Do we really want to send a message that people need to hide their beliefs?
Especially when we're desperately seeking transparency in campaign finance.
I actually don't think this particular incident rises to the level of political bullying. A CEO is a major public figure, and refusing to do business with a firm is well within anyone's rights. But people (on all sides, of course) definitely do use the public donor rolls as a target list for harassment. And what it does is strengthen the argument that anonymity in political donations is necessary to protect that freedom. Does that make anyone else uncomfortable?
If I post something online with my full name, my work, where I live, and ect. Then my "future employers" are fully able to Google what I believe in and so forth all at their finger tips. Equally, if I ran for office, I'd have an anal probe and my entire life up for grabs. Anything and everything would be up for grabs. The same thing if I was rich and famous, my life would become a part of TMZ's bottom line.
Whereas years ago, you could actually have sex with your secretary as a politician and it wouldn't be headline news. You could actually write something in college and not have it follow you. The more I mull this over, I feel that we're seeing the upper portions of our society finally see the bad side of unlimited harassment with unlimited information. Let's call not hiring someone for being an anarchist, that's a form of exclusion and considered shunning and bullying. Just because it's "within someone's rights" doesn't mean that we shouldn't have decorum and an understanding about people's lives and choices.
Employer Googling is a target list for harassment, even if someone has a drink on Facebook in their hand there's pressure to remove those pictures. I for one am glad that people are finally seeing the heat. It's started with our young people going onto sex predator lists for sexting each other, then cyber bullying, then employees getting screwed with search, celebrities having a camera up their posterior for their careers, politicians always being judged, and now finally it's the lone guy who gives money. I for one welcome them into the new world order, because when everyone gets screwed equally by this system then we can start having a conversation about decorum and what is acceptable to harass over and what is not.
Digital ethics and policies have been a long time coming, and things have to get really bad until they get better. Once this vigilante voyeurism in our society is reckoned with, then we can move on as a society and enjoy more of the fruits of the internet revolution. This is no different than any other commercial revolution in the past, we just need to start and update our culture a bit. But that normally takes a few thunks to the head at all strata.
1. She already has art based on a constellation in the spoiler art that has thus yet to approach on any actual card
2. She has been confirmed as the Goddess of Night Sky
3. The fifteen card god cycle is enough to be considered a "tribe," and having a rainbow God makes "sense"
4. Chromanticore did not have enough text space for Legendary, while God fits Legendary Enchantment Creature-God in the text space.
5. Chromanticore is the "super Bestow" creature, not the "super enchantment legendary creature"
6. Conflux was the last time we had a legendary color creature
7. Commander is a big hit with people, making a new rainbow legendary would meet with a lot of adulation(therefore fan base and a lot of use for casual and Commander players)
8. Nyx has the powers of the Night Sky, which envelopes all colors in the game
9. Her actual shrine can produce all mana types.
Nyx is a woman, her constellation body has long hair, a staff, and wearing a dress. Constellations can take human form as seen with the archetype cycle, so her gaining a physical form while actually within Nyx itself would be able to be done as a manifestation of her own powers. My presumption would be this:
1. Her devotion animation is going to be equal to or higher than the dual color gods
2. Her ability will be strong to define her abilities
3. Her symmetry will be 5 CC only, since that's been extremely typical of all traditional rainbow legendaries except the strongest
4. Her ability will define her unique place within the pantheon
#4 is really up in the air, since we know so little about her.
Finding out your child has a major illness is a huge blow. With our one child, we sought treatment and she was fine within a few years without any major problems. Granted this wasn't genetic and so forth. There's time when she can be a little overwhelmed by things, but she's learned how to manage everything quite well and is healthy. There's a time when things get frustrating and you just want to scream, but then comes those times when you can talk to someone and say "Yea, this or that" that can help someone else a lot.
My first and foremost belief is to be a good example towards other people, and you and your family going to that length are being a good example for others.
I'm a minority, why should I believe in something that someone wrote in a book about a hypothetical reality whenever I know, from other people that look like me who lived in the past and some are still alive today, that some people will treat me like garbage and try to destroy my life for being "uppity." I have seen racism, I have seen other forms of evil from humanity. And I married a white woman, produced 2.5 kids, and continue to have relations with the same woman. I would be hanged for even looking at my wife in the right time and place. From a very, very basic security concern the government has kept me safe from certain sectarian violence groups with long histories of racism.
I am educated, safe, productive, married, working, and comfortable. You're asking me to completely change my way of life to commit towards an ideology because some people don't like the government? Then risk my family's life and my own personal safety from a nation that has had a long history of hating foreigners and people of color.
1. Show me where this has worked, specifically in the modern age
2. Where evidence is available, data on per capita violence is higher in places like the Wild West with a lack of government than modern New York City. I'm safer as a "colored" in the middle of modern NYC than I am walking around in some random western town.
What self interest do I have in this experiment, considering the past socio-cultural influence would consider me to flee to Canada if we would embark on such an experiment?
If you have failed to achieve min-anarchism, why should I trust you on anarchism? I'm all for a small area to try this out and to see if a city could live like that, beyond that it would take physical hard evidence of that nature to even begin to approach reforms towards that level.
I look at people that look like me, and thanks to the federal government our quality of life has gradually, gradually, gradually very much improved.
I hate to bring race into a point about this, but I just don't see people of color really embracing this philosophy en mass. Whether that's the tribes, who would just continue to be tribes. African Americans are largely sided to liberal, at the very least statists. Most Hispanics, black or white, aren't anarchist at all and with ideologies like Peronism quite the opposite. Whites are a more varied group, however most of the massive clusters are quite statist.
I just do not see anywhere you can justify embarking on a project without the necessary leadership coming from rich people to colonize a particular, peculiar place. However, when you consider city-states that run off of capitalist ends like those in the Middle East. We must take the basic axiom, that there will be fundamentalist natures within to their governance structure with Islam. And if we talk about city-states, one must comply that there would be Jewish, Christian, and other such states cropping up very quickly for safe havens.
Then we have to consider colonial history in the Americas... which basically meant these experiments didn't last and led to splintering and border conflict and inevitable conquest.
You are denying your own cultural inheritance bent on a scheme that someone thought up over a few decades. Government is a tool, much like the gun, and to prohibit government, like drugs, would just have government pop back up in a "black market government." Or otherwise known as clans or gangs.
Black market activity in the US, as well as what is called the darknet are all a shadow of what occurs in anarchy.
As for the historical portions, Blinking_Spirit studied Icelandic history and is a historian-philosopher. He had multiple arguments against Icelandic "anarchism." The "not so Wild West argument" we debunked fairly quickly over a Mises article with simple violence per capita statistics comparisons.
I'm very much interested in this debate, but I want something new. Talk about the actual content out of the Costa Rican Libertarian communes and what really have they achieved? I'm just not really seeing it outside of a small group of hippies that may not achieve results, or end up like the Kibbutz movement and go statist.
This is something I've been looking at most of my life, as a conservative I'm naturally opposed to such things. As someone who sees the decline in the family, tribe, and community the government takes on unprecedented roles. Anyone who has studied economic history knows that private charities in time of need decline in relative and real strength to combat problems, which is why the government in it's capacity to tax and the like is able to combat more effectively over a longer time frame to deal with deleterious effects.
Yet, we must return to the problem of capital not going towards the market and choking out investment into new businesses. Equally, there are parasite singles and shut ins after the Lost Decade in Japan that through individual wealth and government have been able to live at home for eternity. Granted Japan has an aging economy and their economic status for young people to get jobs is horrible.
So this is where I begin to look at this from the conservative perspective, if I want capitalism to work the individual must be able to work enough to do something. And this is where the assumption that anarchists, Austrians, and the like come towards that people will "naturally" be inclined towards something, whenever centuries of abuse and alcoholism and the like has been the norm rather than the rule. Especially during these downturns.
Frankly, I think rather than preach towards Ayn Rand and the altar of capitalism and how we need to shrink government. The likes of Paul Ryan and those, like myself, who preach about individualism and capitalism need to actually be a part of the system for inclusion. This means the homeless woman whose mentally disturbed, it means the abused kid that's got an alcoholic for a father. A good "witness" to conservativism, is the person who tries to reach some of these people. Not to fix them, but to make them in part more whole.
In Tusses' advocacy of socialism and surplus value, there lacked a sense of community. What Keynes called the Animal Spirits or as some sociologists and philosophers a zeitgeist or spirit of the age, either way a sense of direction and culture that guides people but also people who wish to engage each other to build such things. This is sort of the old Jack Kemp or Bobby Kennedy sense of the world. To have concern for the poor, but to get them to get off their asses also requires us to get off of our collective asses and actually be useful.
Instead of arguing size, one must argue for use. It should not matter how big something is, it is always the way you use it. You can force something, but if you shove it down the wrong place it's just going to hurt people. Like any tool, inexperience leads to ruin. Ideology without commitment means nothing, and I do not believe all the 401c3's and 501c3's in the world can do it. Nor can the best socialist systems do so.
To take Tuss, a Swede, his nation's ability to educate and use positive forms of wealth redistribution has allowed for the nation to produce excellent scientists and the like as well as businesses. However, Sweden is known for it's bankers, which sit as the grand viziers of capitalism. How is it that a "socialist state" could be so capitalistic? Because the Swedes understood the value of policy, place, and proportion proper for their society and culture as it has matured and will mature.
Do I believe that a social democracy, in the vein of Bernie Sanders, is a good idea for America? No, hardly, I still want us to see a private system. Europe uses more government systems, something that Thatcher herself failed to realize without fostering philanthropy unlike here in the States. Yet, we must begin to ask more about the family and how to protect financial from predators from within and without that seek to do real harm. Not as a result of "would it be nice," but rather to prevent some person like Adam Lanza from being a murderer and a victim himself of his own disease. The sanctity of human life and dignity comes at a sacrifice for the division of labor.
It is an intricate waltz that must be measured based on appropriateness, scale, and power. To have a healthy society, you must invest in that society. And I'm not talking fat people, I'm talking people that conservatives and even some libertarians find do need help. You won't see Adam Lanza's picture as a grown adult on any cup at the cashier asking for your change, yet you always see those cute little children with cancer. There are limits to our ability to donate to see certain underserviced areas to not be fully private or even wholly welfare. So I agree with Tuss there about exploitation, yet one must see that a Swedish banker will always exploit, without hopefully over exploiting, to make a dime so that the welfare state is well financed.
What are your thoughts on the welfare system, capitalism, and socialism?
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.
1
It's already been plotted out for a while now.
1
If I post something online with my full name, my work, where I live, and ect. Then my "future employers" are fully able to Google what I believe in and so forth all at their finger tips. Equally, if I ran for office, I'd have an anal probe and my entire life up for grabs. Anything and everything would be up for grabs. The same thing if I was rich and famous, my life would become a part of TMZ's bottom line.
Whereas years ago, you could actually have sex with your secretary as a politician and it wouldn't be headline news. You could actually write something in college and not have it follow you. The more I mull this over, I feel that we're seeing the upper portions of our society finally see the bad side of unlimited harassment with unlimited information. Let's call not hiring someone for being an anarchist, that's a form of exclusion and considered shunning and bullying. Just because it's "within someone's rights" doesn't mean that we shouldn't have decorum and an understanding about people's lives and choices.
Employer Googling is a target list for harassment, even if someone has a drink on Facebook in their hand there's pressure to remove those pictures. I for one am glad that people are finally seeing the heat. It's started with our young people going onto sex predator lists for sexting each other, then cyber bullying, then employees getting screwed with search, celebrities having a camera up their posterior for their careers, politicians always being judged, and now finally it's the lone guy who gives money. I for one welcome them into the new world order, because when everyone gets screwed equally by this system then we can start having a conversation about decorum and what is acceptable to harass over and what is not.
Digital ethics and policies have been a long time coming, and things have to get really bad until they get better. Once this vigilante voyeurism in our society is reckoned with, then we can move on as a society and enjoy more of the fruits of the internet revolution. This is no different than any other commercial revolution in the past, we just need to start and update our culture a bit. But that normally takes a few thunks to the head at all strata.
1
1
2. She has been confirmed as the Goddess of Night Sky
3. The fifteen card god cycle is enough to be considered a "tribe," and having a rainbow God makes "sense"
4. Chromanticore did not have enough text space for Legendary, while God fits Legendary Enchantment Creature-God in the text space.
5. Chromanticore is the "super Bestow" creature, not the "super enchantment legendary creature"
6. Conflux was the last time we had a legendary color creature
7. Commander is a big hit with people, making a new rainbow legendary would meet with a lot of adulation(therefore fan base and a lot of use for casual and Commander players)
8. Nyx has the powers of the Night Sky, which envelopes all colors in the game
9. Her actual shrine can produce all mana types.
Nyx is a woman, her constellation body has long hair, a staff, and wearing a dress. Constellations can take human form as seen with the archetype cycle, so her gaining a physical form while actually within Nyx itself would be able to be done as a manifestation of her own powers. My presumption would be this:
1. Her devotion animation is going to be equal to or higher than the dual color gods
2. Her ability will be strong to define her abilities
3. Her symmetry will be 5 CC only, since that's been extremely typical of all traditional rainbow legendaries except the strongest
4. Her ability will define her unique place within the pantheon
#4 is really up in the air, since we know so little about her.
1
My first and foremost belief is to be a good example towards other people, and you and your family going to that length are being a good example for others.
1
I am educated, safe, productive, married, working, and comfortable. You're asking me to completely change my way of life to commit towards an ideology because some people don't like the government? Then risk my family's life and my own personal safety from a nation that has had a long history of hating foreigners and people of color.
1. Show me where this has worked, specifically in the modern age
2. Where evidence is available, data on per capita violence is higher in places like the Wild West with a lack of government than modern New York City. I'm safer as a "colored" in the middle of modern NYC than I am walking around in some random western town.
What self interest do I have in this experiment, considering the past socio-cultural influence would consider me to flee to Canada if we would embark on such an experiment?
If you have failed to achieve min-anarchism, why should I trust you on anarchism? I'm all for a small area to try this out and to see if a city could live like that, beyond that it would take physical hard evidence of that nature to even begin to approach reforms towards that level.
I look at people that look like me, and thanks to the federal government our quality of life has gradually, gradually, gradually very much improved.
I hate to bring race into a point about this, but I just don't see people of color really embracing this philosophy en mass. Whether that's the tribes, who would just continue to be tribes. African Americans are largely sided to liberal, at the very least statists. Most Hispanics, black or white, aren't anarchist at all and with ideologies like Peronism quite the opposite. Whites are a more varied group, however most of the massive clusters are quite statist.
I just do not see anywhere you can justify embarking on a project without the necessary leadership coming from rich people to colonize a particular, peculiar place. However, when you consider city-states that run off of capitalist ends like those in the Middle East. We must take the basic axiom, that there will be fundamentalist natures within to their governance structure with Islam. And if we talk about city-states, one must comply that there would be Jewish, Christian, and other such states cropping up very quickly for safe havens.
Then we have to consider colonial history in the Americas... which basically meant these experiments didn't last and led to splintering and border conflict and inevitable conquest.
You are denying your own cultural inheritance bent on a scheme that someone thought up over a few decades. Government is a tool, much like the gun, and to prohibit government, like drugs, would just have government pop back up in a "black market government." Or otherwise known as clans or gangs.
Black market activity in the US, as well as what is called the darknet are all a shadow of what occurs in anarchy.
As for the historical portions, Blinking_Spirit studied Icelandic history and is a historian-philosopher. He had multiple arguments against Icelandic "anarchism." The "not so Wild West argument" we debunked fairly quickly over a Mises article with simple violence per capita statistics comparisons.
I'm very much interested in this debate, but I want something new. Talk about the actual content out of the Costa Rican Libertarian communes and what really have they achieved? I'm just not really seeing it outside of a small group of hippies that may not achieve results, or end up like the Kibbutz movement and go statist.
1
Yet, we must return to the problem of capital not going towards the market and choking out investment into new businesses. Equally, there are parasite singles and shut ins after the Lost Decade in Japan that through individual wealth and government have been able to live at home for eternity. Granted Japan has an aging economy and their economic status for young people to get jobs is horrible.
So this is where I begin to look at this from the conservative perspective, if I want capitalism to work the individual must be able to work enough to do something. And this is where the assumption that anarchists, Austrians, and the like come towards that people will "naturally" be inclined towards something, whenever centuries of abuse and alcoholism and the like has been the norm rather than the rule. Especially during these downturns.
Frankly, I think rather than preach towards Ayn Rand and the altar of capitalism and how we need to shrink government. The likes of Paul Ryan and those, like myself, who preach about individualism and capitalism need to actually be a part of the system for inclusion. This means the homeless woman whose mentally disturbed, it means the abused kid that's got an alcoholic for a father. A good "witness" to conservativism, is the person who tries to reach some of these people. Not to fix them, but to make them in part more whole.
In Tusses' advocacy of socialism and surplus value, there lacked a sense of community. What Keynes called the Animal Spirits or as some sociologists and philosophers a zeitgeist or spirit of the age, either way a sense of direction and culture that guides people but also people who wish to engage each other to build such things. This is sort of the old Jack Kemp or Bobby Kennedy sense of the world. To have concern for the poor, but to get them to get off their asses also requires us to get off of our collective asses and actually be useful.
Instead of arguing size, one must argue for use. It should not matter how big something is, it is always the way you use it. You can force something, but if you shove it down the wrong place it's just going to hurt people. Like any tool, inexperience leads to ruin. Ideology without commitment means nothing, and I do not believe all the 401c3's and 501c3's in the world can do it. Nor can the best socialist systems do so.
To take Tuss, a Swede, his nation's ability to educate and use positive forms of wealth redistribution has allowed for the nation to produce excellent scientists and the like as well as businesses. However, Sweden is known for it's bankers, which sit as the grand viziers of capitalism. How is it that a "socialist state" could be so capitalistic? Because the Swedes understood the value of policy, place, and proportion proper for their society and culture as it has matured and will mature.
Do I believe that a social democracy, in the vein of Bernie Sanders, is a good idea for America? No, hardly, I still want us to see a private system. Europe uses more government systems, something that Thatcher herself failed to realize without fostering philanthropy unlike here in the States. Yet, we must begin to ask more about the family and how to protect financial from predators from within and without that seek to do real harm. Not as a result of "would it be nice," but rather to prevent some person like Adam Lanza from being a murderer and a victim himself of his own disease. The sanctity of human life and dignity comes at a sacrifice for the division of labor.
It is an intricate waltz that must be measured based on appropriateness, scale, and power. To have a healthy society, you must invest in that society. And I'm not talking fat people, I'm talking people that conservatives and even some libertarians find do need help. You won't see Adam Lanza's picture as a grown adult on any cup at the cashier asking for your change, yet you always see those cute little children with cancer. There are limits to our ability to donate to see certain underserviced areas to not be fully private or even wholly welfare. So I agree with Tuss there about exploitation, yet one must see that a Swedish banker will always exploit, without hopefully over exploiting, to make a dime so that the welfare state is well financed.
What are your thoughts on the welfare system, capitalism, and socialism?
1
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.
1
1