Hypothetically speaking: What if we're wrong?

This is fucking stupid.

The right lacks any sort of proper analysis, historical or otherwise, concerning virtually anything, choosing instead to blame everything on foreigners and lack of tradition with the latter being a completely arbitrarily defined spook that suits whatever the culture is at the current time.

TL;Dr the right is correct about multiculturalism but fuck me if they're right on anything else.

Wrong about what, exactly?
Correct about what?
If any position of mine was proven objectively wrong, obviously I'd have to change that opinion.
Probably. I might be a bit salty depending on what belief was proven objectively wrong, but I can't really say because I don't know which belief of mine is being proven objectively wrong.
Only if whatever was being proven objectively wrong disproved Marxism.
I don't believe in multiculturalism, nor am I opposed to it. I simply accept it as a reality of global capitalism.

You can be intelligent and hold an absurd belief. Just look at Stephen Hawking and his belief that if we keep broadcasting into nearby star systems we'll get attacked by space invaders.

Attempt to educate them and if they won't budge, then they're an ideological enemy.

It depends on the belief. Stop being so vague.

The majority of history to have never happened tbh

okay but the right, isn't too logical, beleaving in the cultural marxist conspiracy theory, and what not. i guess if anarchism was wrong i'd advocate for some form of liberalism

it's not a school of Marxism lmao and it's not like everyone in the Frankfurt School used the same philosophical methodology anyway

Hi Holla Forums.

What does this post even mean? Can you even prove a social or economic ideology is right or wrong, since those two things are both basically applied psychology?

Op is just Holla Forums trying to plant the seed of doubt in Holla Forums, and then he will probably start throwing around cherry picked statistics and pseudoscientific gobbledygook in an attempt to bring some people over.

It would be time to kill myself, I guess.

Doubt is good, tho… Not challenging your beliefs is the best way to become fanatical.

I feel like adressing the elephant in the room, but are all of you guys using the same definition of multiculturalism?

You can't prove freedom wrong.

I can't think of any which is why I'm a communist.

Can anyone else? I honestly cannot see a logical way that capitalism is not in need of replacement by socialism, which turns to communism.

Black people and women being genetically worse in terms of brainpower capabilities would change some things I guess, but I would still want to see an end to capitalism and for everyone of differing ability be given good and equal opportunity in life. I wouldn't start hating different races/gays/women/red heads/whatever.

If they discovered a "human nature" gene where people were naturally selfish… Again it would change a few ideas but would not stop me being a communist, since that has more opportunity to provide for a hedonistic lifestyle anyway. It would just make a communistic future harder to achieve.

As for multiculturalism… If it was somehow discovered on a genetic level that people didn't want to blend with other cultures in close proximinity, then I guess I would think that doing so would be a bad idea, rather than what I currently think of multiculturalism simply being a part of a globalised world, or a bad idea under capitalism for different and spooky reasons.

What could possibly go wrong?

Oh please, I'm a Socialist that agrees with the right on literally only 1 thing out of 100, better call me a brocialist next.

Yeah, why not? What possible justification is there to completely eliminate communism as a possibility to enforce lifestyle-based segregation?

Not a problem if everyone follow the same laws… But then you have Britain which aknowledge validity of Sharia laws for Muslims citizens…

Multiculturalism and segregation are not mutually exclusive, depend what you understand by multiculturalism.

Concept of Wrong and Good only exist in Morality. Objective reality doesnt exist for we perceive by idea's and concepts, facts are just interpretations and OP should kill himself.

The existence of multiple cultures in the same place.
You can't fight that in communism. You can't keep the kebabs and sushis away.

Yes but do they live together or just next to each others? Because with one situation you have constant exchange of ideas wich end up with a relative homogenisation of cultural habits, so would it be still multiculturalism? Or do each culture have some right to exist in and for itself, so you would discourage the blending and mixing of thoses cultures, to preserve them in their uniqueness. So de facto segregation.

I can imagine diffrent ethnies living together with at least a common grounds for acceptable behaviors, it's harder to imagine when expected behaviors are outright contradictory.
Do people have to integrate to their host countries, adopting the local values and way of life, do they have a right to act like they're still in their native country?

I will support capitalism when increased productivity and efficiency translates to increased purchasing power for average labor power
Which it doesn't
Average labor power will always be subsistence because of the reserve army of labor, "real" jobs yesterday aren't "real" jobs today, and the "real" jobs of today won't be "real" jobs tomorrow

this sort of diametrical thinking doesn't show the full picture of the complexity of various cultures and how they interact with each other. It comes across almost like 'humans vs orcs'. Kind of simplistic and fantastical imo.

Also your picture is stupid, just because rightists are often sociopathic and incapable of entity doesn't mean they aren't irrationally motivated by fear 99% of the time
Duh terrists
Duh Mexicans
Duh transexials
Duh cultural margsists

Your untimely murder would be wrong to you, yourself, would it not?

Either or. Multiculturalism isn't some goal to get and maintain, it's the absence of enforcing a monolithic culture over an area. So no I wouldn't discourage or encourage "blending and mixing" of cultures, I'd not be a huge faggot who worries about it.

then prove it already faggot

the more I read, the more my fanatism gets stronger
read what capitalism ideologists preached at the time of the golden age
and then look around

funny thing, really
Daddy SU died and capitalist kids can relax at last

no more arms race
no more rapid pace of innovations
no more constant reneval of fixed capital
no more competition

world is slowing down

Marx was just a human

Marxist political economy is more than just Marx
it's Luxemburg, Lenin, Mandel, Sraffa, Mattick and countless many more

It doesnt mather.

We actually don't give a shit about multiculturalism. That's what gives you away as a Holla Forums poster.

Not objectively, but the phenomena of your discontent is relevant to you and your plans, and possibly any behavior that results from that will be relevant to others and their plans.

Objective worth is non-existent, yes, although this doesn't necessarily entail the abandonment of living with value that you make yourself.

Existence just is…and so too will I just be.

empires for centuries had different laws for different peoples

I am reminded of the typical Right appeal to emotion when it comes to helping the poor: Why should my tax money go to all those drug addicts who clearly want to mooch off the system and do nothing?

The Left's response is the one devoid of emotion: it doesn't matter where it's morally or ethically right or wrong; the fact is that the unemployed and poor drag the rest of the economy down with them when they are unable to purchase things.

If the right wing is "correct" then human society is beyond saving anyway, so I may as well do what I want.

How dealing with cultures having an universalist aspiration? if it is in one's culture to spread its values and ideas? Is your cultural neutrality just the lack of laws forcing a culture over others? Is proselytism allowed?

what "right wing"

in what sense

Here i knew that you are a philosophical pleb

I was just about to say this too. OP pic is a textbook example of Dunning-Krueger mentality: people are incapable of objectively judging themselves and are thus unaware that they are as emotionally addled as everyone else.

His point was that "culture" in politics is basically meaningless, an aberration in human language that makes discussion nebulous. It belongs in social science, not philosophy.

People talking about something without defining it seems an elephant in the room for this articular thread. I' pretty sure that allowing people of different ethnic background in one country would be considered multiculturalism by Holla Forums, but that would make something like civic nationalism multiculturalism too?

Sure, but that does not exacltly match with leftists values imo. French revolution was parlty about removing that kind of system.

b-but i wanna nuke the middle east ;0; muh basement nazi feefees are inherently logical because they aren't empathetic hurrr

You can make a fairly good argument for the eventual end of capitalism or transition to post-capitalism, whatever that might be, using the same genetic determinist logic that the right loves to apply to groups they don't like. Most jobs in the post-automation era will be out of the cognitive reach of people within the 85-115 IQ range. This is what, 2/3 of all people in Western countries? Since IQs tend towards a family mean rather than a racial one, and given assortative mating trends where people of high intelligence tend to have kids with other people of high intelligence, it's not implausible to see a future where a dysgenic underclass is mostly unemployable and a more intelligent ruling class has an even higher share of national income.

The thing with the right is that they tend to look for science that confirms their priors without taking it to its logical conclusion, but this is because they care more about feels than reals. For instance, if genetic determinism is true, what's the point of hating other races, or of having pride in your race? You had nothing to do with the circumstances of your birth or your outcomes in life because everything was genetically determined anyway. The right just stops at "lol nigers r dum check my infographic!"

duuuuuur

this

I can't believe how everyone's falling for this shitty bait

Just because someone occupies an elite position of society doesn't imply they're intelligent, and just because someone is intelligent doesn't imply that they're right.

Really bubbles your brain with thought-objects

Hi.

I'm from Holla Forums. I'm browsing Holla Forums because I'm not opposed to hearing a dissenting viewpoint.

Just tossing this out there. I'm conservative and nationalistic in spite of being so far below the poverty line that I can't see it when I look up.

What do you make of me, given your viewpoint?

Why are you poor?

OP said "intelligent right". This would exclude the white uneducated people of the south, who consistently vote against welfare and want to "repeal Obamacare" even though they can't survive without either.

I woudn't call this demographic intelligent, because that's not an intelligent view to have in their situation.

So, without knowing more about you, I can't say for sure whether you're an outlier. Do you vote against social service initiatives?

If you're poor, and you do, then to me you're either willfully ignorant or unintelligent. (About politics, that is. Reekris knows there are millions of conservatives who are plenty more intelligent when it comes to plenty of other things, which is why I wish we could get them on our side to rise against Porky instead of fighting with them.)

...

You are delusional. Those backwards fucks from the south may not be "educated" but they can definitely survive. Can we survive? Can we provide our family with food that wasn't grown or raised by these "uneducated" people? Do we have any technical skills in the building trades to provide shelter without relying on the uneducated construction workers? Our lives are fully dependant on uneducated people. We are the ones who can't survive. I'm not saying they make the wisest decisions politically but to say they can't survive is as absurd as it is ironic.

They most certainly could not survive without medicare/publicly funded hospitals, which they pack in droves because of their obesity-related health issues.

Also, why do you assume I'm "anti-worker"? Aren't we all "workers of the world unite" in some way or another here? If there's something we should all agree on, we should at least give each other the benefit of the doubt when it comes to worker unity.

Physical cripple. Paralyzing spine pain and less but serious leg pain. But the doctors can't see damage or inflammation on the X-rays or wanton brain activity on the MRIs, so they won't actually diagnose me with anything more than "back pain". Set me up with an infinitely renewable prescription for the smallest dosage of the weakest prescription painkiller they could and said have a nice life. This was at a low-cost clinic, just to be clear. They had set me up to see specialists, put me on a waiting list for 6 months, and then three days before actually seeing somebody who might help pulled my county insurance on a bureaucratic technicality.

With no compelling diagnosis, no neetbux. What little money I do have comes from working under the table at the family business on a very part-time basis. They are understandably less demanding than any actual real job would be. I only have shelter because I live on said family's couch and have for years.

All my problems with welfare systems are in their current application, not in principle. I'm not against universal healthcare, for example, but Obamacare is a clusterfuck. Take it from someone who really needed it to come through for him; it's not the system it needs to be. So I don't vote against social service initiatives. I vote against bad ones.

Come to think of it, I may have given the wrong impressing by calling myself conservative. My views on where the sweet spot between necessary infrastructural safety nets versus burdensome government meddling are somewhat in flux these days. I say 'conservative' as a catchall because I align more with what the public perception of conservatism is than liberalism/leftism. I'm aware of this board's tendency to derail over the difference between liberals and leftists, but as long as I'm trying to peg myself on a board, it's easier to just point to all of it and say "to the right of that".

More than anything, my political views are formed from having been brought up in the worst of every side's stereotypes. Suck-Israel's-dick-unquestioningly Evangelicals in the family and a peer group consisting entirely of proto-Tumblr. I escaped from one to embrace the other and found out most people on both sides are motivated by righteous indignation, and it was really just a question of what they valued enough to be indignant about. It all boiled down to what has proven a healthy cynicism of ideology for ideology's sake, and a preoccupation with a cold, scientific-minded approach to how to solve problems. So I end up agreeing with both sides about different things, but usually for different reasons than the party lines do, because party lines are forged from the lowest common denominator about what generates the most righteous indignation.

For example. I'm alarmed by the effect mass acceptance of homosexuality has on our society, but it's because of their statistically prodigious promiscuity serving as a massive vector for infectious diseases. I'm interested to find out why homosexuality and promiscuity correlate so strongly, and I keep my ear out for possible explanations, such as the large incidence of Toxoplasma Gondii in the homosexual population. (A bacteria that rewires the brains of rats so they're attracted to cats so to pass the infection onto its preferred host; a clear indication that it's doing something to undermine threat assessment. People with T. Gondii are already known to have a statistically significantly higher odds of causing a car crash, possibly indicating a larger acceptance of risk.) I also want an aggressive investigation into the effects of extra-human estrogen and estrogenic compounds on pre and post natal brain formation, both those being added intentionally to promote livestock growth and possible accidental sources such as xenoestrogens in plastics and natural food sources such as soy and flax. We know that the more children a woman has the higher the estrogen content of her womb, and there's a corresponding increase in the chance of subsequent children being gay. So it's about as good a hint as any where we should at least start to look for causes. (There's also a whole sub-diatribe about children being more likely to end up dysfunctional without a mother and father, even if there are two of one or the other, but I think I've made my point that I'm not just riding an ideological high when I'm not eager to jump up and down with a rainbow LOVE WINS flag.)

But for this, the "left" determines I am but a hateful, ignorant bigot. Even though I'm in favor of gays having all the rights of anyone else (for the most part; marriage is a tricky subject that starts pitting multiple sets of rights against each other), people hear that I want to cure what I see is a life-derailing, judgment-impairing, bloodline-ending, suicide-engendering ailment, and they hear "he wants to kill all the faggots". That's not even an exaggeration. Long-term friendships have ended in the span of a conversation because I think an unprecedentedly widespread medical phenomenon should be studied and treated.

Thus I am "against gays" and therefore conservative by default. I really don't have a political party; it's more a question of who hates me the least on whatever the current topic is. All the credit I get with the Fox News crowd for being "against gays" immediately evaporates when we start talking about evolution.

At the end of the day, I want what's best for everyone. I can't totally escape idealism when forming my worldview. My youngest self's oldest aspirations were to invent things that made life better; I wanted to lead the automation revolution with robots. (This was with a child's mid-late 90s conception of what robots would be.) I want the world to be better than what it is. But doing anything at all about it is always stepping on somebody's ideological toes, and this is massively the case for "the left", where even light criticism or, fuck, even hesitation is a sign of some ten-dollar explanation for why you just pathologically hate everyone and should embrace everything unquestioningly or rot in a hole for your bigotry. And of course I'm a straight, white, blonde, blue-eyed, cisgendered male who has absolutely no problem being any of these things (and am actually rather glad to be), so I'm on half the left's shitlist before I open my mouth to begin with.

I step on more left toes than right toes. That's really all, I guess. I'm not interested in left vs right, liberalism vs conservatism, capitalism vs communism. Arguing over ideology for ideology's sake is a distraction from actually solving problems. Most of the people that do don't understand what they entail anyways; they're just making a value judgement and then getting angry at the alternative. But I guess I am too: Getting angry at people who'd rather make a social cause of a disease than attack it at its root. To be honest, some small part of me holds out hope that government, like Chess and soon Go, will someday be a solved problem. That we'll find an objectively correct answer, and we'll make all this, Holla Forums and Holla Forums, obsolete. I don't even care if I'm proven utterly wrong and look back at my Holla Forums days with cringe. As long as the solution really works and we can move on to something more constructive. But I can't see that on the horizon.

I'm in Schrodinger's South, by the way. Florida, in the Orlando-ish area. My town is literally divided by railroad tracks; one third is posh gated communities where Northerners retire and their trust fund kids grow up, one third is deep hood ghetto where police wouldn't go when race relations were at their best, and one third is semi-agricultural redneck enclaves. Each within a mile of each other.

Holy shit I'm verbose. I had to break this nearly stream-of-consciousness thing up twice I'm on Adderall for the first time in years tonight. Hello, sweet inertia. Anyways, thanks for reading this tl;dr if you did, though I don't really expect anyone to.

Flag because what else would I be here. :^)

I'm not a Not Socialist. Calm down.

For males it's pretty simple. Reproduction for women is much more costly so they are the choosier sex. Since the reproductive investment for men ends at orgasm, they are much less picky with who they'll fuck. So you end up with some gay men having 1000+ sexual partners per year.

If you're economically left wing then here you're considered left wing. Plain and simple.

emotion can we progress at all
A proletarian who is happy with his condition is just that much more alienated.
peace and rational discourse
No, and those two things aren't necessarily related. Rational discourse doesn't make history, classes do. Although it is part of the process of the movement of history through class struggle, it isn't nearly as large an independent factor as liberals think it is, and where it is a factor it is only in how it impacts the material base.

any "logic" that ignores the existence of consciousness and how it is impacted is denying literally an element of reality, and the most important one at that, not very logical, and inherently useless in its entirety (and doing the logic of something useless is itself not very logical)

a logic that covers consciousness, but is at all indifferent to it, is also inherently entirely useless and thus it is illogical to be used.

It is circular on a certain level (We are conscious, consciousness should have as much pleasure as possible and as little suffering, the word "useful" can only mean something having a quality which directly or indirectly helps maximize pleasure/minimize pain. So something which does not attempt to do so is inherently not useful and is illogical to entertain as an idea).

Regarding if Marxism in particular is wrong, it may very well be, but if it is wrong there's nothing I can do with that knowledge, it has no competition. Kind of how like if everything I knew about reality outside my consciousness and the qualia I am experiencing was wrong (I suppose it "could" be true [even though I can explain why we think about our consciousness and surroundings in that idealist fashion, that doesn't make it necessarily untrue]), but there is nothing I can do with an understanding that external reality doesn't operate the way I thought it did, for I would have literally no idea which actin to take, as every link between intention and action is informed by what I know to be wrong; I just have to pretend it isn't and continue to interact with it like it operated before. Same goes with Marxist science. For all its flaws, there is no other contender in terms of the science of historical movement. The basics of Marxism are simply common sense, it simply the only possible attempt to formalize a coherent system out of the relevant ones (there are environmental constraints on action, one of these constraints is social organization, social organization is people's action, there is no "thought" outside of those from our bodies which only have as information our actual lived experiences, the center of these experiences is what we do, when analyzing something we need to justify our abstractions, in order for them to be justified they must lead necessarily towards a more concrete thing, nothing acts in isolation from other things, no action takes place outside of an actual sequence of events, so no action can be analyzed outside of the actual sequence of events, etc.).
If I abandon Marxism, all I have to go off in terms of informing my social action is what I know to be parts which necessarily connect together to form something which is wrong. So I have to abandon literally all understanding of what the consequences of my actions are in the context of human society. I must revert to ethical platitudes, but with not even an understanding of how to mold my action based on them.

Self-reflection and self-doubt are crucial parts of a rational worldview. But note that they are not excuses for inaction.

Obviously. It happens numerous times throughout any person's life.

That's a loaded question, Holla Forums-kun. I don't believe in multiculturalism (other than in its factual existence) and it's hardly a part of leftist canon. Did you perhaps mean egalitarianism?

Well, what about them? How does their existence concern me in any way? I do not hold a belief that factual accuracy of a proposition correlates with the number of arbitrarily selected people supporting it, or that an intelligent person will necessarily have worldview similar to mine, that would be fucking silly.

That's a loaded question again. There are no lines in the sand. It's a constant gradual process of weighing any new evidence against previously known evidence and adjusting one's beliefs according to it. For the last several years, the evidence has been pulling me further and further left.

So which freedom is greater? Freedom from or freedom to? Cause you can't have both.

Prove one of them wrong then.

What does that even mean?

I was talking about this.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty

There comes stage where these clash, so you cannot maximize both. But both are freedoms.

was a reply to , agree?

So given the context, i'd assume you were implying one of them could be "proven" right and the other wrong. You can prefer one or the other, but ultimately, this is an arbitrary choice. Beside, even if thoses clashes, you can't neither have one without at least a bit of the other. What being you own master means when someone else break your bones whenever you move a finger? What being slave to no one means when sacrificing everything for an addiction?

Not really. Just that if you take either of them to their extreme they impede the other. So AnFag I was replying to is only talking about one interpretation of freedom. Him saying 'leftism is right cause freedom' is an empty statement without elaborating on what his freedom looks like.

...

Right and wrong are subjective.

No person or even group will ever be 100% correct. It's interesting, though, that at least you're capable of self-reflection and analysis. Needless to say, you won't find a thread on Holla Forums like this.

Realistically, all one can do is try to objectively view empirical data and compare it to one's own experiences.

Respect them as individuals? I don't know what you mean by "deal with these sorts of people".

Not every leftist is a Marxist.

Good look trying to prove to a post-structuralist that he is "objectively" wrong.

Actually, good look trying to prove that empathy and logic are mutually exclusive.

Actually, good look trying to prove that the brain has "two modes" at all, and they're not simply arbitrary classifications.

Also, this "intelligent right" argument doesn't make sense at all. Just because a person have a high deep knowledge on a specific subject doesn't mean he is a great thinker that through a calm reflection figured that "right" is the right choice. They're probably just reproducing a specific discourse and protecting their own interests.

Just look at these quantum physicist that have like dozens of PHD and nobels, When asked about politics or anything that's not from their area of knowledge they'll just spill bullshit (hi Dawkins) and say that technocracy or enlightened absolutism is the way.

reminder to sage and not engage in debate with dishonest polyps, only debate with people that actually want to learn something.