How can we get more people to join this site and more importantly make sure that it has good diversity of opinion?

submitted by Themagicalmidget from self.AskSaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JasonCarswell 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Depends on the contexts.

I have a new 3D political map I will incorporate in my Trutherism 101 animated series.

It's a sphere rather than a 2D square or diamond chart, and we all fit in it. There are no corners, and there really are few absolutes at the XYZ axis poles.

Up = authoritarianism, totalitarianism, hierarchical (full spectrum dominance, corporatocracy, technocracy, Zionism, Wahhabism, banksters, gangsters, monopoly on violence, establishmet matrix of rigged systems, slavery, prisons, executions, etc.)

Down = anarchism, voluntarism, non-hierarchical (freedom, Natural Law, without rulers, wilderness, etc.)

Front = certainty, truth, facts (proof, open-science, transparency, fairness, etc.)

Back = dogmas, lies, deceptions (religions, patriotism, scientism, manipulative propaganda, etc.)

Left = communal-interests (socialism, contributing, sharing, supporting, etc.)

Right = self-interests (tribalism, capitalism, accumulating, investing, etc.)

Note: The left and right are NOT meant to represent the corporate-manufactured or authentic-conventional left-right paradigm.

While abstract ideal forms, none are achievable. Some are not mutually exclusive. If there were better words or concepts I'd use them. Communism, anarchy, free markets, or equality are wonderful ideas but are practically impossible. Still we must wage peace, fight for fairness, and battle for balance.

Further, a person, or even identity, does not exist in one point within this sphere. They are a cloud of points, on a case by case basis, sometime inhabiting two or more contradictions simultaneously, evolving.

There are limits to this chart. It doesn't have wisdom, free will, logic, etc. Or lack thereof.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Can we have 'constitutionalists' here too? I feel like the built in decentralization of state's rights gets glossed over, and constitutionalism gets lost in all of the various forms of libertarianism. This OG political philosophy is still valid and deserving of recognition.

I'd say it belongs in Down, although not as far down as the others you mentioned.

[–]JasonCarswell 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Constitutionalism could be a dogma, like Libertarianism, generally more free (down) than lots of "-isms".

(Interestingly enough progressivism (perpetually redefined by many interests) is pretty nebulous depending what it's about, and who's talking about it in what way.)

Check out: /s/USAmerica/comments/kqa/powers_principalities_episode_98_the_constitution/

( See also: /s/Democrat/comments/k4q/we_need_a_new_name_for_progressives_kim_iversen/ )

They're biased conservative truthers but I've known about Constitutional-Skepticism since ~2004 listening to liberal-biased Noam Chomsky break down how the Founding Fathers were clever in seeming like they were for freedom, while owning slaves, exploiting the poor, in secret societies, and trapping/centralizing power.

There is still tricky word craft in there with layers of meanings, and despite its intentional or accidental flaws, I like Constitutionalism because it's fundamentally MUCH MUCH MUCH simpler.

Ironically, I'm a Canadian and know much less about my own situation and so-called rights.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

HHahaha good points man, and thanks for the videos. I'll watch at least this first one. Yes, wordcraft, very interesting.

I'll give it to Noam that the founders were hypocritical about slavery and 15% or 20% of them were in secret societies. I don't think these are very fair tho: exploiting the poor, trapping/centralizing power.

[–]JasonCarswell 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You think there was a giant leap from slavery to middle class? No man, it was the same old shit first, then they get more complicated for this same new shit we've got now. And between 1776 and now was the Civil War of Northern Aggression to keep them all centralized and under their thumb, and most of those guys fighting didn't own slaves but they died anyway. The Spanish American War, more of the same. And on and on and on... That's all "they" have ever done.

They moved mountains to unify those first 13 states, and then it was all downhill from there.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Very interesting stuff that makes me doubt my faith in the founding fathers. Is it fair to pin the civil war on them though? I guess you are establishing a patterns of nasty business that has been there from the start. And calling the founding fathers statists who took their people backwards, who did the wrong thing or who were misguided.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Pin most problems on all elites all through time. The true parasite class.

Sure the Founding Fathers may have wanted their freedom from Britain. Or maybe it was all just political theatre orchestrated by the Freemasons, Banksters, Elites, etc.

Maybe Trump and Hillary are good friends. Maybe they are bitter enemies. Maybe they're just rivals of the same class. Fighting it out at the expense of millions and millions of collateral lives, if not billions.

I never said, "the founding fathers statists who took their people backwards, who did the wrong thing or who were misguided."

Maybe they were or weren't. But they were the elites, and by default they are Machiavellian or they won't last.

[–]bobbobbybob 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Perhaps we could just discuss ideals, mechanisms and ideologies without whacking labels on them at the start? sit on our hands and resist the urge to pop people into pre-defined boxes until a few days of discussion has passed?

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sounds good.