Medieval Games Legitimize White Supremacy

[Trik'Stari]

Cultural Marxists/SJW's have nothing to do with liberalism. They are authoritarian extreme lefts, not liberal lefts.

Not really.

 

 

I swear Liberals are brainless. 

It's not brainlessness, it's a mental disorder.

[ThatFatMan1911]

Cultural Marxists/SJW's have nothing to do with liberalism. They are authoritarian extreme lefts, not liberal lefts.

No I don't want to hear the excuses. 

[Shakaza]

I swear Liberals are brainless. 

That wasn't very nice. 

[Notional]

No I don't want to hear the excuses. 

 

What excuses? The "American" definition of liberals are incorrect. This is the correct definition:

 

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

 

Liberty means you get to be yourself and live your life how you want. Cultural Marxists/SJW's wants to dictate what you think and do, which is the opposite of liberalism, aka authoritarianism.

 

Only talking about left and right is not representative. This is what the political compass looks like:

 

Not really.

 

How so? See above.

[ThatFatMan1911]

What excuses? The "American" definition of liberals are incorrect.

I don't give a shit. I live in the United States so to me, the "American" definition of Liberal IS correct. I see that you're a foreigner and you think your definitions are the only correct ones and means nothing different in any other country. Well I got some news for ya, we're here on God's green earth too. 

[ThatFatMan1911]

That wasn't very nice. 

Can't help stupid

[Notional]

I don't give a shit. I live in the United States so to me, the "American" definition of Liberal IS correct. I see that you're a foreigner and you think your definitions are the only correct ones and means nothing different in any other country. Well I got some news for ya, we're here on God's green earth too. 

 

 

The compass is based on American academia, so what are you on about? Being American is not an excuse to be ignorant. You are confirming the worst stereotypes of American's with that statement.

[Shakaza]

I don't give a shit. I live in the United States so to me, the "American" definition of Liberal IS correct. I see that you're a foreigner and you think your definitions are the only correct ones and means nothing different in any other country. Well I got some news for ya, we're here on God's green earth too. 

I'm an American and I follow the correct definition of Liberalism...

 

Liberalism is Liberalism, so how can there be something else called Liberalism if it's not Liberalism? I can understand there being multiple definitions of a word, but Liberalism is an idea. How can something else also be called liberalism if it describes a different idea?

 

Also, if we're on "God's green earth," why is this planet called the "blue planet?" 

[Sauron]

Is that why most medieval fantasy RPGs let you play as a person with the skin colour you choose and hell, even from different imaginary races?

[techswede]

Sigh.. how she got a phd is beyond me..

[Lewellyn]

What excuses? The "American" definition of liberals are incorrect. This is the correct definition:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

 

Liberty means you get to be yourself and live your life how you want. Cultural Marxists/SJW's wants to dictate what you think and do, which is the opposite of liberalism, aka authoritarianism.

 

Only talking about left and right is not representative. This is what the political compass looks like:

 

 

How so? See above.

 

 

... you can't have collective ownership without some form of working government. That graph is so wrong, lol.

[Notional]

... you can't have collective ownership without some form of working government. That graph is so wrong, lol.

 

Why not? You can share land, production facilities, resources, etc. without a government. Self governance is the key word here.

 

Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies often defined as self-governed voluntary institutions,^[1][2][3][4] but that several authors have defined as more specific institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations.^[5][6][7][8] Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful.^[9][10] While anti-statism is central,^[11] anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.^{[6][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]}

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

[Lewellyn]

Why not? You can share land, production facilities, resources, etc. without a government. Self governance is the key word here.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

 

Every political compass chart says a lot more about the person who constructed it rather than what it says about reality. I've found them to be pretty useless. Calling the leftist libertarian quadrant "anarchism" is a skew of reality. 

[Notional]

Every political compass chart says a lot more about the person who constructed it rather than what it says about reality. I've found them to be pretty useless. Calling the leftist libertarian quadrant "anarchism" is a skew of reality. 

 

It's certainly very simplified. I think the best way to see it would be gradients of the colours mixing together. In the anarchy article you can see there's social anarchy (which would be to the very left of the anarchy box) and individual anarchy (which would be to the right in the anarchy box towards libertarian). So of course it's not all binary when "crossing a border". But when most people just thinks left and right, this does literally give an extra dimension to things.

 

The point is though, that cultural Marxists/SJW's are not liberal, when they practice group think and blames everything on society/culture and not individuals.

[ThatFatMan1911]

The compass is based on American academia, so what are you on about? Being American is not an excuse to be ignorant. You are confirming the worst stereotypes of American's with that statement.

So I'm the worst stereotypical American? Well, I guess that's your opinion. In all honesty, I could have a formal debate with you in a PM, but I'm not sure if my messages would get across to you. In my previous experiences, talking to people like you is almost like talking to a brick wall. 

[Lewellyn]

It's certainly very simplified. I think the best way to see it would be gradients of the colours mixing together. In the anarchy article you can see there's social anarchy (which would be to the very left of the anarchy box) and individual anarchy (which would be to the right in the anarchy box towards libertarian). So of course it's not all binary when "crossing a border". But when most people just thinks left and right, this does literally give an extra dimension to things.

 

The point is though, that cultural Marxists/SJW's are not liberal, when they practice group think and blames everything on society/culture and not individuals.

 

You mean like this?

 

 

They certainly view "equality" in different ways than others. In that they largely believe (at least with feminism and social justice today) in an equality of outcome (career demographics) rather than equality of opportunity (education demographics), and seem to largely reject any argument that preferences between genders could be different so as to cause disparity. They have applied some distorted view of social economics to the point where you are not to be judged for your individual merits, but by how much "priveledge" you were born with through gender, race, and sexuality. That's why people refer to it as social/cultural marxism and not marxism, because Marx dealt with the class based hierarchy while they have taken that and applied it to social identities.

[Trik'Stari]

-snip

 

The compass is based on American academia, so what are you on about? Being American is not an excuse to be ignorant. You are confirming the worst stereotypes of American's with that statement.

"Liberals" in America are generally socialist/communists (like Liberal Democrats. They support big government, nationalization, fewer civil rights [not that they realize the last one] etc.). There are Libertarians which are completely different, but we call them Libertarians, not liberals.

 

You mean like this?

 

-snip

They certainly view "equality" in different ways than others. In that they largely believe (at least with feminism and social justice today) in an equality of outcome (career demographics) rather than equality of opportunity (education demographics), and seem to largely reject any argument that preferences between genders could be different so as to cause disparity. They have applied some distorted view of social economics to the point where you are not to be judged for your individual merits, but by how much "priveledge" you were born with through gender, race, and sexuality. That's why people refer to it as social/cultural marxism and not marxism, because Marx dealt with the class based hierarchy while they have taken that and applied it to social identities.

 

The problem with their view of "equality" and "tolerance", is that they are entirely contradictory to what those terms actually mean. Their idea of tolerance is "everyone has to agree with me, if you disagree with how I live then you're intolerant" (ignorant that they themselves are intolerant for not allowing people to disagree with them)

[Notional]

So I'm the worst stereotypical American? Well, I guess that's your opinion. In all honesty, I could have a formal debate with you in a PM, but I'm not sure if my messages would get across to you. In my previous experiences, talking to people like you is almost like talking to a brick wall. 

 

I said you confirmed one of the worst stereotypes wit you comment, not that you are. Just relax and take a deep breath. The fact that US only really has two political systems, makes your political system more like a sport with two opposing teams, that always needs to win over the other, than actually getting things done. That also means rhetoric gets skewed to hell, when conservative voters wants more freedom and less government, but thinks liberalism is bad. Makes no sense.

 

You mean like this?

 

Look.png

 

They certainly view "equality" in different ways than others. In that they largely believe (at least with feminism and social justice today) in an equality of outcome (career demographics) rather than equality of opportunity (education demographics), and seem to largely reject any argument that preferences between genders could be different so as to cause disparity. They have applied some distorted view of social economics to the point where you are not to be judged for your individual merits, but by how much "priveledge" you were born with through gender, race, and sexuality. That's why people refer to it as social/cultural marxism and not marxism, because Marx dealt with the class based hierarchy while they have taken that and applied it to social identities.

 

Yeah that one is much more detailed. Everything is greyscale in life, not black and white, so borders will always be blurred. But in that particular image, some are subgenres of others, which is difficult to see. But really it's all semantics, as the definitions are more important than the terms themselves.

 

Yes that is exactly what modern feminism targets. I believe in egalitarianism (within reason/biology) and meritocracy, so they are completely bonkers in my mind. But that is what I mean when I say they don't believe in personal responsibility, and therefore cannot be libertarian (as well as the group think thing).

[dalekphalm]

I don't give a shit. I live in the United States so to me, the "American" definition of Liberal IS correct. I see that you're a foreigner and you think your definitions are the only correct ones and means nothing different in any other country. Well I got some news for ya, we're here on God's green earth too. 

... what...?

 

That political spectrum image is based off of American standards and research. It IS American.

 

I'm an American and I follow the correct definition of Liberalism...

 

Liberalism is Liberalism, so how can there be something else called Liberalism if it's not Liberalism? I can understand there being multiple definitions of a word, but Liberalism is an idea. How can something else also be called liberalism if it describes a different idea?

 

Also, if we're on "God's green earth," why is this planet called the "blue planet?" 

Good points.

[Notional]

"Liberals" in America are generally socialist/communists (like Liberal Democrats. They support big government, nationalization, fewer civil rights [not that they realize the last one] etc.). There are Libertarians which are completely different, but we call them Libertarians, not liberals.

 

 

The problem with their view of "equality" and "tolerance", is that they are entirely contradictory to what those terms actually mean. Their idea of tolerance is "everyone has to agree with me, if you disagree with how I live then you're intolerant" (ignorant that they themselves are intolerant for not allowing people to disagree with them)

 

I hardly believe there's communists in America tbh. We have close to a communist party in Denmark, and they are far out there. The democrats in the US are more "far right" than the most far right political party in Denmark (Liberal Alliance). That is one of the problems with only having two big parties representing over 300 million people. Each party will span over huge areas of political ideology, and we see the republicans in the 50's having 90% tax on the highest income, to the tea party movement today, which are extremely authoritarian and believe in little to no tax. It's really quite confusing and I think most Americans will agree the system doesn't work very well.

 

To put it into perspective, there are 9 political parties in the Danish parliament (with only 5,5 million people in DK) (+4 members from Faroe Islands and Greenland, which are part of the Danish realm).

[Trik'Stari]

I hardly believe there's communists in America tbh. We have close to a communist party in Denmark, and they are far out there. The democrats in the US are more "far right" than the most far right political party in Denmark (Liberal Alliance). That is one of the problems with only having two big parties representing over 300 million people. Each party will span over huge areas of political ideology, and we see the republicans in the 50's having 90% tax on the highest income, to the tea party movement today, which are extremely authoritarian and believe in little to no tax. It's really quite confusing and I think most Americans will agree the system doesn't work very well.

 

To put it into perspective, there are 9 political parties in the Danish parliament (with only 5,5 million people in DK) (+4 members from Faroe Islands and Greenland, which are part of the Danish realm).

Oh to be sure, the two party system is broken as hell, and done so on purpose. All of this talk is theoretical in my mind. What we really have a is a collection of liars, cheats, and swindlers (also know as lawyers) who use the government to make money for their friends, who in term pay them, while lying to the American people, pretending to hate each other, but actually laughing behind closed doors. Everything they do is to control the population. They already control the "normal" "news" media, and they've realized they are losing control because of the internet, which is why a lot of them are trying to fight against Net Neutrality.

 

I consider myself something of a libertarian. I want a very small very limited government, and an empowered populace. Low taxes, (although I would increase taxes on companies that outsource, to the point where its more expensive for them to outsource than it is to hire Americans), tighter regulations on patents (you can't hold a patent on something if it isn't being developed, which you would have to prove, or if it isn't being manufactured). I'd lock down the southern border, bring back the migrant worker visa (getting rid of that is what caused this immigration problem in the first place. Congress creates problems to fight over), increase funding to the immigration control people so that there isn't a 5-10 year waiting list for immigrating (I'm not against immigration, just against people coming in without checking in first), Change some of our healthcare laws (the only specific I can thing of is dental. Health insurance, IN ALL FORMS, would have to cover dental work, because that does affect your health), remove laws that prevent law-abiding citizens from conceal carrying a hand gun for self defense (along with establishing free citizen gun safety programs, both for adults and for school kids. Education is the best form of protection from things after all), legalize pot (huge potential industry there), and finally, dump a hell of a lot more money into R&D for open source technologies, and the space program. I know where I would start cutting federal spending, namely congress's paycheck. I won't be happy until they're drinking cheap beer and scotch, and staying in a motel six while in congress, after driving in.

 

 

We could be so much better than we are now, if the jackasses in charge would stop fighting over made up bullshit, and just do what common sense dictates. Oh but wait, that benefits everyone else, and not just them.

[dalekphalm]

Oh to be sure, the two party system is broken as hell, and done so on purpose. All of this talk is theoretical in my mind. What we really have a is a collection of liars, cheats, and swindlers (also know as lawyers) who use the government to make money for their friends, who in term pay them, while lying to the American people, pretending to hate each other, but actually laughing behind closed doors. Everything they do is to control the population. They already control the "normal" "news" media, and they've realized they are losing control because of the internet, which is why a lot of them are trying to fight against Net Neutrality.

 

I consider myself something of a libertarian. I want a very small very limited government, and an empowered populace. Low taxes, (although I would increase taxes on companies that outsource, to the point where its more expensive for them to outsource than it is to hire Americans), tighter regulations on patents (you can't hold a patent on something if it isn't being developed, which you would have to prove, or if it isn't being manufactured). I'd lock down the southern border, bring back the migrant worker visa (getting rid of that is what caused this immigration problem in the first place. Congress creates problems to fight over), increase funding to the immigration control people so that there isn't a 5-10 year waiting list for immigrating (I'm not against immigration, just against people coming in without checking in first), Change some of our healthcare laws (the only specific I can thing of is dental. Health insurance, IN ALL FORMS, would have to cover dental work, because that does affect your health), remove laws that prevent law-abiding citizens from conceal carrying a hand gun for self defense (along with establishing free citizen gun safety programs, both for adults and for school kids. Education is the best form of protection from things after all), legalize pot (huge potential industry there), and finally, dump a hell of a lot more money into R&D for open source technologies, and the space program. I know where I would start cutting federal spending, namely congress's paycheck. I won't be happy until they're drinking cheap beer and scotch, and staying in a motel six while in congress, after driving in.

 

 

We could be so much better than we are now, if the jackasses in charge would stop fighting over made up bullshit, and just do what common sense dictates. Oh but wait, that benefits everyone else, and not just them.

See, now that isn't too bad of a system. I'm a little closer to the socialist side of things (Government provided Healthcare for everyone), but I could live in that "society" and not hate it

[Trik'Stari]

See, now that isn't too bad of a system. I'm a little closer to the socialist side of things (Government provided Healthcare for everyone), but I could live in that "society" and not hate it

Well, socialized healthcare is a mixed bag. I would prefer to mandate that all employers provide health insurance to all employees, regardless of the number of hours they work. Which under my system would include dental. Even if they paid 80% that would still be better than nothing. I would also keep the whole "pre-existing conditions must now be covered" thing.

 

Also:

 

Gay marriage: Legal, although churches still have a right to the security of their own religions. (it's exactly as fair/unfair as it would be to force them to cater to gay weddings. Someones having their rights/beliefs violated either way. And as the religious nuts outnumber the gays, siding with them I judge to be the lesser of two evils.)

 

Abortion: No one's business but the mother and (possibly) the father of the unborn fetus. Everyone just shut up about it. It's nowhere near as important as all the real issues we face.

 

Creationism in schools: nope. If it doesn't have a scientific, observable, provable foundation then it doesn't belong in public schools (or private schools for that matter)

 

Drug testing at work: You cannot fire an employee (unless extenuating circumstances can be proven, such as them using at work) for testing positive for marijuana IF they have a prescription for it.

 

Also, and just because this one irritates me. All companies (like walmart) must have all registers staffed at all times during operational hours. (possibly only applied to multi-state/multi-national corporations)

[dalekphalm]

Well, socialized healthcare is a mixed bag. I would prefer to mandate that all employers provide health insurance to all employees, regardless of the number of hours they work. Which under my system would include dental. Even if they paid 80% that would still be better than nothing. I would also keep the whole "pre-existing conditions must now be covered" thing.

 

Also:

 

Gay marriage: Legal, although churches still have a right to the security of their own religions. (it's exactly as fair/unfair as it would be to force them to cater to gay weddings. Someones having their rights/beliefs violated either way. And as the religious nuts outnumber the gays, siding with them I judge to be the lesser of two evils.)

 

Abortion: No one's business but the mother and (possibly) the father of the unborn fetus. Everyone just shut up about it. It's nowhere near as important as all the real issues we face.

 

Creationism in schools: nope. If it doesn't have a scientific, observable, provable foundation then it doesn't belong in public schools (or private schools for that matter)

 

Drug testing at work: You cannot fire an employee (unless extenuating circumstances can be proven, such as them using at work) for testing positive for marijuana IF they have a prescription for it.

If that was America, you'd be way better off

[Trik'Stari]

If that was America, you'd be way better off

Oh I would go further, I'd completely change the way our representatives are elected. Firstly, no advertisements allowed during political news broadcasts (such as anything on fox, cnn, msnbc etc.), second absolutely no political donations. No political parties, no paid political advertisements. Instead, each state would set up forums for debate and petitions for any legal citizen wishing to run for office, beginning in the first month of an election year. Each state would hold (ACTUAL) debates for a month or two, broadcast on all local news channels (with no advertising), radio, and possibly the internet. Then once those candidates had been selected, there would be federally funded national level debates (in the case of a presidential election).

 

What would you need to get into the state level debates? A certain number of signatures on a petition. Any "support personnel" to collect said signatures must be unpaid volunteers.

 

I'd like to completely remove money from politics, in such a way that literally anyone who can legally run, can run, and get air time to speak their piece. No more of the media selecting winners and losers.