/sci/ - Science & Math

Anarchist Technocracy

liberal intellectualism

>>8185472
Why would you want to know that? Unless you're a political scientist then your question is pointless

>>8185500
>liberal
>intellectualism
oxymoron

>>8185503
this
liberals are fucking cancerous crackheads who want to oppress our freedom of expression because of "muh feels"

>>8185502
Isn't curiosity reason enough?

>>8185472
Feudal monarchism.

>>8185472
I'm a national socialist

>>8185529
>There are only two viewpoints in the entire world and they are extremely well defined

>>8185538
what are others ? centrists are bullshit they always either lean left or right

>>8185533
L O N D O N
O
N
D
O
N

I like American Republicanism (not to be confused with the Republican Party)

>>8185472
Anarchy?

>>8185546
We need kings and lords, too much power is given to the plebeian hordes, whom have not earnt such privilege.

>>8185552
I sort of agree some of the time

>>8185529
> fucking cancerous crackheads
>oppress our freedom
> "muh feels"
seems like you're catching a lot of feels right there sonny

Zionist extremism/Palestinian genocide

I was going to reply, but then I remembered, this is 4chan and most of you are degenerates with retarded political views.

>>8185529
>implying conservatives aren't rash assholes who act on fear and anger.
Everyone acts on emotion, dumbass.

>>8185558
Wonderful, at least with royalty you know they're self-serving; read Machiavelli's "The Prince".

>>8185572
I own a copy

>>8185570
>I was going to reply, but then I remembered, this is 4chan and most of you are degenerates with retarded political views.
>Replies anyway.
Nice moral high-ground, oh wait, you moron.

>>8185574
Good chap.

>>8185529
conservatives are retarded inbred hillbillies who want to oppress science and rational thought because 'muh god' and 'muh niggers r subhuman'

>>8185581
So do modern mainstream liberals?

>>8185583
liberals refuse science because god? weird

>>8185581
Lol expand your perceptions my closed minded friend

>>8185587
Liberals refuse science because "muh tolerance!"

>>8185552
The m in whom only precedes a vowel and only if that vowel is in a certain, irregular syllabic envelope. You fucking plebe.

>>8185597
So, you're a prescriptivst grammarian, I'm a descriptivist. Nice attempt, try harder.

>>8185591
i think conservatives do it to a much higher degree than liberals do
what do liberals refuse? that niggers are subhuman, or wait, that smoking is bad for you? The most that liberals are guilty for is the anti-GMO movement and anti-nuclear. Conservatives are incredibly ignorant and refuse science because 'muh sky jesus!''
>>8185590
i was obviously responding to that guy's baseless strawman about liberals by making a strawman about conservatives. Same message to you, expand your perceptions. not all liberals are 'essjaydoubleyaassss', just like how not all conservatives are inbred hillbilly retards.

>>8185603
That 'neutral gender' can exist, quite literally degrading objectivism for "muh feels". There is no third gender and no, you cannot identify as a toaster-kin.

theocracy

>>8185603
There are plenty of religious liberals, and there are plenty of conservative atheists.

>>8185503
>>8185529
>>8185544
>>8185581
>>8185583
>>8185587
>>8185591
"Muh 'murican definitions."

>>8185613
It British, you shilling Jewster.

>>8185603
>smoking is bad for you?

come on stop with the prejudices against marijuana you prohibitive cunt
it's harmless

>>8185571
yeah but don't force your "feels" on everyone you entitled asshole
>>8185581
I don't even have a religion. Jesus can suck my **** off. And science provides evidence for black as a whole being less intelligent than other major races on average. But I can't state that fact that without being called "racist" by liberals.

>>8185618
>>8185608
Then explain why the rest of your 'comrades' are anti-science hucksters?

>>8185618
>censoring your posts
Dude what the fuck?

>>8185624
He's a liberal, it might offend a 'gendered minority'.

Conservatives are misguided in fearing inevitable change. The "god" argument is a shining example of this.

Liberals embrace change as being inevitable.

>>8185608
thats seriously what this is about? i'm pretty sure thats entirely a social, and not a scientific thing. jesus you're a retard.
>>8185612
you don't see a lot of people voting liberal because of their religion though. there's always outliers, but for the most part religious people vote conservative, and atheists vote liberal
>>8185617
i was being facetious and making fun of the conspiracytard in /sci/ that keeps making 'cigarrettes are good for you' threads. i think marijuana is harmless, I just wrote that sentence poorly, sorry.
>>8185618
why does it matter? how would agreement that black people on average are dumber than other races help anything than encourage racism? Not even taking into account that there are an innumerable amount of social variables in the way of conducting a real study of black intelligence, what would you do if on average black people were dumber? That doesn't stop the plenty of inevitable black outliers who are smarter than white people. What studies are there that definitively say black people are dumber? I'm curious
>>8185626
can you read? hes a conservative, you absolute retard

>>8185622
Have I ever said I'm a conservative? I just hate liberals.
> Muh feels
> Muh tolerant
> Muh feminism
> Muh anything I want to believe in
If you disagree with liberals you'll be barraged with ad hominem like "racist", "bigot", "sexist", etc...

>>8185600
I'm not prescriptive. I can judge by your writing that you're American, therefore your accent, which is definitely not Victorian Cockney.

>>8185634
>you don't see a lot of people voting liberal because of their religion though.
No you see them voting based on some other equally retarded justification.

>>8185635
you're using the most extreme and obnoxious example of a liberal and applying it to all of them.
notice how I did the same for conservatives
>>8185581
and then they all got triggered.

>>8185632
they also want to influence and have a part in the change, if for instance income inequality changes for the worse in a modern system they're not accepting of it.

>>8185626
He was a maniac, a tyrant and a fascist.

Other than wanting to affect a change that would disrupt the established system, there wasn't anything "liberal" about him in the sense in which it's applied today.

I think people apply the word "liberal" too liberally.

>>8185626
>And science provides evidence for black as a whole being less intelligent than other major races on average
I don't think he's worried about that

>>8185639
have you ever visited reddit? that's your average "liberals"
don't you see just by the fact you are visiting this board you ARE actually the outlier?

>>8185472
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarch_(sovereign_individual)

The ANARCH is the positive counterpart of the anarchist.

>>8185635
What exactly do you not like about the liberal agenda? What do you like about being conservative? I'm really interested. A lot of insults get tossed around, but nobody seems able to explain an enlightening view of conservatism to me.

>>8185626
Jesus can clean my ass shit off no censor for ya
also apply to any other fucking religion out there trying to make people believe in their bullshit

>>8185472
Welp, this thread turned to shit fast.

Anyway, in case OP actually wants an answer, /sci/ is overwhelmingly left-leaning, not unlike academia iteslf. In other words, most people here score on the blue panel in your pic. You can find proof by going into the archives and searching with the term "politicalcompass" I think that's what the test is called.

>>8185642
I'm not following you. Can you provide an example? Serious question.

>>8185647
i'm an outlier on 4chan sure, but not in the real world. Redditors aren't the 'average liberal' at all. They are exactly what you'd expect from people who post on politically left leaning forums. Just how /pol/ is what you get from right leaning forums; the most extreme examples of either ideology. How many liberals do you think are in america? And then think of how many liberals are on Reddit. By looking at reddit, and more specifically, super-liberal boards like the Sandersforpresident or shit reddit says, you're only making confirmation bias.

>>8185652
liberalism is all about compromise so as to reduce possible conflicts. Instead of freedom of association, you should do your part in accomodating everyone. The liberal agenda also is in favour of wealth redistribution without really considering the stress required to acquire such wealth.

>>8185643
He wasn't saying Hitler was liberal you absolute retard

>>8185653
Amen!

>>8185652
I'm not a conservative.
I'm a centrist actually I support some of conservative ideas as well as liberal policy.
I don't support socialist economy.
I support gay marriage, abortion, cloning human.
I don't fucking think humans are born equal and we should ever try to make them equal, they should have equal rights under the law though.
etc...

I'm libertarian

>>8185472

This has nothing to do with science.

Sage'd and reported.

2/10 Its a pretty stupid questioner.
>questions containing "sometimes" or "usually"
>wtf is "plant genetic resources???"
>using "better" without elaborating on which aspect it is describing
>"it is an -adjective- that -stuff happening-:" is this a question of our agreeance with the adjective or the stuff happening?
>its ether agree or disagree

>>8185664

I'm not sure you have all the information, or you're processing it differently from me.

The opposite of reducing conflict is conflict. When is conflict the best choice, assuming you aren't being forced to defend yourself?

Is it possible that you're missing the point that the wealthy and successful have a moral obligation to their fellow man? There's only so much money one guy can enjoy, after all. Is this meant to weed out the economically weak? Should economic standing be considered to be the deciding factor of a man's value?

One of my main problems with conservatism is that it doesn't challenge existing power structures. The argument is often a question of wealth, and the arguer's desire to keep it, but many conservatives don't have wealth, yet they argue for their right to keep it anyway.

>>8185676
political SCIENCE

>>8185665
All right. I'll play.

What was he saying, then?

>>8185707
political "science"

>>8185707
You're not discussing a specific theory or anything. Just asking what political positions everyone has.

>>8185707

Now if only this were a thread on game theory.

Anarchy!

>>8185671
I don't think liberalism and socialism are synonymous.

What conservative ideals appeal to you?

By not being born equal, do you mean that some are more intelligent than others, and therefore more capable, or are you speaking more generally, as in blacks -vs- whites?

Serious interest. I am not driven to be influenced by traditional values as defined by history or religion. I'm interested in knowing what motivates your political views.

>>8185676
Saying saged and reported is also a bannable offence.

"Replying to a thread stating that you've reported or "saged" it, or another post, is also not allowed."

i guess im closest to ghandi
cool, im a pedophile

>>8185703
>One of my main problems with conservatism is that it doesn't challenge existing power structures.
societies have established structures as a means of better organization. I guess you agree there should be a power structure but criticize the existing criteria to have power.

Changing policy to your current economic situation is selfish and disregards the framework conservatives think is important to have.

>When is conflict the best choice, assuming you aren't being forced to defend yourself?
When you can't reach a common ground, you can accept there will disagreement. This doesn't need there has to be conflict, if there is no necessary competition.

>the wealthy and successful have a moral obligation to their fellow man?
you're assuming one just becomes wealthy and successful overnight when it is more often than not tied to sacrifice and suffering, day after day. Those who not concern themselves much about wealth and success have an easier life in this regard, but less capital.

>>8185472

Progressive Conservative.
What's that?

>>8185717
>game theory
>>>/v/
>>>/vg/

>>8185657
you can be in favour of individuals advancing and by this being able to pay their own healthcare, or be in favor of socialised healthcare. socialised services in societies are nothing new and have existed throughout history.

>>8185696
The political compass is the worst and most vague political quiz I've ever come across.
They give you questions like "Should abortion be illegal?" and tell you it's full-blown authoritarian to make it illegal and libertarian to make it legal, even though making it illegal doesn't conflict with libertarian values (non-aggression principle).

They also use a lot of guilt by association and Reductio ad Hitlerum.
Just look at their FAQ
>What have attitudes towards things like abstract art and homosexuality to do with politics?
>Homophobia has been highly politicised by leaders like Robert Mugabe and betrays a tendency to condemn and punish those who disregard conventional values. Hitler's pink triangles reflected similar authoritarian hostility.
>Likewise, authoritarian régimes frequently attack highly imaginative and unconventional art, music and literary works as a threat to the rigid cultural conformity they uphold.
They literally compare you to Hitler, if you morally believe in something even without wanting it to be regulated by the state.

>>8185472
Look another /pol/ thread on the science and math board!

Leave you fucking retards.

>>8185703

Actually conflicts is how we grow. A lack of conflict is almost always regression.
You need different interests that competr to get the optimal result.
In companies where workers never really speak up and bring their own ideas, the bosses decisions are usually followed throgh no matter how shitty it is.
A competent manager will know how to make their workers go into a heated conflict to ignite them getting their own ideas in. Of course it needs to be well mannered and controlled and the goal needs to be to resolve conflicts (throwing insults for example doesn't solve conflicts)
The point is that our goal should be to find conflicts and solve them and not prevent them from ever happening. If you shut somebody up before they can even bring in their position and concerns you might miss a very important aspect you've never thought of.

>>8185733
I have to ask - are you wealthy? It's anonymous, so I'll never know if you're lying.

My problem with the existing power structure is that it's based on wealth with only a facade of freedom and equality. Wealth-based power structures encourage the same behavior as monarchies, or inherited divine right, and an individual's actual value to society is not as important as his monetary stature. I never meant that innovative and motivated individuals should be deprived of the rewards of success, only that those who have used their particular set of skills to acquire wealth have a responsibility to in turn support the economy that allowed him to prosper. Wealth hoarding does nothing to drive the economy. It is the pinnacle of selfishness to be raised to grandeur on the backs of a people without repaying your debt. No businessman is good enough to accrue wealth without a source, no matter how hard they work in the process.

You mention changing policy to suit your economic situation, but isn't that exactly what big money has always done? Isn't it always in their favor? Be honest; you're arguing for the wealthy's right to hoard the wealth that you don't have, and will never, ever know.

The wealthy become wealthy through the redistribution of funds. Why are they exempt from it?

>>8185746
I'm trying, honestly. I'm just not grasping your point.

>>8185805

liberals believe they can guide people into a better way of living, help people to get there. Do you agree?

>>8185792
I was taking conflict as referring to war. Certainly differences in opinion, and challenging traditional values is necessary to grow as a social species.

I certainly never meant to imply that opposing views should be squelched, and I don't think that's what liberalism is about. Exactly the opposite, actually - liberalism encourages dialogue.

>>8185824
If you mean economically, I guess that's a fair assessment.

How does a large poor population help anyone?

>>8185824
Nazis believe they can guide people into a better way of living, help people to get there. Do you agree?
The Illuminati believe they can guide people into a better way of living, help people to get there. Do you agree?
Americans believe they can guide people into a better way of living, help people to get there. Do you agree?
Furries believe they can guide people into a better way of living, help people to get there. Do you agree?
Shrek believes they can guide people into a better way of living, help people to get there. Do you agree?

>>8185838

so my point was that they take an active role in the change, they don't just accept it in whatever form it comes.

>>8185472
National traditionalist.

>>8185840
Throughout history, political power has always been attained by promising people a better life. What's the point?

>>8185851
What would be the benefit of the alternative?

>>8185597
Fuck off, whom is used in the dative case in place of who.
e.g to whom? with whom? Etc.

>>8185864
...or conquering a native population.

>>8185868
less bias

>>8185877
On who's part?
Bias how?
I understand that your opinion is a strong one, but I'm having a hard time nailing down what exactly that opinion is.

>>8185892
what kind of change should there be, how should intermediate steps look like, what kind of compromises have to be made

All of those are things you have to decide when you're a proponent of change, unless you are naturalistic.

>>8185869
Accident. English doesn't have a declension for Dative.

>>8185904
By "naturalistic", do you mean essentially survival of the fittest? I feel like you're dancing around an assertion that you're hesitating to make - maybe because it's appalling.

>>8185922
with naturalistic I mean you accept change without interfering with this change (being flexible and without ideology). Believing change is inevitable is not the same as being convinced that a change for the better should be accomplished.

>>8185930
You keep making statements, but I'm not getting any sense of a particular stance. What are you in favor of? I'm not even certain we're not using different phrases to express the same views. Ideally, what happens to the poor?

>>8185555
Muh nigga

>/pol/ has literally ruined any sort of discussion about politics on 4chan

fucking conservatives reeeeeeee

>>8185962
It's just a phase anon. /pol/ hates SJWs so much that they turn to the far right as a reactionary response and forcefully and fanatically embrace all of its aspects because they seek belonging, seemingly forgetting how much, much worse the far right really is. Once things crash and burn, most people here will inevitably take a step back and re-embrace libertarianism, as is the nature of this site itself, so we can have discussions without chimp-outs once again. Just endure until that time comes.

>>8185946
Ideally, they would be able to better themselves do they don't have to be poor.

>>8185988
>Once things crash and burn
You mean after trumpet launches a nuke? That's a relatively passive approach to the whole thing. I'm going to move to an area with lower population to increase my chance of survival.

I enjoy the idea of a fusion of the American republic and technocracy as a political system. Certain things just shouldn't be ultimately decided by people who don't have expertise in that area. For an economic system, I think it's inevitable for capitalism to evolve towards a quasi-socialist economy. With the onset of automation and weak (or strong) AI, wealth will continue to be accumulated by the legal owners of the means of production. We are not ready for a world where a huge portion of the population are not only unemployed, but unemployable. The capitalists would have them starve, but we have the capability and resources to provide for the common welfare of the people without it being detrimental to the future of the human race.

I'm still constructing the idea internally though.

>>8185994
And if they're already oppressed into perpetual poverty? What then? I know most Americans haven't experienced this type of poverty, but it's not limited to the homeless; it's called wage slavery, and applies to a growing demographic in this country.

>>8185994
Unfortunately at a certain point it is impossible. There is only so much wealth to go around, and when the rich have a means to get richer faster than poor people, they take in all the money. That's when you get 99% of wealth belonging to 1% of the people. A smaller wealth gap is better for the country as a whole, and won't always happen naturally. That trickle down nonsense was debunked long ago.