Antifa Protestors Throw Garbage at Conservatives Eating Breakfast.

[DonFerrari]

Helloplite said:

o_O.Q said:

lmao cut the snark dude i've torn the stupid leftist equality nonsense apart more times than i can count

 

"Why not? What is the basis for segregating sport based on sex?"

lol you've ever realised that its incredibly hard to explain something that should be obvious? that's the dilemma i'm facing with this question

uh well i'd think its obvious that the physical differences between men and women are why we don't match brock lesner and rhonda roussy for example... are you in disagreement with the fact that men and women are different?

 

"Why should women need special protections? The same laws regarding rape, harassment and sexual crime can and should apply regardless of sex, gender, or sexual orientation."

i actually agree but i've noted the inconsistency in many leftist ideas

i knew that it was quite likely that he'd say that women should have special protections while advocating for equality as the vast majority of leftists pushing the equality doctrine do because they refuse to be coherent in their beliefs

 

"That's ridiculous and no one advocates this"

i think its quite ridiculous for you to claim to speak for everyone especially when i have evidence to back up what i'm saying

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/6sdbqv/socialists_must_socialism_abolish_all_private/

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/4ytyrs/socialists_why_is_private_property_theft_to_you/

etc etc etc

and before you get into the silly hand waving nonsense of the difference between private property and personal property you should note that there is no coherent principle behind that since any possession depending on the context can be used for profit

 

"Shows your thin understanding of left wing politics."

lmao my friend i am absolutely sure that i understand your so called socialist principles better than you do so don't make me laugh

 

"what needs to happen is that the economic foundations of the system must be altered, so as to minimize the structural and institutional bias that generates poverty and homelessness."

and how do you propose we do so? in russia and other countries where socialist revolutions occured they seized the businesses of all the people who were productive and murdered them, i'm hoping you have a better solution

 

"They wouldn't. They describe wildly different things and have nothing to do with equality (or even equity)"

to be fair i was just bringing up ridiculous points that came to mind at that point, i wasn't being serious really but regardless...

you don't think desegregating sports is more in line with equality than keeping them segregated? can you expand upon that for me please?

did you not go along with my proposal of taking away special protections for women?

 

"It is about how the system is set-up and how opportunities are distributed in society and seized by individuals without benefitting those who in one way or another inherit power"

so i'm assuming that if you have children that you'll have them give away any wealth you would have accumulated over your life so they can start at a more equitable position?

 

"Every single person who has ever justified hierarchy has described it as something "natural" and "normal". No one has proceeded to verify and prove this claim. "

i'm back here now

"lol you've ever realised that its incredibly hard to explain something that should be obvious? that's the dilemma i'm facing with this question"

tell me something, can you play ball as well as lebron james? swim as fast as michael phelps? what? no? well why not?

 

"Hierarchy is always self justified."

uh you disagree with me right? you started this conversation with this "Eeer... No. Those methods won't promote equality. You don't understand what equality is."

does that mean that you are stating you are more knowledgeable than i am? are you unaware that you are setting up a hierarchy yourself?

it amuses me how leftists will get into an argument and claim that hierarchies cannot be justified (and i'm not saying they are or can here) while not realising their incoherence, it really is fascinating to me  

I will not dignify this with a full analytical response, as it does not deserve one. I will partly respond to some of your questions, however most of what you typed was nonsense or the result of barely understanding what you are talking about.

 

"so i'm assuming that if you have children that you'll have them give away any wealth you would have accumulated over your life so they can start at a more equitable position?"

You are assuming wrong. Firstly, you present a ridiculous and irrational argument here: That if someone supports what you describe as 'leftist' or 'socialist' views, they must also be ready to give their personal wealth to set-up an example for others to follow. This is classic misapprehension and incorrect association. Is everyone who supports capitalism rich? Secondly, even if someone was what you call 'lefitst' and 'socialist', they would still be living in a capitalist system. Such an act of giving away their own personal property would be comprehensively meaningless. 

"it amuses me how leftists will get into an argument and claim that hierarchies cannot be justified (and i'm not saying they are or can here) while not realising their incoherence, it really is fascinating to me"  

Oh boy, here we go again with this. You either lack reading comprehension, or the required knowledge to engage with what I am explaining. Probably both. Here goes:

I did not say that hierarchy cannot be justified. Go ahead and retread my post, where I clearly say that hierarchy is its own justification. This is just as much a justification as anything. Nazis used this understanding to lay claim on the whole world as the Aryan race, and based their claim to power and privilege precisely on how Schmitt revealed that power and knowledge are intertwined. The concept of an originary or primary violence in Schmitt, refers to how -- through history -- ownership and power are retroactively justified. It does not mean that hierarchy is unjustified. It only means that the origin of any law, order or institution is a first act of violence that establishes this law, order, or institution. It means that, rather than an external justification, such as God, or a natural justification, such as the concept that something is 'inevitable' because of some higher law of physics, all human acts have their consequences. In short, hierarchy is NOT unjustified. It is, however, contingent. 

Finally, a brief response to the general tone of your "answer":

1. I'm not a "leftist". 

2. I'm not a "socialist".

3. I'm nowhere on your perceivable spectrum. 

4. You completely misunderstood what I said, especially regarding hierarchy and equality. 

5. I *am* more knowledgeable than you, and this is not due to me setting up any kind of hierarchy personally (you don't even know what you mean by that, so think again before randomly responding). The hierarchy is already in place for millennia now and it is called academia. As an academic working on international relations, history, and political theory, I am justified to presume I know more than you - since I'm already teaching on these fields at the highest level.

6. I'll give you a hint: When one argues for equality and brings up the concept of the self-justification of hierarchy, they are not contradicting themselves. There is a huge body of philosophical work, from Castoriades to Lefort, and from Foucault to Ranciere exploring this seeming paradox. Lefort called it the "empty place of power". Ranciere described it as the tension between "the police" and "politics". But I intentionally used Schmitt, since he was a Nazi, and was in the peculiar position of realizing the basis of power and hierarchy, but reaching the entirely wrong conclusions and implications about it. 

You amuse me with your pathetic ignorance of, and simplistic approach, to politics. Is everything you disagree with 'leftist' and 'socialist'? 

 

The whole idea of a left-right political spectrum is outdated and archaic. It persists, yes, partly because media and society fuels the distinction, but has become more and more meaningless as we move away from the context in which it developed: the first French democracy is already in history books for centuries now.

Perhaps it is time to kill the whole 'left' and 'right' dichotomy. It does not describe anything. I do not belong to a political spectrum, thank you very much. 

On basic stand point.

Any and all people that I know who defend capitalism also defend their personal property, their freedom to do charity as they choose, that people work for money and companies for profit, etc. All of which is perfectly aligned with capitalism, and would say most would also pursue the path to be richer than they were born. Some call this right wing poor people (and mock them)

Also it's very very very hard to find any socialist or left wing person that while believing in equality give away their privilege and money, they are always talking about taking from everyone to distribute never their own money. That is what we call caviar leftists. For some reason none of them see the hypocrisy in this.