all masters of manipulating people into beLIEving everything they say. Truth is none of them can be trusted. It's only when you become a centrist is when you realize you have a brain & that you don't have to subscribe to far-right or far-left ideology.

...

...

The centrist is the greatest enemy to actual progress. It is the reason in which the country we are in today is plagued by back and forth bickering along with often contradicting legislature that ends of getting passed. Its not that centrists don't have beliefs, they do. It just that these beliefs are founded in the most simplistic of logical thought that revolves around a lazy sense of bleeding heart egoism balanced out with personal gain. Instead of looking towards methods that will help benefit humanity as a whole through structure and a foundation of principle, they look to short term solutions for their problems. They watched a documentary on rape victims? Suddenly they are radical abortion advocates. They got divorced? Suddenly they want laws that benefit the side they stand on. They saw some criminal get shot in the street and suddenly they want a gun ban to feel safe. The centrist can flip back and forth because they dont take the time to think about what to believe in, but what need they want met.

The fight for 15 is an example of how harmful centrists can be. Far leftists want the same thing, but they will offer ways of balance such as higher taxes along with price fixing to prevent inflation. Centrists on the other hand dont give a fuck, in california they passed 15 dollars minimum wage without a single thought of balance because it is a short term solution that satisfies them.

The centrist is a fucking snake that uses law and government as a tool to get what it wants at expense of everyone else, hang them before you hang your ideological enemies

you're a special kind of idiot

Why does everyone in this thread lack research skills.

Literally 95% of the post people can't even get the basic idea of Centrism down. This is exactly why people become centrist, its idiots like you that provide the most shittest ideas on both sides of the spectrum.

CENTRISM IS NOT COMPROMISE

...

Greatest enemy to actual progress? You're full of shit. Centrists like me are the greatest path to progress. What are we exactly in the way of? Free speech? LGBT rights? Gun rights? Abortion rights? Religion? I support all five of those things I mentioned, I'm definitely not in the way. Sheeple like yourself are brainwashed to believe that everything either has to be "right" or "left". When in actuality we shouldn't be taking rights away from either the right or the left. So fuck off faggot.

...

...

Atheists belong in the trash. God actually exists.

...

which God?

Myself, since I'm a witness.

There's only one God. There's no "which".

Which monotheistic god dipshit

If a pagan god, or Abrahamic god regardless of specifics exists, atheists are wrong, doesn't matter which.
Even if it's the flying spaghetti monster which Dawkins brought to life by creating it still exits thus proving atheists wrong, even if there's no one god but instead we're all gods, there's still gods and thus atheists are proven wrong.

If we all had the same attributes and abilities wouldn't that just make us normal? You can't really have a god title if no one is superior to anyone.

Interesting debate, but we're humans right?
We're above animals.
So even if we ascend as a species we are still gods given the power to create universes within a time span so short you can't describe it while still human.

What does ascending have to do with gaining god like powers? And ascend where?

In order to say this you have to create a standard? Above them in what way? And then you created the standard. You can't just say you're "above" anything in some sort of universal notion.

Objective good can only be achieved if the end result of an intended act betters the earths society as a whole. Objective bad can be achieved if the end result of an intended act betters the earths society as a whole eg. Degeneracy.

no you fucking dumbass. the "centre" doesn't exist

horseshoe theory is sorta bullshit but the Overton Window isn't: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

The "centre" is entirely relative. It's also completely fucking virtual any time you have a race with basically only two parties.

Look at this: you have a political theory which is a tripod: Left, Right, and the supposed Centre (which is really just a catch-all for anybody who thinks the first two are too extreme–meanwhile both "sides" are constantly trying to paint the other as being as extreme as they can get away with).

But when you actually vote, you aren't voting "left", "right", or "centre". Even outside the US where we have more parties than two, the media usually whittles down the narrative so there are exactly two supposed frontrunners–and you're "throwing your vote away" otherwise.

If the political theory the media ensures we use doesn't alias the electoral system, someone is running a fucking game.

And we took it and transformed it into a meme.
An energetic meme, very energetic indeed, very great.

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube."

wew lad she was a parasite of the state and a jewish author who created nothing of profit that she fantasized about

The center is a product of left and right, and is measured relative to them, which is why you get so many faggots here implying it's about compromise or autistically balancing left and right.

Really, instead of being in the exact center, you should be whatever mix of policies from the left and right that achieve your goals and whatever combination of worldviews accord with the truth. Back to the conventional understanding, this is very unlikely to be over on the furthest right or the furthest left where certain parts of reality are ignored or downplayed for ideologically correct reasons, but it's also unlikely to be in some balanced middle where you try to make the outcome be an exact mix of left and right.

Better to just choose whatever gets you to your goal, and fits your sense of right and wrong, and leave the labeling to other people. If enough people call you left or right or whatever, then that is what you are. It's an absolute social construct.

The issues of the left are organized around some unifying principles.

The issues of the right are organized around some unifying principles.

The issues of the center are not. It's a rejection of the "bundling" of issues.

way to steal Bullet Club's intellectual property

I didn't write the first one nigger, but here comes my second one

neither the left nor right are real you fucking morons

the media/elite sort every issue into either "left" or "right" so they can perpetually play everything off against everything else to maintain an unchanging status quo

there's no underlying philosophy. issues move from one "side" to the other as necessary

ye