''right/left'' spectrum has moved to the right. The difference is Magic players are usually smart people and they make use of their common sense, so our spectrum doesn't move that way.
I keep seeing something like this pop up.
Why do you folks think MTG players are usually smart people?
I'm pretty sure the thought process is something along these lines:
- Magic tends to reward logical-mathematical intelligence
- People tend to enjoy and keep doing things they succeed at
- (Possibly also that it's an expensive hobby, so if someone (or their parents) can afford it, they are more likely than not educated to some degree - pun not intended)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
''right/left'' spectrum has moved to the right. The difference is Magic players are usually smart people and they make use of their common sense, so our spectrum doesn't move that way.
I keep seeing something like this pop up.
Why do you folks think MTG players are usually smart people?
I'm pretty sure the thought process is something along these lines:
- Magic tends to reward logical-mathematical intelligence
- People tend to enjoy and keep doing things they succeed at
- (Possibly also that it's an expensive hobby, so if someone (or their parents) can afford it, they are more likely than not educated to some degree - pun not intended)
"I'm not a nerd... nerds are smart" - Milhouse, The Simpsons
Magic is a game for Geeks, not Nerds. Magic players on the whole aren't half as smart as they believe themselves to be.
It is an undeniable fact that Magic is at least intended to reward intellectual ability to some extent. People who play Magic are thus likely to place some value on the idea of being intelligent, regardless of whether or not they themselves qualify. As such it is highly doubtful that an anti-intellectual would find Magic appealing. This cuts out a chunk of potential conservative commentators; an anti-intellectual person is also likely to be conservative (from what I have observed).
If we were smart, we wouldn't spend large sums of money on cardboard.
Quote from Elvish Crack Piper »
MTGS doesn't respond in kind and yet for reasons that elude me, DokuDoku seems to think if I started a thread about how I think anyone who professes a religious belief is a paste eating ****** then blinking wouldn't infract me and that other forum members wouldn't call me on going overboard
The former certainly would happen. The latter would but the fact is you'd also get agreement, whether it be silent or overt.
So has this discussion pretty much played out? I don't expect bLatch to respond in this thread again, and we've pretty much addressed the OP.
"I'm not a nerd... nerds are smart" - Milhouse, The Simpsons
Magic is a game for Geeks, not Nerds. Magic players on the whole aren't half as smart as they believe themselves to be.
This is worth keeping in mind. I would estimate, though, that Magic players actually are a bit above average in aptitude, due to the aforementioned reasons of socioeconomic status, education, and self-selection. It has little or nothing to do with "nerdiness" - anyone with the advantages a Magic player probably has probably scores comparatively well on aptitude tests.
And there is something else to keep in mind about averages: The average person has one testicle and one breast. An actual individual human being may differ wildly from the picture painted by an average. So it does not do for one to congratulate oneself for belonging to an on-average-smarter group. One may very well be in the half of that group which is keeping the average from being higher.
This cuts out a chunk of potential conservative commentators; an anti-intellectual person is also likely to be conservative (from what I have observed).
There's an anti-intellectual streak on the left too, you know, particularly in its populist/labor wing and, tragically, among minority communities. Now, people from these groups are unlikely to be playing Magic a priori, so any anti-intellectual trend among their number might be thought to have little impact. But right-wing anti-intellectuals are mostly of rural blue-collar backgrounds not all that dissimilar from the union guys, and they too are unlikely to be playing Magic a priori. I think we would have to do a controlled study to determine which of these trends, if either, is stronger. In the meantime, pointing the finger at either side as "more anti-intellectual" strikes me as premature. And in any case, it glosses over the complementary fact that there are many people from both sides who are not anti-intellectual - certainly more than enough that a strong statistical disproportion such as is alleged here could not be explained by mere anti-intellectualism. Think of it this way: Women get breast cancer more often than men. But if you see a workplace that's mostly men, you probably don't think, "Oh, that's because most of the women have gotten breast cancer and died". The numbers are too far off for that to be the probable cause of the discrepancy.
I'm pretty sure insulting ANY forum member--mildly or otherwise--is a cardable offence.
Them being conservative or not is incidental.
Maybe, but it seems like certain statements are less likely to register as insults depending on the position they are coming from. I wish I had examples on hand, but I don't keep a log and usually chalk it up to the mods being human.
I suspect the banning of some Debate regulars and the fact that few people here understand that arguments are a part of debates and not the entirety of a debate may have played a role in the rise of the left in the Debate forum.
Maybe, but it seems like certain statements are less likely to register as insults depending on the position they are coming from. I wish I had examples on hand, but I don't keep a log and usually chalk it up to the mods being human.
Think I know what you are saying. I've seen mods let things slide they might have infracted someone of a differing position from saying. I seem to recall BS being slightly harder on theists at one point. But, I too don't have any hard evidence, am bias myself, and also recall the mods as humans. So, please don't make anything of that accusation, I can't and won't defend it. It's just as likely a product of my flawed memory as anything else.
Likely a reference to elaboration and analysis, at least I would consider that a separate thing personally. (Although I'd be biased, since I'm a details guy usually - big picture be damned, devil's in the details)
Likely a reference to elaboration and analysis, at least I would consider that a separate thing personally. (Although I'd be biased, since I'm a details guy usually - big picture be damned, devil's in the details)
It's analysis part of an argument, or--even better--what an argument is supported to be based upon?
Also, I would expect that elaboration of your argument would--again--be part of your argument. When you expand or reexplain your argument, it's still your argument.
Any idea what happened to BLatch? I'm sort of curious to see what his take on the responses given is. Like many other people have already said, the discussion as stated in the OP is more or less exhausted.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate
Any idea what happened to BLatch? I'm sort of curious to see what his take on the responses given is. Like many other people have already said, the discussion as stated in the OP is more or less exhausted.
He hasn't posted since then; given the time of year he may just be offline with family and friends.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Any idea what happened to BLatch? I'm sort of curious to see what his take on the responses given is. Like many other people have already said, the discussion as stated in the OP is more or less exhausted.
He hasn't posted since then; given the time of year he may just be offline with family and friends.
No no I understand. I'm just saying that most of the discussion at this point is sort of meandering, so it might just make more sense to wait for the holidays to end, BLatch to come back and give input instead of meandering off topic.
-$0.02
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate
I suspect the banning of some Debate regulars and the fact that few people here understand that arguments are a part of debates and not the entirety of a debate may have played a role in the rise of the left in the Debate forum.
A few of them were also pricks that got banned. The anarcho-capitalists tended to suck at debate for some of the others when they came here en masse, came, debated for like a month, then left. I actually liked a couple of them, as they brought in some new forms of debate and were genuinely intellectual. Some of the resident ones like Surging Chaos and ijosspiere have been here for years, but tend to be opinionated yet good people.
I tended to find the worse ones ideological debaters either dogmatic like Shining Blue Eyes debating BS, myself, and others about the reasons for the Civil War and basically had the biggest piss poor debate I've seen in years to the point where I have used it as an example of "how not to debate online" with a link to that thread. The other worst offenders tended to be extremely preachy or too far reaching with thin skins having a small held opinion. You just don't see SBE here debating anymore. People like to win, and when you keep losing like that you get discouraged and leave. The surge in AC'ers I think were connected to SBE, got discouraged, and left when they failed to convert people to "true capitalism" and founded their own debate forum. Which in retrospect I think was a tactic to try build their own website than anything by attracting followers/converts. However, to find that out I would have to trace their user names to other boards and see if the tactic was repeated on other such forums.
There are also some of the conservatives that tended to be equally dogmatic, got into massive personal arguments, and then left.
My own suspicions for the "left creep" has more to do with more people taking liberal or anarchist view points as a matter of fact since the crash. You have the Ron Paul revolution and Mises Institute both act as an indicator for reaching young minds with free materials to support their conclusions and view points with a community to exist within. Equally the decline in the appeal of the Republican Party outside of rural areas is another major factor as well as people who once held those views switching to a more moderate Republican stance and being labeled RINO's and becoming independents.
People saw the cult of the colossal and the inflection point with the crash when it comes to crime, corruption, and money. Rather than a socialist reaction, people mostly blamed government not for failure to prosecute but rather that getting rid of government altogether would have prevented the problem and advocating for a laissez faire approach in vein of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. Yet, what has left to be desired as to how such a framework works without major hiccups. As the Canadians never experienced such a financial crisis as us with stricter banking laws, which is a part where the New New Left has come from.
Equally the attempts to disrupt and destroy the legacy of the New Deal coalition in tandem with the lack of wage growth and failed promises of Reaganism have also thrown young persons into a pickle.
Zeitgeist to put it into a word, rather than censorship.
But, yea I'm a small government conservative with civil libertarian belief structure and min-anarchist sentiments. And by small I mean efficient with supporting institutions built around the people to help them grow as a culture. I prefer private experimentation in house first, looking at other nation states how they solved a problem, and only after decades to use the government when all other options and patience has been expired.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
It occurred to me that maybe people are actually taking the mods advice and taking personal discussions to PM more. An optimistic sentiment but possible.
I'm interested in debate but honestly have a hard time getting people to understand what I mean. A lot is lost in translation from thought to post and discussions progress to fast to sit on a post for too long.
Because it's an internet subforum for a game. Most conservatives don't find durdling on forums (subforums, no less) very productive, at least in my experience. You're more like to find them on Facebook or another more popularly used internet network.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
I suspect the banning of some Debate regulars and the fact that few people here understand that arguments are a part of debates and not the entirety of a debate may have played a role in the rise of the left in the Debate forum.
A few of them were also pricks that got banned. The anarcho-capitalists tended to suck at debate for some of the others when they came here en masse, came, debated for like a month, then left.
Not really much I can add here. I would say that an additional problem is that many of the members who left or were banned had a hard time distinguishing between argument and attack, and would grow very emotionally invested. I think it's a product of how partisan we've become in general.
I also think that defining things in terms of right/left is problematic. I can fall far left and far right on a variety of topics (I've had political tests tell me I'm both Libertarian AND Greene party...). I have, however, skewed farther left as a result of debating here. I used to be pretty heavily conservative. If it weren't for the continuing shift of the Republican party farther and farther right, I'd probably still be a Republican, but as it is most would call me a RINO for deciding issues on their merit rather than toeing a party line.
I actually liked a couple of them, as they brought in some new forms of debate and were genuinely intellectual. Some of the resident ones like Surging Chaos and ijosspiere have been here for years, but tend to be opinionated yet good people.
I agree. We've had tons of good conservative debaters over the years, and we still do have good ones.
I think conservatives in general don't really care to debate on random forums like MTGSalvation. Obviously a few will bite here and there but I don't really blame them.
They often get slandered and it just doesn't seem worth it for them. Conservatives have some good views as do liberals, both groups just become too insular and eventually chalk up their differences to things like intelligence level, which is obviously wrong.
I would say that it's less the specific character of a defined time period and more the same old crunch of material conditions. That non-capitalist thought surges during the times that capitalism's devastating structural weaknesses don't merely reveal themselves but dance merrily from continent to continent to the tune of austerity and death shouldn't be at all surprising or mysterious.
You can be a statist and a capitalist at the same time without being a socialist.
What we can also discuss is one of size and scale as well as redundancy. Nicholas Taleb, while an Austrian and not the greatest economist in the world, goes back towards an age old phenomenon. You can't always predict everything, and sometimes really bad things happen and you get screwed. Humans are ruled by their emotions. That's fairly much the basis for Black Swan.
1. Build a better homo economicus
2. Abandon homo economicus outside of a few broad theories (Austrians as one main proponent)
Basically, the major researchers just try to build a better model for the next time.
I recommend the book, Moral Consequences of Economic Growth, and is written by a leftist. The thesis of his book is that when the economy sours, people get mean. When the economy is better, people get nicer. This coincides with the concept of information cascade and humans adopting prevailing views and strategies for survival.
Much like the "personal branding" and "networking" we see going on today with youngsters trying to get "real jobs," is akin to what you read in the Education of Henry Adams where he talks about a major financial depression and how personal relations and going door to door was necessary, even, for him. That sometimes we see these trends to human adaptation in regard to specific struggles and strategies.
And this is where conservatives who value community come into play over the people who tout the free market as a panacea. The consumerist response is "What do I buy to solve my problem?" The self-sufficient person asks, "What do I have that can solve this problem?" The community oriented, self-sufficient person asks, "What is it that I have, that can save me and others and if I work with others around me to achieve a common goal how can we all profit through this ordeal?"
"Capitalism" in your argument can be tacked on as a deleterious form of egoism, which can and does exist under socialist frameworks and moreover traced back to classical sin such as gluttony. While some egoists may conclude that gluttony nor pride be a sin, we must expand that a person who postulates that virtues exists that these taken to an extreme are effective at eviscerating everyone's essence and property. That soul eating, wrenching pain to preserve the individual while sacrificing someone else is also a common move in Magic. You will use a "chump blocker" in the game state, at some point in your game life.
The question is the pain by which we cause the "chump blocker" or "delta. Which again goes back to basic questions about punishment in any system, whether we should have permanent lifelong punishments or short term punishments. The "power creep" in felonies in the US has helped to create a two tiered system, but this anathema is not capitalist but rather cultural in a fear of free loading individuals trying to take advantage of a system. This egalitarian aspect, at times, will over punish specific offenders.
The mechanisms, whether socialist or capitalist, are not necessary to differentiate whether "good or bad happens." The question is how we define efficiency and what we mean by happiness. Capitalism is just another 'ism that actually does work like any tool in the shed, the question is how to properly scale and use that tool as it is being used. Like any tool there are always unintended consequences.
Your own form of socialism would require to have business and profit motive, which frankly under social democracy is an off shoot of capitalism itself. Much like anarcho-capitalism is another branch. Both have Mercantilist roots, and through the Commerce Revolution in Europe there was a lot of experimentation trying to comprehend how money works and personal responsibility meets. Some of these changes were horrendous, others were quite innovative laying the ground work for good banking worldwide.
What one must separate is the ideal that an unregulated free market is purely healthy all the time, and that a well ran market to a specific scale requires some oversight and an area to settle disputes quickly with rules of engagement. This allows people to predict a favorable outcome when engaging in exchange, without that you see a lack of trust and no long term planning. The socialist models that are successful use aspects of capitalism, but lack in the long term to be able "innovate" and require outside cultures to bring in necessary new ideas. While the "innovative" economies tend to be the most instability.
Think Selesnya versus Izzet. The Americans are Izzets, while the Swedish are Selesnya. Which we must return back to the role of culture, and once again my point about the zeitgeist. Americans are egalitarian, Christian, and money-making in cultural identity for a very long time now. To deny this is to deny Niv Mizzet, Dracogenius. The problem for the Selesnya and Izzet isn't each other, but rather the Dimir. Dimir as in Al Qaeda and other such organizations that seek to do real harm to hearth and home.
The ideal for the America would be to take on a red, white and blue philosophy to balance out the worst aspects of red and white and blue. While perhaps the Swedish to be "complete" require the addition of an additional color, at times, such as blue to bring the cunning and a part of the inhumanity to deal with transgressors more fluidly.
You get what I'm saying with the oversimplified, color pie metaphor here? Is that it takes a lot of different ideologies entwined to really make for a whole. Such as many Neo-Liberals are also Christians, Muslim, Humanists, and ect. which acts as an anchor for the exploitation in Neo-Liberalism.
But, seriously, "capitalism" is too broad. It's like saying "blue sucks in Magic," without getting specific. If you hate Neo-Liberalism, then hate on that, or market fundamentalism rather than capitalism itself. Capitalism takes many forms, most often related to the culture it takes shape in. Arguably, when it comes to policy, you are a part of the capitalist tradition as a socialist.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Left views generally tend towards progress, advancing, which is the natural way of evolving IMO.
This is another thing that I wanted to ask about.
Since when did the "left" become synonymous with "progress"?
Just because you espouse change, does not mean you are progressing. Nor does it mean you're advancing.
The Conservative movement did a really good job in manipulating the language so that Liberal became a dirty word. Liberals, instead of embracing their title that has a great meaning in actuality decided to brand themselves as progressives. In turn this had the effect of defining liberals as progressive which was a pretty masterful stroke in itself. In the US we've become far to worried about these labels instead of individual ideas. Part of me is very envious of the European nations who, to an outsider, appear to have more varied and splintered parties that have some political success.
That's my take on why the term progressive has become what it is. In the US at least.
Because conservative bias is a far, far worse thing. Liberal bias doesn't, statistically speaking, make people stupid. Conservative bias (or at least Fox's version of it) does.
The Conservative movement did a really good job in manipulating the language so that Liberal became a dirty word. Liberals, instead of embracing their title that has a great meaning in actuality decided to brand themselves as progressives. In turn this had the effect of defining liberals as progressive which was a pretty masterful stroke in itself. In the US we've become far to worried about these labels instead of individual ideas. Part of me is very envious of the European nations who, to an outsider, appear to have more varied and splintered parties that have some political success.
That's my take on why the term progressive has become what it is. In the US at least.
From what I've seen, "progressive" is a dirtier word than "liberal" among those inclined to see them as dirty words. The connotation is "liberal, but more pretentious and maybe a bit further to the left". And of course on the other side, "conservative" and "traditional" have become dirty words as well.
But you can't blame deliberate manipulation for these developments. One person or small group of people simply cannot manipulate an entire language. The real culprit is the growing polarization in American political culture. As hostility grows, labels naturally evolve into epithets. Nobody had to conspire for the public to turn against German words and names like "hamburger" during the World Wars.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm pretty sure the thought process is something along these lines:
- Magic tends to reward logical-mathematical intelligence
- People tend to enjoy and keep doing things they succeed at
- (Possibly also that it's an expensive hobby, so if someone (or their parents) can afford it, they are more likely than not educated to some degree - pun not intended)
"I'm not a nerd... nerds are smart" - Milhouse, The Simpsons
Magic is a game for Geeks, not Nerds. Magic players on the whole aren't half as smart as they believe themselves to be.
The former certainly would happen. The latter would but the fact is you'd also get agreement, whether it be silent or overt.
So has this discussion pretty much played out? I don't expect bLatch to respond in this thread again, and we've pretty much addressed the OP.
This is worth keeping in mind. I would estimate, though, that Magic players actually are a bit above average in aptitude, due to the aforementioned reasons of socioeconomic status, education, and self-selection. It has little or nothing to do with "nerdiness" - anyone with the advantages a Magic player probably has probably scores comparatively well on aptitude tests.
And there is something else to keep in mind about averages: The average person has one testicle and one breast. An actual individual human being may differ wildly from the picture painted by an average. So it does not do for one to congratulate oneself for belonging to an on-average-smarter group. One may very well be in the half of that group which is keeping the average from being higher.
There's an anti-intellectual streak on the left too, you know, particularly in its populist/labor wing and, tragically, among minority communities. Now, people from these groups are unlikely to be playing Magic a priori, so any anti-intellectual trend among their number might be thought to have little impact. But right-wing anti-intellectuals are mostly of rural blue-collar backgrounds not all that dissimilar from the union guys, and they too are unlikely to be playing Magic a priori. I think we would have to do a controlled study to determine which of these trends, if either, is stronger. In the meantime, pointing the finger at either side as "more anti-intellectual" strikes me as premature. And in any case, it glosses over the complementary fact that there are many people from both sides who are not anti-intellectual - certainly more than enough that a strong statistical disproportion such as is alleged here could not be explained by mere anti-intellectualism. Think of it this way: Women get breast cancer more often than men. But if you see a workplace that's mostly men, you probably don't think, "Oh, that's because most of the women have gotten breast cancer and died". The numbers are too far off for that to be the probable cause of the discrepancy.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You mean we spend paper on cardboard, right?
Arguably, the value of the objects we possess remains consent. Especially if you keep up with trading.
Think I know what you are saying. I've seen mods let things slide they might have infracted someone of a differing position from saying. I seem to recall BS being slightly harder on theists at one point. But, I too don't have any hard evidence, am bias myself, and also recall the mods as humans. So, please don't make anything of that accusation, I can't and won't defend it. It's just as likely a product of my flawed memory as anything else. What does that even mean? What 'other part' are you referring to?
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Also, I would expect that elaboration of your argument would--again--be part of your argument. When you expand or reexplain your argument, it's still your argument.
Infraction for trolling
He hasn't posted since then; given the time of year he may just be offline with family and friends.
No no I understand. I'm just saying that most of the discussion at this point is sort of meandering, so it might just make more sense to wait for the holidays to end, BLatch to come back and give input instead of meandering off topic.
-$0.02
A few of them were also pricks that got banned. The anarcho-capitalists tended to suck at debate for some of the others when they came here en masse, came, debated for like a month, then left. I actually liked a couple of them, as they brought in some new forms of debate and were genuinely intellectual. Some of the resident ones like Surging Chaos and ijosspiere have been here for years, but tend to be opinionated yet good people.
I tended to find the worse ones ideological debaters either dogmatic like Shining Blue Eyes debating BS, myself, and others about the reasons for the Civil War and basically had the biggest piss poor debate I've seen in years to the point where I have used it as an example of "how not to debate online" with a link to that thread. The other worst offenders tended to be extremely preachy or too far reaching with thin skins having a small held opinion. You just don't see SBE here debating anymore. People like to win, and when you keep losing like that you get discouraged and leave. The surge in AC'ers I think were connected to SBE, got discouraged, and left when they failed to convert people to "true capitalism" and founded their own debate forum. Which in retrospect I think was a tactic to try build their own website than anything by attracting followers/converts. However, to find that out I would have to trace their user names to other boards and see if the tactic was repeated on other such forums.
There are also some of the conservatives that tended to be equally dogmatic, got into massive personal arguments, and then left.
My own suspicions for the "left creep" has more to do with more people taking liberal or anarchist view points as a matter of fact since the crash. You have the Ron Paul revolution and Mises Institute both act as an indicator for reaching young minds with free materials to support their conclusions and view points with a community to exist within. Equally the decline in the appeal of the Republican Party outside of rural areas is another major factor as well as people who once held those views switching to a more moderate Republican stance and being labeled RINO's and becoming independents.
People saw the cult of the colossal and the inflection point with the crash when it comes to crime, corruption, and money. Rather than a socialist reaction, people mostly blamed government not for failure to prosecute but rather that getting rid of government altogether would have prevented the problem and advocating for a laissez faire approach in vein of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. Yet, what has left to be desired as to how such a framework works without major hiccups. As the Canadians never experienced such a financial crisis as us with stricter banking laws, which is a part where the New New Left has come from.
Equally the attempts to disrupt and destroy the legacy of the New Deal coalition in tandem with the lack of wage growth and failed promises of Reaganism have also thrown young persons into a pickle.
Zeitgeist to put it into a word, rather than censorship.
But, yea I'm a small government conservative with civil libertarian belief structure and min-anarchist sentiments. And by small I mean efficient with supporting institutions built around the people to help them grow as a culture. I prefer private experimentation in house first, looking at other nation states how they solved a problem, and only after decades to use the government when all other options and patience has been expired.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I'm interested in debate but honestly have a hard time getting people to understand what I mean. A lot is lost in translation from thought to post and discussions progress to fast to sit on a post for too long.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
Not really much I can add here. I would say that an additional problem is that many of the members who left or were banned had a hard time distinguishing between argument and attack, and would grow very emotionally invested. I think it's a product of how partisan we've become in general.
I also think that defining things in terms of right/left is problematic. I can fall far left and far right on a variety of topics (I've had political tests tell me I'm both Libertarian AND Greene party...). I have, however, skewed farther left as a result of debating here. I used to be pretty heavily conservative. If it weren't for the continuing shift of the Republican party farther and farther right, I'd probably still be a Republican, but as it is most would call me a RINO for deciding issues on their merit rather than toeing a party line.
I agree. We've had tons of good conservative debaters over the years, and we still do have good ones.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
They often get slandered and it just doesn't seem worth it for them. Conservatives have some good views as do liberals, both groups just become too insular and eventually chalk up their differences to things like intelligence level, which is obviously wrong.
This is another thing that I wanted to ask about.
Since when did the "left" become synonymous with "progress"?
Just because you espouse change, does not mean you are progressing. Nor does it mean you're advancing.
Right now, in the United States at least, I'd say that conservatives want to make more changes than liberals.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You can be a statist and a capitalist at the same time without being a socialist.
What we can also discuss is one of size and scale as well as redundancy. Nicholas Taleb, while an Austrian and not the greatest economist in the world, goes back towards an age old phenomenon. You can't always predict everything, and sometimes really bad things happen and you get screwed. Humans are ruled by their emotions. That's fairly much the basis for Black Swan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
Capitalists take two views on this:
1. Build a better homo economicus
2. Abandon homo economicus outside of a few broad theories (Austrians as one main proponent)
Basically, the major researchers just try to build a better model for the next time.
I recommend the book, Moral Consequences of Economic Growth, and is written by a leftist. The thesis of his book is that when the economy sours, people get mean. When the economy is better, people get nicer. This coincides with the concept of information cascade and humans adopting prevailing views and strategies for survival.
Much like the "personal branding" and "networking" we see going on today with youngsters trying to get "real jobs," is akin to what you read in the Education of Henry Adams where he talks about a major financial depression and how personal relations and going door to door was necessary, even, for him. That sometimes we see these trends to human adaptation in regard to specific struggles and strategies.
And this is where conservatives who value community come into play over the people who tout the free market as a panacea. The consumerist response is "What do I buy to solve my problem?" The self-sufficient person asks, "What do I have that can solve this problem?" The community oriented, self-sufficient person asks, "What is it that I have, that can save me and others and if I work with others around me to achieve a common goal how can we all profit through this ordeal?"
"Capitalism" in your argument can be tacked on as a deleterious form of egoism, which can and does exist under socialist frameworks and moreover traced back to classical sin such as gluttony. While some egoists may conclude that gluttony nor pride be a sin, we must expand that a person who postulates that virtues exists that these taken to an extreme are effective at eviscerating everyone's essence and property. That soul eating, wrenching pain to preserve the individual while sacrificing someone else is also a common move in Magic. You will use a "chump blocker" in the game state, at some point in your game life.
The question is the pain by which we cause the "chump blocker" or "delta. Which again goes back to basic questions about punishment in any system, whether we should have permanent lifelong punishments or short term punishments. The "power creep" in felonies in the US has helped to create a two tiered system, but this anathema is not capitalist but rather cultural in a fear of free loading individuals trying to take advantage of a system. This egalitarian aspect, at times, will over punish specific offenders.
The mechanisms, whether socialist or capitalist, are not necessary to differentiate whether "good or bad happens." The question is how we define efficiency and what we mean by happiness. Capitalism is just another 'ism that actually does work like any tool in the shed, the question is how to properly scale and use that tool as it is being used. Like any tool there are always unintended consequences.
Your own form of socialism would require to have business and profit motive, which frankly under social democracy is an off shoot of capitalism itself. Much like anarcho-capitalism is another branch. Both have Mercantilist roots, and through the Commerce Revolution in Europe there was a lot of experimentation trying to comprehend how money works and personal responsibility meets. Some of these changes were horrendous, others were quite innovative laying the ground work for good banking worldwide.
What one must separate is the ideal that an unregulated free market is purely healthy all the time, and that a well ran market to a specific scale requires some oversight and an area to settle disputes quickly with rules of engagement. This allows people to predict a favorable outcome when engaging in exchange, without that you see a lack of trust and no long term planning. The socialist models that are successful use aspects of capitalism, but lack in the long term to be able "innovate" and require outside cultures to bring in necessary new ideas. While the "innovative" economies tend to be the most instability.
Think Selesnya versus Izzet. The Americans are Izzets, while the Swedish are Selesnya. Which we must return back to the role of culture, and once again my point about the zeitgeist. Americans are egalitarian, Christian, and money-making in cultural identity for a very long time now. To deny this is to deny Niv Mizzet, Dracogenius. The problem for the Selesnya and Izzet isn't each other, but rather the Dimir. Dimir as in Al Qaeda and other such organizations that seek to do real harm to hearth and home.
The ideal for the America would be to take on a red, white and blue philosophy to balance out the worst aspects of red and white and blue. While perhaps the Swedish to be "complete" require the addition of an additional color, at times, such as blue to bring the cunning and a part of the inhumanity to deal with transgressors more fluidly.
You get what I'm saying with the oversimplified, color pie metaphor here? Is that it takes a lot of different ideologies entwined to really make for a whole. Such as many Neo-Liberals are also Christians, Muslim, Humanists, and ect. which acts as an anchor for the exploitation in Neo-Liberalism.
But, seriously, "capitalism" is too broad. It's like saying "blue sucks in Magic," without getting specific. If you hate Neo-Liberalism, then hate on that, or market fundamentalism rather than capitalism itself. Capitalism takes many forms, most often related to the culture it takes shape in. Arguably, when it comes to policy, you are a part of the capitalist tradition as a socialist.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
The Conservative movement did a really good job in manipulating the language so that Liberal became a dirty word. Liberals, instead of embracing their title that has a great meaning in actuality decided to brand themselves as progressives. In turn this had the effect of defining liberals as progressive which was a pretty masterful stroke in itself. In the US we've become far to worried about these labels instead of individual ideas. Part of me is very envious of the European nations who, to an outsider, appear to have more varied and splintered parties that have some political success.
That's my take on why the term progressive has become what it is. In the US at least.
From what I've seen, "progressive" is a dirtier word than "liberal" among those inclined to see them as dirty words. The connotation is "liberal, but more pretentious and maybe a bit further to the left". And of course on the other side, "conservative" and "traditional" have become dirty words as well.
But you can't blame deliberate manipulation for these developments. One person or small group of people simply cannot manipulate an entire language. The real culprit is the growing polarization in American political culture. As hostility grows, labels naturally evolve into epithets. Nobody had to conspire for the public to turn against German words and names like "hamburger" during the World Wars.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
And Tuss, if you're going to look down your nose at "the fantasy card-game... stuff", maybe you would be happier on a different website?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.