A Conservative view of Government.

[Total Crica]

I am not certain Liberals are for freedoms. There is the issue of being say Pro-Choice, except for the choice to own a firearm, where or how to educate ones own children, ect.

Pro-choice is about the right to bodily autonomy, not about other issues, though.

I agree that the term used to describe the issue is misleading in the English language.

[Macaquerie]

I'm so glad you're such an expert on my specific family. I am also glad you are here to let me know how my family speaks or I speak in my personal setting, home or in communication with family. I shall mail you my linguistics MA since clearly your the master of all language knowledge.

I was asked to describe something and made a fun point for a bit of levity.

It just seems like you are going through this whole exercise of imagining the collapse of the entirety of world civilization just for the sake of reviving a functionally dead language, and while you're far from the only person to have outlandish fantasies, most people recognize them for what they are and don't try to justify them as something reasonable, and you're only digging yourself a deeper hole the farther you go with it.

Also, you really shouldn't try and throw our your degrees to try and seem authoritative, who but uppity quasi-intellectuals actually does that?

[Theodarzna]

It just seems like you are going through this whole exercise of imagining the collapse of the entirety of world civilization just for the sake of reviving a functionally dead language, and while you're far from the only person to have outlandish fantasies, most people recognize them for what they are and don't try to justify them as something reasonable, and you're only digging yourself a deeper hole the farther you go with it.

Also, you really shouldn't try and throw our your degrees to try and seem authoritative, who but uppity quasi-intellectuals actually does that?

Are you psychic?

Also I throw them around because eventually dealing with people who talk authoritatively about topic but clearly don't know what their talking about can get rather frustrating.

[Macaquerie]

Are you psychic?

Also I throw them around because eventually dealing with people who talk authoritatively about topic but clearly don't know what their talking about can get rather frustrating.

I just go by what your posts say and try to interpret that as best I can. What other thoughts you might have are not really relevant, because on an internet forum your private beliefs don't concern me or anyone else, just the content of what you type on here.

[Theodarzna]

I just go by what your posts say and try to interpret that as best I can. What other thoughts you might have are not really relevant, because on an internet forum your private beliefs don't concern me or anyone else, just the content of what you type on here.

That game of interpretation however has you simply filling in blanks or psychically trying to guess a real motivation. You go from actually discussing words, to trying to pathologize or engage in armchair psychology over the internet and try some psycho-analysis to try and ascertain some "Real Motivation".

You want to read between the lines and argue instead what is between the lines. It is akin to gaslighting. Instead of manipulating me by psychological means into questioning my own sanity. You simply try to manipulate me by pathologizing and assuming my motives to question the actual content of my posts.

On some level I would even think to charge you with a latent bit of sexism as it does fit the narrative of men often trying to override what women say and think via pathologizing away women's thoughts. I.E. mansplaining. But I recognize this is likely something you do with male posters. And in reality it is just a tactic. But I think its a weird and kind of awful tactic.

[Omega10]

I'm a futurist but a practical one. My default position is "everything is a lot harder than you think it is to achieve"

A LOT harder. And as technology moves on, the difficulty of accomplishing useful things increases. Just even keeping up with phone bills is a non-trivial exercise for the phone companies. Millions of customers to keep track of - this is a task that just cannot be done manually. If managing phone bills is difficult - and nowadays it is - well anything that is intrinsically complicated will be that much harder.

[Theodarzna]

SHOULD life be micromanaged by experts? Well this is not a valid question. SHOULD gravity exist?

Actually Its a worthwhile question to ask. Should it be micromanaged by experts?

[xChurch]

I think there exists a core difference between our understandings of history. I am curious if you have a background in history, or majored in it. You seem to have gone in for a "relentless story of progress!" narrative which is admittedly common among people who have not and is how history tends to be taught in High School for example. It's the standard Whig narrative. I am from a History background and even attained an MA in History. I do not view it as a "Relentless March of Progress!" because that isn't the narrative evidence suggests. Progress can be argued for but it ignores the sacrifices and costs. In that sense I am Anti-Marx and Anti-Hegalian because I don't view an "End of History" as a real thing that will be attained.

As a second point and returning to the topic of violence, You have consistently avoided the meaning of what I said earlier. When I mentioned the fate of the indigenous Americans and the wholesale near annihilation of them that made this flawed but prosperous wonderland possible, you seem to have mistakenly thought the bloodyness of that era was confined to that era and that your prosperity is not a consequence of that. What I meant by that reference was to point out the horrible sacrifices that were done to make this world we live in possible. What I was asking is if two continents worth of people had to be fed to the proverbial Moloch to make this flawed prosperous land and world order happen, how many will be fed into that same proverbial Moloch to make another paradise come true? How many must be sacrificed to sustain it? Is there any cost too high in the name of utopia? If it took the near extermination of an entire race of people, countless lives, tribes, countries and cities, the wholesale dispossession of the survivors ect, just to make this happen. What horrific crimes against the Human race will it take to get to the stars?

You pivoted away from that question by asking how anything I suggested would create peace or avoid violence. I stay away from promising Utopia because I do not believe it is a thing living humans can ever see.

Finally as to WHY? Well smaller government and simplifying, diversifying ect, is a situation I think our present crisis' will force upon us. Both from ecological damage, climate change, mass animal extinction and decline in diversity in the biosphere will make this world we know unable to even sustain itself and survive. A change and serious consideration about social arrangements and social structures is worth having. Currently other societies seem to be better at surviving long term and have sustained themselves for far longer than we have. But also I think it provides for human liberty, autonomy and self-determination. More over it restores a communal society that can uphold communal values. Which it may or may not do.

Your utopia seems unattainable, impossible, and to come at horrific human cost. I think then we should get back to basic values, simpler and more local systems that have proven themselves to be sustainable. This may fuse itself with some form of futurism or transhumanism, or it may be that the project of modernity is doomed to fail and this is the Great Filter that another poster mentioned.

Considering all the advances we are making, I fail to see how you can think a utopia is unattainable. If we do not destroy ourselves first, it's essentially inevitable. I mean we have the technology to modify gene's at will. That alone will lead to vast benefits for our species and it's only one of the many ways our science and technology will lead to untold prosperity. For the record though, I don't expect this will happen for a very long time, but it's the journey to utopia that's more important than getting there.

You keep dodging the fact though that a more divided and communal humanity tends to breed conflict and war which given your fear of a future being the same, seems a little inconsistent. I'm not saying our progression won't have hiccups like wars and famines, but at least science offers us a way out of that. You seem to prefer we continue that forever since you are unwilling to say that it won't be any less violent than our current trajectory. If there is bloodshed, I'd rather it be in the name of progress rather than the in the name of culture or land or religion or any of the other things Western nations bickered and fought over prior to our post-ww2 world order.

Are you psychic?

Also I throw them around because eventually dealing with people who talk authoritatively about topic but clearly don't know what their talking about can get rather frustrating.

I know the feeling.

[Theodarzna]

Considering all the advances we are making, I fail to see how you can think a utopia is unattainable. If we do not destroy ourselves first, it's essentially inevitable. I mean we have the technology to modify gene's at will. That alone will lead to vast benefits for our species and it's only one of the many ways our science and technology will lead to untold prosperity. For the record though, I don't expect this will happen for a very long time, but it's the journey to utopia that's more important than getting there.

You keep dodging the fact though that a more divided and communal humanity tends to breed conflict and war which given your fear of a future being the same, seems a little inconsistent. I'm not saying our progression won't have hiccups like wars and famines, but at least science offers us a way out of that. You seem to prefer we continue that forever since you are unwilling to say that it won't be any less violent than our current trajectory. If there is bloodshed, I'd rather it be in the name of progress rather than the in the name of culture or land or religion or any of the other things Western nations bickered and fought over prior to our post-ww2 world order.

Because there have been historical societies that had attained relative levels of globalization, even a degree of widespread peace, and this is not the first time people have preached utopia. Nothing is inevitable or certain. The journey has historically be strewn with corpses and soaked in blood.

You keep dodging the point of my question about Native Americans. I would never describe the annihilation of two continents worth of people as a "Hiccup". In fact I would call that incredibly offensive at best, insane at worse. The obliteration of entire peoples, the annihilation of so much life and the destruction, WILLFUL destruction of people in the name of "Progress," cannot be called a "Hiccup" by anyone who isn't a complete psychopath.

If there is bloodshed, I'd rather it be in the name of progress

And there you have it people. Someone who might be completely fine with murder if it advances the so-called righteous cause. I appreciate your candor and honesty. Because history is filled with people of that mentality. How much until it's too much?

[May90]

And there you have it people. Someone who might be completely fine with murder if it advances the so-called righteous cause. I appreciate your candor and honesty. Because history is filled with people of that mentality. How much until it's too much?

"If there is bloodshed, I'd rather it be in the name of progress" doesn't equal "I would be completely fine with bloodshed in the name of progress"...

[Theodarzna]

"If there is bloodshed, I'd rather it be in the name of progress" doesn't equal "I would be completely fine with bloodshed in the name of progress"...

Perhaps, but if what happened after 1492 on North and South America is considered a "Hiccup" that doesn't make one rest easy considering a comfort with bloodshed in the name of "Progress".

[Total Crica]

How much until it's too much?

Only the fit can decide that. Are you fit enough to decide it for everyone else?

[xChurch]

Because there have been historical societies that had attained relative levels of globalization, even a degree of widespread peace, and this is not the first time people have preached utopia. Nothing is inevitable or certain. The journey has historically be strewn with corpses and soaked in blood.

You keep dodging the point of my question about Native Americans. I would never describe the annihilation of two continents worth of people as a "Hiccup". In fact I would call that incredibly offensive at best, insane at worse. The obliteration of entire peoples, the annihilation of so much life and the destruction, WILLFUL destruction of people in the name of "Progress," cannot be called a "Hiccup" by anyone who isn't a complete psychopath.



And there you have it people. Someone who might be completely fine with murder if it advances the so-called righteous cause. I appreciate your candor and honesty. Because history is filled with people of that mentality. How much until it's too much?

You seem to be under the assumption that I'm advocating murder for progress, which isn't anything like what I'm saying. I'm saying if there is bloodshed during our progress than it is acceptable, not that progress should be furthered by murder. In fact one of the reasons society is better now is because it's created progress without bloodshed, which didn't exist as much before. Both of our prefered paths for humanity would be filled with bloodshed, which is what you continuously gloss over. At least mine would have some actual progress to our species.

[Macaquerie]

That game of interpretation however has you simply filling in blanks or psychically trying to guess a real motivation. You go from actually discussing words, to trying to pathologize or engage in armchair psychology over the internet and try some psycho-analysis to try and ascertain some "Real Motivation".

You want to read between the lines and argue instead what is between the lines. It is akin to gaslighting. Instead of manipulating me by psychological means into questioning my own sanity. You simply try to manipulate me by pathologizing and assuming my motives to question the actual content of my posts.

On some level I would even think to charge you with a latent bit of sexism as it does fit the narrative of men often trying to override what women say and think via pathologizing away women's thoughts. I.E. mansplaining. But I recognize this is likely something you do with male posters. And in reality it is just a tactic. But I think its a weird and kind of awful tactic.

Not sure why you're making accusations of gaslighting and mansplaining, just about anyone who ever read your posts would come away with the same impression that I have. You talk a lot about Wales and about language, and while I don't know much about the politics there I do know that promotion of local languages is a major issue for Welsh nationalists, as it is elsewhere in Europe, so I would imagine your own views align pretty well with those groups.

It must be stressed, however, that while that might be a valid viewpoint for a small ethnic minority community focused on maintaining its linguistic and cultural distinctiveness, when you try to extrapolate that viewpoint to talk about issues of globalism, economic development, technological progress, and all the other buzzword heavy, big picture problems, it really just doesn't fit.

[Theodarzna]

You seem to be under the assumption that I'm advocating murder for progress, which isn't anything like what I'm saying. I'm saying if there is bloodshed during our progress than it is acceptable, not that progress should be furthered by murder. In fact one of the reasons society is better now is because it's created progress without bloodshed, which didn't exist as much before. Both of our prefered paths for humanity would be filled with bloodshed, which is what you continuously gloss over. At least mine would have some actual progress to our species.

I feel as if your simple a serious of thought terminating cliche's come to life. "We're better now because we've created progress!" What does that even mean? Your again falling into the trap of ignorance about the relationship between the process of colonizing North and South America, or Trans-Atlantic slavery and its role in building these vast sprawling Empires today. You seem to be laboring under the delusion that those events were unrelated to your present condition and you are unconnected to them. When your life is a direct consequence of those two wretched examples. You keep asking me about violence but you keep insisting on laboring under a high degree of historical ignorance of just what brought this present (And I argue fleeting) condition into being.

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure why you're making accusations of gaslighting and mansplaining, just about anyone who ever read your posts would come away with the same impression that I have. You talk a lot about Wales and about language, and while I don't know much about the politics there I do know that promotion of local languages is a major issue for Welsh nationalists, as it is elsewhere in Europe, so I would imagine your own views align pretty well with those groups.

It must be stressed, however, that while that might be a valid viewpoint for a small ethnic minority community focused on maintaining its linguistic and cultural distinctiveness, when you try to extrapolate that viewpoint to talk about issues of globalism, economic development, technological progress, and all the other buzzword heavy, big picture problems, it really just doesn't fit.

I think only the clique of you, wells, nixx and that sort of poster would be coming to that conclusion purely because it seems you have a desire to not actually talk to me but instead talk at me, and search for secret hidden motivations for everything and would much prefer a psycho-analyse things then actually discuss what a person posted.

Your stretching to avoid actually discussing what I've wrote and instead want to decide what my motivations are and instead discuss whatever psychological conjecture you would prefer. That would be my primary frustration is that little clique have a habit of just talking at me on presumed motivations instead of talking to me about what I posted.

[Techno-Druid]

I don't blame Ireland/Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and even Gibraltar trying to revive language and cultural habits that were usurped by Anglo-Saxon culture.

I've always been in support of cultural revival around the world as long as it adheres to a secularism or the full consideration and protection of human rights. Things like Kemalism and Berberism (an attempt by multiple groups within the Maghrebi countries to reject Arab imperialism and opt for their pre-Arabized berber culture instead) for example.

I'm also in support of the creation of a Kurdish nation-state, a free Palestine (or at least having autonomy if they ever embrace a one-state solution), a free Basque country, a free Quebec, a free Catalonia, a free Somaliland, a free Western Sahara, a free Tibet/Hong Kong/Macau and a free New Caledonia. I'm also partial to the idea of a Coptic state (Coptoland? Coptistan? The Coptic Egyptian Republic?) as they are one of the few direct cultural descendants of Ancient Egyptians and could give the Western world a non-imperialistic foothold in North Africa.

Btw, Theodarzna, when you're with family do you exclusively speak Welsh, English or do you code-switch?

[Theodarzna]

I don't blame Ireland/Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and even Gibraltar trying to revive language and cultural habits that were usurped by Anglo-Saxon culture.

I've always been in support of cultural revival around the world as long as it adheres to a secularism or the full consideration and protection of human rights. Things like Kemalism and Berberism (an attempt by multiple groups within the Maghrebi countries to reject Arab imperialism and opt for their pre-Arabized berber culture instead) for example.

I'm also in support of the creation of a Kurdish nation-state, a free Palestine (or at least having autonomy if they ever embrace a one-state solution), a free Basque country, a free Quebec, a free Catalonia, a free Somaliland, a free Western Sahara, a free Tibet/Hong Kong/Macau and a free New Caledonia. I'm also partial to the idea of a Coptic state (Coptoland? Coptistan? The Coptic Egyptian Republic?) as they are one of the few direct cultural descendants of Ancient Egyptians and could give the Western world a non-imperialistic foothold in North Africa.

Btw, Theodarzna, when you're with family do you exclusively speak Welsh, English or do you code-switch?

We only code switch at specific times because her and her husband take care of his grandparents and they have dementia bad, which has had the advantage of them mostly only recalling their first language. I don't code switch, but English words are absorbed. And all languages absorb words from others. I am unsure if Macaquerie is confusing code switching with loan words, because his initial statement seems to strongly imply that he is unsure about the difference between loan words, duel coding, code switching, ect.

I mean if we want to have a discussion about breaking up current big states into smaller states to offer cultures local determination, that is in it of itself a good thing in my view as just a general "Yes, that is something we should do."

[Techno-Druid]

We only code switch at specific times because her and her husband take care of his grandparents and they have dementia bad, which has had the advantage of them mostly only recalling their first language. I don't code switch, but English words are absorbed. And all languages absorb words from others. I am unsure if Macaquerie is confusing code switching with loan words, because his initial statement seems to strongly imply that he is unsure about the difference between loan words, duel coding, code switching, ect.

I mean if we want to have a discussion about breaking up current big states into smaller states to offer cultures local determination, that is in it of itself a good thing in my view as just a general "Yes, that is something we should do."

Being in the F4 generation of Italian-American family, my grandparents and older relatives would speak in what sort of amounted to a pidgin of Italian and English.

I myself do not know Italian, but it's on a checklist of languages I want to learn alongside Japanese (which I'm taking classes on now), German, Arabic and Swahili.

[Theodarzna]

Being in the F4 generation of Italian-American family, my grandparents and older relatives would speak in what sort of amounted to a pidgin of Italian and English.

I myself do not know Italian, but it's on a checklist of languages I want to learn alongside Japanese (which I'm taking classes on now), German, Arabic and Swahili.

I and my mom are the only ones living in America and neither of us were born here.

I make things hard on myself, I'd like to learn one of the native American languages or Polynesian ones, and I would kill to know Breton as its like Welsh but prettier sounding. XD

[Deleted]

You seem to be under the assumption that I'm advocating murder for progress, which isn't anything like what I'm saying. I'm saying if there is bloodshed during our progress than it is acceptable, not that progress should be furthered by murder. In fact one of the reasons society is better now is because it's created progress without bloodshed, which didn't exist as much before. Both of our prefered paths for humanity would be filled with bloodshed, which is what you continuously gloss over. At least mine would have some actual progress to our species.

If utopia is "essentially inevitable, if we do not destroy ourselves first", any bloodshed over it is completely pointless. Unless, of course, you think bloodshed is necessary to attaining this utopia, in which case if you advocate for progress, you advocate for bloodshed.

So it's not so much that you advocate for murder, just that you're predisposed to look elsewhere when and if push comes to shove.
It's entirely unprincipled, but very honest.

This is not a new concept. It's one philosophers have struggled with for centuries. It's called utopia for a reason: it's unattainable by design.

What is this progress you talk about anyway?.
Progress is a process, not a resource or an end goal.
When we look back we generally agree that we're in a better position. Is that progress?. because that kind of evolution has been fostered by absolutely everything, from holy wars, to the study of sciences. Lest not forget the biggest hoops in technology happen when it's most incentivized: during war time and reconstruction.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean if we want to have a discussion about breaking up current big states into smaller states to offer cultures local determination, that is in it of itself a good thing in my view as just a general "Yes, that is something we should do."

The issue being that cultures are not tied to states. Nations maybe, and we have plenty of poly-national states around thriving. And even the idea of nation is relatively recent.
We see how globalization has a tendency to water down small cultural enclaves. Yet the alternative atomization is no better: cultures are subverted all the time by their neighbors. Their protection, without a global entity is a fools errand. To boot, languages in the EU: do you see any way for the less practiced ones to survive if it wasn't for the interest and funding that the big state provides?. It is globalization what gives a collective sense of protecting the smaller entities, without it, they'd be out in the jungle struggling against bigger cultural machines.