• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Clown World Thread | 🤡🌎 | pɐǝɹɥ⊥ pןɹoM uʍoןϽ

nkarafo

Member
Nov 30, 2012
13,126
2,407
860
What the fuck is up with that “children’s book”?

Fuck this world, man.
I assume it's not really a kid's book but a troll/satire book. It's funny because it looks like a kids book kind of thing.

Also, it's not about gayness/LGBTQ things. Only they would be able to produce something like this unironically.
 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,176
9,628
715
@autoduelist are you just reposting things you find on The_Donald? I could swear I saw all these things there today :D
No diss, bro, just asking :)
Also you're racist fascist scum for going there. Honestly, I get all my memes from reeeeeeeeesetera. Only they cheer for most of the stories posted here instead of laugh, because they're wholesome people who are righteous in their desire to support and watch child drag shows.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mcz117chief

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,176
9,628
715
Last edited:

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,176
9,628
715

MetalAlien

Member
Mar 6, 2005
9,560
1,791
1,465
Finally, a proper response to faux outrage:



More info here:
YES this is only response! Show those bastards their opinion is aboslutely worthless!
 

#Phonepunk#

Gold Member
Sep 4, 2018
5,549
6,744
615
how dare the guy who opens a movie murdering people with a gun while dancing to fun 70's pop music in a beloved family film wear a pro America t-shirt?
 
Last edited:

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
23,288
22,233
1,045

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
2,557
1,336
1,035
Finally, a proper response to faux outrage:



More info here:
Regarding the First Navy Jack I posted this in the Nike/Kapernick shoe thread. Today is 7/17/2019, just a month and 15 days ago.

It's getting closer to the truth:


I also want to point out that we have both USNavy SEALs pushing back against crybullies as business owners and in the US House of Representatives. This is a pretty kick ass timeline, since they don't scare, nor do they fuck around.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,176
9,628
715
Regarding the First Navy Jack I posted this in the Nike/Kapernick shoe thread. Today is 7/17/2019, just a month and 15 days ago.

It's getting closer to the truth:


I also want to point out that we have both USNavy SEALs pushing back against crybullies as business owners and in the US House of Representatives. This is a pretty kick ass timeline, since they don't scare, nor do they fuck around.
There is an apocryphal [possibly only from a movie, but famous nonetheless] quote regarding Pearl Harbor by Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto:

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

I can't help but feel that is what the far left has done. The pendulum swing will come back, and these outrage idiots will be villified and laughed at, and will ultimately usher in an era of patriotism we haven't seem since, topically, the moon landing. There's got to be a breaking point. At some point, people are going to recognize these attacks - on people, America, hobbies, films, comedians, etc. - are coming from a place of hate, small minds grasping for power through accusation after accusation.

That's my hope at least. If not, they're coming for the 2nd, then the 1st, and the Great American Experiment of liberty will be written down as a failure in the history books.
 

MetalAlien

Member
Mar 6, 2005
9,560
1,791
1,465
There is an apocryphal [possibly only from a movie, but famous nonetheless] quote regarding Pearl Harbor by Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto:

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

I can't help but feel that is what the far left has done. The pendulum swing will come back, and these outrage idiots will be villified and laughed at, and will ultimately usher in an era of patriotism we haven't seem since, topically, the moon landing. There's got to be a breaking point. At some point, people are going to recognize these attacks - on people, America, hobbies, films, comedians, etc. - are coming from a place of hate, small minds grasping for power through accusation after accusation.

That's my hope at least. If not, they're coming for the 2nd, then the 1st, and the Great American Experiment of liberty will be written down as a failure in the history books.
I've been saying for a while this whole movement is at our grace. It lives only as long as we let it live. It has no legs to stand on. By the grace of our heart we allow the blue haired bitches a platform to wag their fingers at us. To be revoked at any time.
 

Zefah

Member
Jan 7, 2007
33,484
78
1,060
Would you agree that liberty is found when the two opposing sides balance each other and that going too far in either direction results in tyranny? If yes, does that change your definition of progress?
No, I don't think a balance between two opposing sides is necessarily a requirement for liberty. The Wikipedia definition does a great job of describing the liberalism I identify with.

"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed, and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism (free markets), democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion."

By definition going "too" far in any direction would not be good a thing, but I'm not sure I agree that some of the more radical authoritarian ideologies we're seeing gain momentum are the result of "liberalism" or "the left" going too far in one direction rather than they are a change in direction to something else.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
13,724
21,668
1,300
Australia
No, I don't think a balance between two opposing sides is necessarily a requirement for liberty. The Wikipedia definition does a great job of describing the liberalism I identify with.

"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed, and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism (free markets), democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion."

By definition going "too" far in any direction would not be good a thing, but I'm not sure I agree that some of the more radical authoritarian ideologies we're seeing gain momentum are the result of "liberalism" or "the left" going too far in one direction rather than they are a change in direction to something else.
See, this is where I think US political terminology is busted. Both the left and right have their strengths and each balances the other's corresponding weaknesses. It's the Yin and Yang. Stray too far in either direction and you upset the balance, inevitably resulting in collectivism installed via fascism. Go too far right and you get in-group inclusion and out-group exclusion; go too far left and you get in-group exclusion and out-group inclusion. Only the former is widely recognised as fascism, likely for historical reasons, but the fascism lies in the exclusion, and it would be absurd to argue that the modern left is not acting in an exclusionary manner in spite of their diversity and inclusion buzzwords.

The US has throughout its entire history up until very recently been dominated by the religious right, so in the past it wasn't incorrect to call people to the left of that liberals or progressives. However, there has been a political inversion coinciding with the Obama / social media / information era, but the terminology and general culture haven't caught up. The terms liberal and progressive are still used synonymously with leftist, which is absolutely not the case. The people occupying the current iteration of the left are not advocating for the ideas listed in the wikipedia definition you cited. In fact, every single one of them, even gender and racial equality (of opportunity, not outcome), are currently being espoused by people who would instead be branded conservative. The core of liberalism is individualism, which is the complete opposite of the collectivism that modern leftists are espousing. If we know that going too far left or too far right results in collectivism and that liberalism is the opposite of collectivism, why is liberalism taken as synonymous with leftism? Would liberalism not be found somewhere inbetween the left and the right? Should progress not be defined as shifting the needle back towards liberalism and away from collectivism?

The way I view politics is with respect to the political horseshoe with a superimposed Overton window. The horseshoe remains relatively static, though can shift gradually over longer timescales and with technological innovation, e.g. birth control making it possible for us to even consider allowing women out of the home and into the workplace to confront risk. On the other hand, the Overton window is constantly being pulled in either direction on a much shorter timescale by the opposing political parties. This helps to explain why ideas such as immigration control were mainstream opinions a mere 10 years ago but today are labelled hate speech -- the window has shifted too far. The system can tolerate the window being pulled slightly left or right of centre if the populace is well-educated and the news media is doing its job because the democractic system will recognise the imbalance and correct itself via the ballot box. I would argue that various factors have resulted in a corruption of education and media such that the window has been shifted too far left and Trump's election, warts and all, was a last-gasp attempt to drag it away from straying down into the territory of the extreme left at which point recovery would not be possible.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,176
9,628
715
See, this is where I think US political terminology is busted. Both the left and right have their strengths and each balances the other's corresponding weaknesses. It's the Yin and Yang. Stray too far in either direction and you upset the balance, inevitably resulting in collectivism installed via fascism. Go too far right and you get in-group inclusion and out-group exclusion; go too far left and you get in-group exclusion and out-group inclusion. Only the former is widely recognised as fascism, likely for historical reasons, but the fascism lies in the exclusion, and it would be absurd to argue that the modern left is not acting in an exclusionary manner in spite of their diversity and inclusion buzzwords.

The US has throughout its entire history up until very recently been dominated by the religious right, so in the past it wasn't incorrect to call people to the left of that liberals or progressives. However, there has been a political inversion coinciding with the Obama / social media / information era, but the terminology and general culture haven't caught up. The terms liberal and progressive are still used synonymously with leftist, which is absolutely not the case. The people occupying the current iteration of the left are not advocating for the ideas listed in the wikipedia definition you cited. In fact, every single one of them, even gender and racial equality (of opportunity, not outcome), are currently being espoused by people who would instead be branded conservative. The core of liberalism is individualism, which is the complete opposite of the collectivism that modern leftists are espousing. If we know that going too far left or too far right results in collectivism and that liberalism is the opposite of collectivism, why is liberalism taken as synonymous with leftism? Would liberalism not be found somewhere inbetween the left and the right? Should progress not be defined as shifting the needle back towards liberalism and away from collectivism?

The way I view politics is with respect to the political horseshoe with a superimposed Overton window. The horseshoe remains relatively static, though can shift gradually over longer timescales and with technological innovation, e.g. birth control making it possible for us to even consider allowing women out of the home and into the workplace to confront risk. On the other hand, the Overton window is constantly being pulled in either direction on a much shorter timescale by the opposing political parties. This helps to explain why ideas such as immigration control were mainstream opinions a mere 10 years ago but today are labelled hate speech -- the window has shifted too far. The system can tolerate the window being pulled slightly left or right of centre if the populace is well-educated and the news media is doing its job because the democractic system will recognise the imbalance and correct itself via the ballot box. I would argue that various factors have resulted in a corruption of education and media such that the window has been shifted too far left and Trump's election, warts and all, was a last-gasp attempt to drag it away from straying down into the territory of the extreme left at which point recovery would not be possible.
I think many terms have been abused, conflated, and generally misused, making communication quite difficult. I also believe there are several relevant spectrums, and left/right is fundamentally flawed.

However, in the interest of simplicity, a circle generally works.

Something like this:




This diagram isn't perfect, but getting there.

The important part of this is the circular nature. This is why, for example, an lefty anarcho-syndicalist can sit down with a libertarian and agree on virtually every issue except 'how to get there', which is a big issue since it relates directly to economics, but a civil conversation can be had.

On the reverse end, we see how the reverse also circles in on itself... the need for legislated order leads to tyranny, whether it come from do gooders on the left legislating fairness, or the do gooders on the right legislating 'law and order'.

Even this isn't perfect.. while searching for this image i found another interesting version*, one which replaced 'progressive' with 'politically correct' and 'far right' with 'piously correct'. That's an interesting take too, though i think it's a mistake to limit to just those two because the drift to tyranny is a natural progression... there are many paths to it.

Government likes to grow, and will do exactly that over time, legislating itself into any crevice it can. Politicians get rewarded for 'doing something', aka passing more laws, and there are always people on the bottom of the circle who want new laws, either left or right [anti-smoking, dress codes, plastic bags, jaywalking, whatdver].

Due to what i believe is the natural tendency of government to grow over time, it is a constant fight to remain free. It's the reason the Constitution and Bill of Rights are so incredibly important, as they are meant to define the limitations of government and not the limitations of the people.

Unfortunately, those in the top half rarely find anyone to represent them, whereas politicians are a dime a dozen that are more than happy to cater to the bottom half. Right now, the left is veering quickly down that circle towards the bottom. Trump isn't particularly in the top half of that circle either, it's just that he fundamentally respects the American principle of liberty which plays the role of anchor preventing him from straying too far from certain core principles of our founders, who i truly believe recognized the dangers of unbridled government.

Below is someone's version of this put on american politics. Again, not perfect but worth a look.


I seriously disagree with the above chart in the spoiler because it implies liberty is where Republicans and Democrats meet, which couldn't be further from the truth.

Personally, at this point in my life I've come to the conclusion that the Rs are the only option, because at least in theory some are committed to small govt. I've yet to meet a democrat that didn't want to legislate something. In actuality I'm damn near top of the circle and neither party represents me at all, but the current Democratic party is a dumpster fire of authoritarianism, identitarianism, and communism. To the point that disgusts me, really, because it's pushed me so far away from people i thought believed in liberty but grabbed power the second they could. The amount of respect i had for our founders has risen so dramatically in the past 5 years it's shocking. I'm the kid who wouldn't do the pledge of allegiance and refused to go to church, and now the flag warms my heart because i can't imagine where we'd be without the 1st and 2nd. Crazy times.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
13,724
21,668
1,300
Australia
I think many terms have been abused, conflated, and generally misused, making communication quite difficult. I also believe there are several relevant spectrums, and left/right is fundamentally flawed.

However, in the interest of simplicity, a circle generally works.

Something like this:




This diagram isn't perfect, but getting there.

The important part of this is the circular nature. This is why, for example, an lefty anarcho-syndicalist can sit down with a libertarian and agree on virtually every issue except 'how to get there', which is a big issue since it relates directly to economics, but a civil conversation can be had.

On the reverse end, we see how the reverse also circles in on itself... the need for legislated order leads to tyranny, whether it come from do gooders on the left legislating fairness, or the do gooders on the right legislating 'law and order'.

Even this isn't perfect.. while searching for this image i found another interesting version*, one which replaced 'progressive' with 'politically correct' and 'far right' with 'piously correct'. That's an interesting take too, though i think it's a mistake to limit to just those two because the drift to tyranny is a natural progression... there are many paths to it.

Government likes to grow, and will do exactly that over time, legislating itself into any crevice it can. Politicians get rewarded for 'doing something', aka passing more laws, and there are always people on the bottom of the circle who want new laws, either left or right [anti-smoking, dress codes, plastic bags, jaywalking, whatdver].

Due to what i believe is the natural tendency of government to grow over time, it is a constant fight to remain free. It's the reason the Constitution and Bill of Rights are so incredibly important, as they are meant to define the limitations of government and not the limitations of the people.

Unfortunately, those in the top half rarely find anyone to represent them, whereas politicians are a dime a dozen that are more than happy to cater to the bottom half. Right now, the left is veering quickly down that circle towards the bottom. Trump isn't particularly in the top half of that circle either, it's just that he fundamentally respects the American principle of liberty which plays the role of anchor preventing him from straying too far from certain core principles of our founders, who i truly believe recognized the dangers of unbridled government.

Below is someone's version of this put on american politics. Again, not perfect but worth a look.


I seriously disagree with the above chart in the spoiler because it implies liberty is where Republicans and Democrats meet, which couldn't be further from the truth.

Personally, at this point in my life I've come to the conclusion that the Rs are the only option, because at least in theory some are committed to small govt. I've yet to meet a democrat that didn't want to legislate something. In actuality I'm damn near top of the circle and neither party represents me at all, but the current Democratic party is a dumpster fire of authoritarianism, identitarianism, and communism. To the point that disgusts me, really, because it's pushed me so far away from people i thought believed in liberty but grabbed power the second they could. The amount of respect i had for our founders has risen so dramatically in the past 5 years it's shocking. I'm the kid who wouldn't do the pledge of allegiance and refused to go to church, and now the flag warms my heart because i can't imagine where we'd be without the 1st and 2nd. Crazy times.
Agree with much of what you say but I don't think the second chart is saying that liberty is where Republicans and Democrats meet, rather that liberty is where left and right meet (which is what I am also saying). Republicans / Democrats are then superimposed after that.

I was also the type to reject religion from a young age. I even recall getting timeouts in first grade for saying Bible stories sounded like fairy tales. We didn't have a pledge of allegiance to reject, but if we did, I probably would've. I'm just anti-authoritarian by nature, I suppose, which is why I despise the New Evangelicals (the social justice left) just as much as the traditional Evangelicals I encountered in my youth. Actually, I probably despise them more, because their moral foundations, unstable as they may be, are self-derived rather than handed down from a higher power.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,176
9,628
715
Agree with much of what you say but I don't think the second chart is saying that liberty is where Republicans and Democrats meet, rather that liberty is where left and right meet (which is what I am also saying). Republicans / Democrats are then superimposed after that.

I was also the type to reject religion from a young age. I even recall getting timeouts in first grade for saying Bible stories sounded like fairy tales. We didn't have a pledge of allegiance to reject, but if we did, I probably would've. I'm just anti-authoritarian by nature, I suppose, which is why I despise the New Evangelicals (the social justice left) just as much as the traditional Evangelicals I encountered in my youth. Actually, I probably despise them more, because their moral foundations, unstable as they may be, are self-derived rather than handed down from a higher power.
Have you taken Haidt's moral foundation test?
 

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
1,770
2,198
410
I get non white people don't love dogs?

I never knew this.
Which, following her twisted logic, black people wouldn’t want because they wouldn’t want to become the master in a master/slave dynamic.

The only way to sum it up is this: what a dumb bitch with too much time on her hands and not enough brain cells to form a cogent thought.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,176
9,628
715
What test is that?
Mind you, I haven't taken Jenna James 10 times in 10 minutes test either.
First heard about it on Rogan, I think. Created by Jonathan Haidt [who was on Rogan and is incredibly interesting] and a group of 8 or 10 social psychologists and such.

They identified 6 different aspects of morality [fairness, care, loyalty, authority, sanctity, liberty]. You react to like 50 different situations... not so much questions, just awkward, morally grey situations.

What was super interesting is when they gave it to people, they found that people who self identify as liberal/progressive score extremely highly in fairness and care, and low on everything else. People who self identified as conservative scored relatively equal in all categories. A low score doesn't mean you just don't care much about it, but more that it isn't even on your radar, it's just not part of what makes something moral or immoral.

Haidt talks a lot about it, but it really does sort of explain a lot. Take flag burning - if you don't care all that much about sanctity, a flag doesn't hold any moral importance to you, and if you like wise don't even judge loyalty, authority, or liberty into your moral decisions, then burning a flag isn't even a moral decision if you think America is unfair. On the other hand, if you're high in loyalty and sanctity, the idea would be morally repulsive.

Same with any economic discussion. If all someone cares about is care and fairness, they will come to greatly different conclusions that someone who evaluates several more potentially conflicting criteria.

Not everyone fits within those two categories, of course. Tim Pool took ot and scored high in fairness, care, and liberty, which explains his odd mix of political positions. My results were abnormal, to say the least. Upon reflection, i think they're accurate. I searched for forums discussing this afterwards, and it did seem like a lot of progressive types do score extremely highly in just fairness and care.

Longer explanation of each:

1) Care/harm:This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.
2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives]
3) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."
4) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.
5) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).
6) Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor. We report some preliminary work on this potential foundation in this paper, on the psychology of libertarianism and liberty.

Moral Foundations Questionnaire

There are some other copy cat tests online but this is the original

Tried fixing that double spoiler but it keeps putting it back. Eirher im making a mistake or their is a bug with quotes nested in spoilers. Edit, finally just deleted the QUOTE tags
 
Last edited:

BlueAlpaca

Member
Feb 6, 2018
133
116
235
and it did seem like a lot of progressive types do score extremely highly in just fairness and care.
So-called 'progressives' support and celebrate the vilest totalitarian regimes and mass murderers, that's a much more powerful indicator of their (inc)capacity for compassion than psychology pseudoscience.

All that test does is point to their opinions of themselves, not reality.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
13,306
24,190
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
  • Like
Reactions: Gashtronomy

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,176
9,628
715

Cnn panel backfires when panelist can't get the answers she wants.

I tried to find the original w/o fox commentary, but couldn't. Though i agree with commentator that i can't believe cnn aired this. Although i can, I'm sure cnn thought this was embarassing for the panelists, not cnn.
 

dolabla

Member
Oct 9, 2013
3,707
3,987
660

"Why can’t he be brought up on charges of hate speech?" Behar asked before later adding, "Why can’t he be sued by the ACLU for hate speech? I don’t get it. How does he get away with this," referring to the American Civil Liberties Union.