This thread is permanently archived
Rational Wiki
| Site seems very skewed to the left. The editors love to get articles from cnn or those bashing the right when they aren't talking about actual news, which you have to comb to get to. Imma stick to theneutral, thank you.
| it isn't 'reasonable', per se (it's atheist btw). it's a humor site primarily, so it has a lot of problems with accuracy, although that's not a problem for the site itself.
| when it debunks dumb things, though, it has a pretty high accuracy
| rational wiki is the daily show of wikis
| >>723175
Recently most people who say they are "the centre", "centrists" or "neutral" are in fact massively right-winged.
This is one of the "modern" right most important and successful propaganda tactics: Blaming the actual centre for being left-extremist, while declare themselves as the real centre.
| >>723175
What you describe as "the right" is actually the far-right. And they are the political embodiment of irrationality. And what you describe as "skewed to the left" is in fact quite neutral.
The increasing political polarization is the result of underlying issues with capitalism, globalization and technological advance which all were ignored or even made worse by moderate but also highly corrupt centre-left and centre-right politics.
| If "being neutral" means a continuation of free trade, laisez-faire and big-bank/company friendly economics, the resulting problems will increase and with them the political polarization.
| >>723285 the political spectrum has been so distorted that people cant recognize center anymore.
its stupid to assume somone is right wing just because SOME of their opinions fall on the right side, thats what happens when people are too into their own ideology, they cant understand other opinions and try to lump all of them in one side.
So its more of a you problem that you cant understand centrists
| >>723286 lumping all the problems as the center and the right, great rational thinking right there, only far left has good ideas and can save the world, and blame capitalism too, not like the the corrupt governament and monopolies are the actuall problem.
>>723290 complains about polarization but also complains about people who are neutral and have opinions on both sides, great way to say "its only neutral if they are on my side".
| neutral is not the same as good lol
| >>723305 It's true though that there are online personalities who try to market themselves as being distanced from any side, yet only seem to bring up criticism to the left, just as how it is conversely with the rational wiki. As such, I don't identify as a centrist anymore, because they no longer exist.
| >>723308 You criticise monopolies yet not capitalism. This stance makes no sense. Maybe you fear being lumped to one side by saying 'c---ism is bad', but I'm just pointing this out.
| >>cd2d96 Political polarization is certainly a problem, though whether it is one of of the left/right, socialist/capitalist, communist/fascist, or what say you, I cannot say. Technological advances certainly exacerbates the problem with radicalization on either side though, as people gain easier access to information which seeks to affirm their beliefs.
| Control of such information comes with it's own ethical problem though, so best thing is to just leave the internet as laissez-faire as possible so those who chose to challenge their beliefs don't doubt that what they're seeing is being curated to manipulate them by some higher power, though those who really went off the deep end wil believe so either way.
| >>723286 Also, you are biased. I said 'skewed to the left', which is close to 'neutral', yet you felt the need to say that they are in fact 'quite neutral'. Yet with a quick scroll through most links on the home page, I've yet to have seen something that attempts to even be bipartisan. In fact, they've quite embraced being the left side of the spectrum.
|
| >>723351 they very much exist, people just dont know how and where to find them
>>723352 monopolies are a form of centralized achived trough capitalism but the real problem is the centralized power, not how they achive it, you can centralize power with many methods and system exploits, they will exist independent of capitlism and thus it is short sighted to blame it all on capitalism
| >>723355 yes, it is very much better to let people be free instead of controling info.
Especially because if the people in charge of the info control get corrupted we will have a lot of problems.
| The problem with both sides stuff is not every opinion or ideology is right. Stupid and wrong ideas do exist but beliefs are part of people's identities right or wrong.
I b4 gotcha reply along the lines of "so u mean the left? Lololol." Well go on get it out your system.
| >>723308
>corrupt governament and monopolies are the actuall problem
Imagine that what you see as "corrupt governament and monopolies" is in fact the unavoidable result of capitalism. Your analysis is similar incomplete as the nazis "it's all the jews fault". They made a difference between a positive "productive" capital, owned by germans, (especially warfare relevant industry), and a negative "gathering" capital (owned by jews, most prominent financial but also cultural capital)
| This flawed analysis has returned with the "new" or "alt" right.
Best (negative) example:
Donald Trumps "drain the swamp" or MAGA slogans. Propagated by a billion dollar real-estate tycoon (by fathers grace) - a status that contradicts good ideas like chance equality, equality before the law, and performance principle/meritocracy.
Corruption is always a problem. But it is not the only one, neither the biggest one. There ARE more significant issues inherent to capitalism.
| Be very aware of politicians/people that use anti-corruption rhetorics without any general system criticism. They usually are corrupt themselves and just want to keep or gain privileges. They ignore the underlying issues, distract people from them and only blame people selectively according to their religious or racist agenda. This is not exclusively a right-wingers problem. Huge parts of the left went back into this direction, even thought they once were further.
| I once heard a feminist who believed that capitalism is just a result of masculinity. It's not as stupid as saying "it's all the jews fault" (which is based on conspiracy theories), but it's also factual wrong because it confuses cause and effect.
| >>723369
>monopolies are a form of centralized achived trough capitalism
There are monopolies that aren't achieved through capitalism - for very good reasons. Most notable the monopoly of violence, which is essential for having a rule of law instead of social darwinist jungle law. But it also makes economically sense to have monopolies in infrastructure fields. Or do you want separate cables, pipelines and railways for each provider? This would be a total waste of resources.
| The important thing is that those centralized institutions are democratically controlled public property. The problem about is that capitalists see a profitable market here. So they will continue to privatize public infrastructure with shady arguments about the superiority of market mechanism while at the same time overriding those mechanisms for the sake of profit. And who is going to stop them if any public institution (=evil communism) is privatized?
| Its not like we have laws and institutions made to prevent those problems, too bad they are compromised by corrupt people that should not be there.
But hey put capitalism as the reason these people got there, so if we end capitalism these people will be gone right?
The world wont have corrupt people if we end capitalism right?
Abolishing capitalism will solve corruption right?
| Now ask youself these questions and see if stoping capitalism will actually solve the problem or will just move it somewhere else.
| >>723773
>Abolishing capitalism will solve corruption right?
Never said that. But it will solve the fundamental issues, the inherent contradictions, of the capitalist system. It eventually may decrease corruption if done right. Cause power corrupts and total power corrupts total. And capitalism grants total power to the capitalists on the long term.
| >>723771
If people are the only and biggest problem in your world view, then we have absolutely no basis to discuss.
Peoples social behavior isn't determined either by nature or society but by both. Also those things aren't static entities, because there are changes. Our understanding of and interaction with nature changes as we change our societies. Not all the time to the better, but on the long term - so far.
| Capitalism was a big necessary step forward, but it also never was flawless and it has no future. At least no future worth living in. Two profitable world wars, the cold war with it's "balance of horror" and the still ongoing conflicts about and in the "third world" weren't/aren't only the result of some corrupt people. Capitalists interests always played and still play a major role. Because this is just how things work in a capitalist system.
| >>723873 no it wont, you will just create more problems, first of all, what will you use to replace capitalism? How will you prevent any other problems in this new system? How do you make a new system that people will accept?
| >>723892 World can't stay the same forever change and evolution are part of life. Captailism itself hasn't always existed there was a system before it and there will be one after it.
| >>723874 you say that behaviour is about both nature and society yet you say that capitalism is the reason people get corrupted.
Also your whole talk about power is stupid, power exists in all aspects of a society, there is no society if there isnt power, that is independent of capitalism, your logic that capitalism gives power is dumb when taking into acount how power works
| >>723897 evolutuon this and that but where is it, do YOU have a better idea? No? Then what are you even talking about? I want evolution, what you are preaching isnt evolution is just mindless disere for change with no actual solution
| The Human Nature argument is a secular version of the "Divine Right of Kings" (again it shows how the west is deeply rooted in Christianity) which is used to justify the capitalist system of "How Things are
It's also another way for capitalists to escape responsibility for their own actions by saying that "it's my nature I can't help it" not to mention it also reflects the alienation of capitalists developing a misanthropist mindset to also justify their selfishness & greed.
| >>723876 interest of the a small corrupt group have and always will be a problem, it was before capitalism and it will be after capitalism.
My problem with you isnt even that you want to change capitalism, is that your reason for wanting it is wrong, power and corruption exists independent of capitalism, get better reason for it so that your solutions and ideas improve.
| Yes everything has a nature but the whole human nature thing is never really defined. I mean riddle me this just what is human nature anyway? Everyone will always give you a different answer regarding the question.
Across human history such as in hunter-gatherer societies, many people worked in collectives to get shit done because it was in their common interests. As human beings we change and adapt based on what kind of society and culture we live in.
| >>723900 greed is bad and people know it, the problem is greed not capitalism, if you know they use capitalism as an excuse for greed then why the hell are you saying we need to curb capitalism? You are literally falling for the bait! If greed is the problem you deal with greed, use some logic please.
| In a sense “human nature.” is a social construct and most people take their ideals regarding it from what has been viewed through the lens of capitalist society and mean world syndrome. Our behavior really reflects our society conditioning, or as better known as human behavior and we've always possessed the unique ability to over come the worst of our nature.
Not to say people are just born good ether.
| >>723900 >>723902 >>723904 the most unecesary thing Ive heard today, tell me something I already dont know.
As you said human nature has a finger in behaviour, theb why are you onto the mentality that capitalism(society) is what is making people more greedy? By saying that removing society people will suddenly get less corrupt is dumb when human nature and history have shown that greed will always exist, you solve corruption by dealing with corrupt people, learn to adapt n evolve
| I don't think anyone is advocating change for changes sake. Just that the way things are is not working and we need to move to a better more sustainable system because if we don't we,re kind of screwed.
| >>723908 well screaming CHANGE wont really solve anything so Idk why people are still screaming.
They should be working and thinking on a good change.
| Too bad that the people who are willing to do something usually are not willing to think and use plans that opperate on logic of a 6yr trying to do politics
| >>723916
You are the only one here who is screaming: "NOT CHANGE"
The simple logic you refuse to understand:
Yes, there is no guarantee that things will be better if they are changed. But there is a guarantee that they won't get better if there is no change at all.
| Just "remove the corrupt people from power" doesn't change anything on the long term, because the capitalist system rewards corruption, which works as long people believe it's profitable. But the next crisis may change their minds. And I rather have them questioning capitalism then instead of "blaming the jews" (="only remove the corrupt") again.
| Also how to decide who is corrupt and who isn't? Wouldn't it make it necessary to take make capitalists business actions more transparent, more democratic? And even if you have a plan how to separate the corrupt ones from the honest ones - how will you take away the power from a corrupt capitalist? By taking away his power, based on his property (=capital)?
So your "remove the corrupt" would mean to take away capitalists privacy and property. Would you still call this capitalism?
| >>723935 no Im saying that the change you want is bad and that, if you want change, you gotta change to something better.
We dont need people ruining the world even more, too bad most of the people cant act and think at the same time
| >>723936 any system rewards the corrupt, give one system that isnt exploitable and doesnt have any loopholes.
| >>723942 if they do something illegal, exploit loopholes or take actions that affect people in a negative way for their own gain then they are corrupt, we have a fucking justice system, just use it, its not hard.
| The biggest problem here is that you are calling for change and Im asking "change what and where?"
And you cant give any answer besides "if we dont change things wont change" and "uh capitalism bad" wich are all things we already know and wont solve anything.
I want change but I want it to be good, if you dont have good ideas then think again about your reasons to want change
| Even good change also needs to be desired or at least tolerated by the majority of the common folk for it to stick. Remember Johann Friedrich Struensee. Forcing unpopular reforms and dismantling traditions overnight is a great way to make people turn against you and become reactionary. And of course, like Struensee, so many who claim to want radical change end up being corrupt grifters who are more interested in positioning themselves at the top of the new order than anything else.
| >>723956
>"change what and where?"
Putting the (huge) production means under public control AND (important!) putting public institutions under democratic control and make their actions much more transparent.
| >>723958
Yeah, we had unpopular neoliberal reforms now for decades because "specialists" and "experts" (who in fact only were marketing/propaganda experts and strategists of the capital) said this is the best thing to do: "Liberate" the Markets (=deregulation), privatize public institutions (sell them at a loss), more "free" trade contracts (=deregulation) - and anybody who only mentioned briefly any criticism was branded as pissed communist who lives in the past.
| Didn't work I guess. Now we have flat-earthers and even worse conspiracy theorist scum successfully re-entering politics spreading their racist and nationalist bullshit again. Oh and of course don't even waste a single thought that people who warned you back then probably may were correct - Remember: They still are evil communists that are somehow part of "the conspiracy" which made things not work as promised.
I'm impressed how many people don't see the historical parallels...
| >>723958
This also counts for "continuing the recent course" or "keeping the status quo". But more and more people question the status quo. Unfortunately also massively in ways that make things worse (populism), because the actual problem is still ignored while people fight whether gay marriage will safe or destroy the world.
| >>723963
Alright, now what would you have us do to fix this? Market liberalization is definitely disliked by a lot of people, but destroying the markets entirely would be orders of magnitude more hated. Should we undo one set of unpopular reforms by forcing an even less popular set? You're going to have to do a lot to convince the majority that this is a good idea. To be perfectly honest, I think yours might be a lost cause for the foreseeable future.
| >>723966 asking the real questions, no only that but how would he implement these changes without causing riots and protests?
How would those things fix our issues? And even how to prevent the distorcion and curruption of those changes?
If the people get more control any celebrity could just rule over the majority since their opinion is gold, and companies could buy these celebrities too so these ideas are already flawed n exploitable, nothing would change in the end.
| In the end his plan would just keep the status quo but under a different type of rule.
This is why I say that people should think before calling for change.
| >and companies could buy these celebrities
You forgot that "the companies" are under public control in this scenario. So why should companies, controlled by the people, pay celebrities to control people? Doesn't make sense.
Celebs have no real power basis. They are just owned by the capitalist class. If the power of capitalists is cut down, the opinions of celebrities will turn out as overvalued soon.
| >>723966
>Should we undo one set of unpopular reforms by forcing an even less popular set?
How do you know it's less popular? Many people actually fought for those "less popular" sets - and were beaten and even murdered for it in some countries.
Let's have chile for example, where people once democratically majorly decided a different course. Their democratically elected president and thousands of his supporters were butchered then by a pro-capitalists puppet dictator.
| However there are four undeniable facts:
1. The concentration of capital in few hands increases continuously. With it the concentration of power.
2. Power corrupts people. The more power someone has, the more he gets corrupted by it, want's to keep it, to protect it and even increase it at all costs.
3. If people want to live their lives self-determined, they need to take away the control about this power from those who own it.
4. Currently nothing or rather the opposite happens.
| So, the longer nothing (or even the opposite) is done, the more extreme the according changes need to be. It's quite simple. The extreme refusal to those kind of changes will result in making them even more necessary and extreme.
| >>724074 why you ask? Well any greed greedy bastard could start creating groups that would be more favored in the company, an bam an elite is born, not only that but not all industriescan run without leaders so bam another elite, celebrities can and will use their influence an popularity, so another elite right there.
All of them can start plans and centralise power to themselves, so you plam is still has the same flaws as caspitalism and any other system out therr
| >>724075 all you gotta do to put a corrupt person in power in a democracy is to give some influence, money and say what people want, and guess how things got the way it is? Guess how monopolies were created?
They became popular, brands got popular, politicians got popular and people are mindless when it comes to choosing things on a large scale.
| >>724077 stupid arguement, if the changes are not good then fuck the changes, your plans are the same shit that we have but with more public finger on it, not only that but it can easely be destroyed and corrupted so it is shit.
If they get more extreem then it is only proof that the people wanting it are a bunch of children throwing a tantrum and not actually thinking about the best for society, so fuck them, I want a better world
| >>724076 correction:
1 the concentrations of POWER, capital, property, manufacture, products and etc, in a few hands is increasing
2 the more power someone has the more CHANCES they have to become corrupt, as you said, people arent inherently evil so dont be hipocrate
| 3 If people want to live their lives self-determined, they need to regulate and balance the power from those who own it and keep an eye out to make sure the ones getting it are using it right. The classic governament for the people and people for the governament, a balanced mutualy dependant relationship.
| Im surprized you said you that you dont want change for the sake of change yet can still say all of that and keepu pushing the idea that we MUST change NOW, very hipocrate and shows how desperate you are, the world wond end tomorrow, take your time and think before starting a revolution then make a plan that works, gather people and dont be afraid to be wrong, try again and learn, adapt and create an actually good world.
| >>724110
This balance has continuously gone. Big companies and banks made governments their bitches. They ignore, systematically bypass, break and even dictate law, most notably by avoid paying taxes, undermining social and ecological standards and regulations and generally privatizing profits while collectivizing losses. And the "free" and "liberal" democratic governments monopolies on violence is massively misused to serve particular economical interests.
| The US army for example hasn't "liberated" anyone since WW2. All later interventions were only because of red scare and resources. Most ridicolous is that those who caused this mess now don't want to take the responsibility for it and point wild across borders and to a ominous "political left" how it only exists in anticommunist cold-war propaganda.
| "War on terror" my ass. I dislike religious fundamentalists and even more murdering people, but the islamists attack on the WTC and Pentagon weren't the worst targets one could come for.
| >the world wond end tomorrow
It doesn't have to be about the end of the world. There are a lesser catastrophes very likely possible which still makes it worth questioning the status quo. And it doesn't matter if it occurs tomorrow or next year or in 10 years. No one can predict when and how exactly things will go wrong. But one thing is for sure: Continuing the current course will make the clash occur earlier and more massive.
| >>724152 well of course it is gone! All people are lazy and dont care about society as long as they can live in it so of course over time the corruption takes over.
| >>724158
It's no deviation. These are good examples of what is going on in reality. Not in your "capitalism is so great and we shouldn't touch it at all" religion.
| >>724159 question as much as you want, just make sure to question your solution to these questuons too
| >>724161 I never said "capitalism is great and shouldnt change" all Im saying is that if you want change the n the change must be better and well planned.
So stop trying to distort my words
| >>724163 oh yeah, then what were the people doing when the companies were taking over control and becoming more abusive over the yrs?
I wish I was speaking only for myself.
| >>724164
better then what? And how well planned is well planned enough to you? There are things that can't be planned, which is why there is need for improvisation.
| >>724166 better than what we have. As long as it is actually able to actually solve the issue in a non violent manner that doesnt cripple us in the long run. Improv doesn excuse bad ideas, if your improv is going to cause more harm than good then you gotta go back and improvise something else, there is no argueing agains that unless you want revolution for the sake of revolution.
| If you cant come up with a better plan then that is your limitation, try looking for people who can do a better job and bring new ideas and perspectives to the topic, if you do that then you will proably find a good solution
| >>724165
They were professionally lied to, ideologically separated and blackmailed.
Those who still resisted were (and still are) covered with oppression and some even assasinated. There is a fast growing list of cases were unionists, environmentalists and investigative journalists were "made silent" or even "dissapear". From time to time one could read such things in the international news, but many other topics were portrayed as more important, even thought they aren't.
| >>724171 and why didnt they complained, protested, acted uppon all those thing? Were they scared? Why did they choose to let things get worse instead of actually doing the revolution? Sounds to me like people(the actual majority of people) were just ignoring the issue and thinking that it was fine as long as they are left alone they could live confortably.
| Guess what, the companies are corrupt, the journalist are biased in the politicald divide, the governament is compromised, the police are either following orders or just being inept, the justice system has been compromised too and the people are living in 2 seprate realities.
So explain how will giving power to the dived, lied and fooled population gonna solve this widespread corruption?
| >>724162
Perhaps it's time for you to start questioning your own words too? Because based on what you're writing in this thread your words aren't very well researched. They're downright unsubstantial.
You have no plans or ideas of your own and obviously have no clue on how to move forward with any plans or ideas.
But for some reason you decided to nominate yourself as the facto critic/caretaker of every one elses plans and ideas and tell them how they should think and act.
| >>724181 >you decided to nominate yourself as the facto critic/caretaker
Never claimed to be that, and YES I clearly dont have any good ideas but I thats because I know how dificult ut is to come up with good ideas and no matter how much I think I cant come up with something that doesnt have a major flaw or that deviates from the main problem.
I never claimed to be better or smarter, Im just showing that revolution takes great minds and even greater amounts of thinking
| I question ideas because I like to do it, so Im no trying to preach to anyone about anything, Im just incentivizing people to think more before acting
| Well I guess telling people to think more is a type of preaching, oh well, then scratch the middle line, Im sorry
| >>724174
People lived in a illusion that is about breaking piece by piece. And in their anger they start getting irrational (finally again a refference to the thread title) and shouting the most at people who already knew it better before them but were ignored.
| >>724189 seems the most likely of answers, still, if people were falling for this illusion this means that they were being ignorant and not paying attention to the world around them.
In my opinion everyone is at fault, the elite that let themselves be corrupted and the people who would keep letting the corruption sip in.
This thread is permanently archived
| https://rationalwiki.org/
I just found this pretty reasonable site.
I recommend everyone to check it before introducing new terms into a discussion about news, politics and science.