Bobby_2021

Glad to hear that. So you do admit that the problems with Soviet Russia had to do with libs gone wild. Usually you find a way to blame everything on the right wing.

Astute observation.

This is exactly why I said you unknowingly abuse relativism. You have to compare conservative & liberals IN THE SAME TIMEFRAME. Tsarist Russia came BEFORE Soviet Russia. They don't operate in the same timeframe and hence have different standards. Obviously everyone knows that all societies get more liberal with time. You don't have to do any particular analysis to arrive at this conclusion. Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia is a fair comparison since they were in existence in the same timeframe. 1925-1950. Not just in ideology, but also in practice. Women were employed in mass numbers in the workforce and in universities in Stalin's Russia. Women were expected to be caregivers at home and also participate in the workforce. 40% of the women were employed in the workforce. But in Nazi Germany women, were banned from such activities. Women were expected to be caregivers at home only. The only time when women worked in jobs was because there weren't enough men because they were at war. So Stalin's Russia was objectively more liberal than Nazi Germany. The sheer numbers prove that. You miss this nuance when you club all them together as conservatives by evaluating them with the standards of 2024 America.

It was very beneficial to slaves as well. Think about it. Would you be willing to be subjected stage purple tribal cruelty in some burning hellhole in African desert drinking parasite infested deer blood, and die from malaria OR You can live in America as a slave to some white dude. He will make you do slave labour but feed you well and clothe you. But he wouldn't give you basic human respect. But you would not be getting basic human respect in tribes in Africa anyway. I am not saying the latter is heaven but blue oppression is orders of magnitude better than purple oppression which is what blacks had to endure in their tribes in Africa. Even today parts of Africa are terribly undeveloped that world has ignored it's existence. Stage red warfare is a daily occurrence in vast portions of it. Most places are still using the bridges that the whites built when they came there. Do you want your kids to be living there? Those kids of those slaves who were transported to America had more opportunities to succeed in life than billions of other people in the world by having born in America alone. They should be thankful to have been born in America, the land of opportunities when considering the alternative that they are born in Africa. There are no opportunity in Africa because the geography and climate is so fucked. You can only do so much. So it was a fair trade, at the time. Now don't jump on me. The keywords are "at the time". At the time, slave trade was a fair transaction when you take into account what both parties received and didn't suffer.

AI did all most of the comparison relative to 2024. It didn't compare Nazi Germany with Soviet Union and the nuances of it. It compared Nazi Germany and USSR, relative to 2024 so obviously all of them looked like they were right wing totalitarians, which they were, according to 2024 America. That's not a fair comparison. USSR was far more progressive, liberal & embodied true leftist values compared to Nazi Germany. This is excluding all the totalitarians brutal dictatorship. There were textbooks leftist policies that were enacted during their regimes that was just as brutal as their totalitarian control. AI ignored this nuance. Both were ideologies that functioned at the same timeframe. So it's fair to compare them with each other according to the standards that existed during 1925-50.

Technically you can, but you have to explicitly mention the years and then do the analysis. What you cannot do is to club together everyone as if they were conservatives simply because they are not liberal enough to fit in 2024 America where men can get pregnant. If I have to prove that USSR was liberal, I just have to compare them to conservatives at the time. Which I will do shortly.

There are two things that severely bias the conversation between liberalism and conservatism. I want to get that out of the way before I get into the specifics of the conversation. 1. Definition problem. An idea of something will never have a one to one correspondence with reality. Which means that ideologies will never check all the boxes once it is implemented in reality. This is true for all ideologies. Let's take democracy or capitalism for example. Many people say that we do not have perfect democracy in the united states or anywhere in the world. The people really do not get to choose the people they elect and the current system is only vaguely similar to democracy. Even democracy will evolve to more advanced states in the future where the common folk gets to have more say in governance. Will we look back and say 2024 democracy was a farce compared to real democracy. This is not right. What we have right now is democracy, for all the rights and purposes. This is also true for capitalism and free markets. Many people do not believe that we do not have capitalism at all in the world today since all the requirements of capitalism are not checked. If you try to implement capitalism in reality, what you get is capitalism. If you try to implement communism in reality, what you get is communism. If you try to implement democracy in reality, what you get is democracy. If you try to implement Nazism in reality, what you get is Nazism. IF you try to implement Monarchy in reality, that is what you get. Is it perfect democracy? No. But it doesn't have to. If implementing democracy leads to a terrible governance then, it is the problem with democracy. An ideology in reality will never check all the boxes and you should not expect it to. It will barely come to 80% at best. That is good enough. So when you try to do something and it ends up in a clusterfuck, you cannot switch course and say it is the problem with reality that it does not accept your ideas. Reality is what it is. Things will not turn out the way you expect it. Of course. The blame is on you for not seeing it from the beginning. Your ideology obviously hold many inconsistencies. That is the problem with the ideology. You can have better version of it in the future. But it does not invalidate the fuckups in the past. Also in point, development is a proxy for resources and abundance. When you say people were not developed, what you are saying is that there isn't enough resources. Do not blame the development of the people. Blame the lack of resources. If I put 10 stage yellow people in a cage with one packet of bread and one bottle of water, you will see tribalism and gang warfare to secure those resources for survival. The problem is not in the development of those people. They act in such underdeveloped ways to secure resources and live. It is on you if you could not see that and implement and ideology that does not take into account the resources at disposal. If you do not have enough, resources to implement your ideology, then first make the resources you want for you to implement your ideology. If you want to build a house, then first you have to acquire the concrete, and water and labour for building the shit. And if if it fails to the ground, your ideology is stupid. If you did not have the resources for the ideology, then do not implement it. It is easy to implement any ideology where you have infinite resources at disposal. But you need to come down to reality. You will never have enough resources at your disposal. Even monarchy would not have failed it there was infinite resources at your disposal. Any ideology could succeed with enough resources at hand. The point is that you have to play within those constraints. That is the point. 2. Relativism. Every period of time in history has it's own liberals and conservatives. If you want to engage in meaningful discourse, you should compare the liberals of that time with the conservatives of that time. Else anyone can be conservative or liberal depending on the year you are comparing them against. Compare them with the standards of their time. You cannot compare the liberals of 2024 with the liberals of 2048 or 1848. Same for the conservatives. I see this mistake happen over and over again. This is not how you do meaningful discourse. Pick a year or a decade. Then see who the liberals and conservatives of that time. What I see happening is that you label everything from the past as conservative and thereby all the bad stuff is assigned to conservatism. But you think of them as conservatives using the standards of 2024 and that makes it look like liberal never existed prior to 2024. So once you pick a time period, stick to it. If these two things are clear, I can go on to comment on the conversation.

I cannot picture that. Colonial slavery and corporate slavery occured in two different ages, hundreds of years apart. The answer is always, it depends. On the situation.

I wound not be in any.

I am impressed by the articulation, but it does not give new ideas characteristic of emergent thinking. Just that it works well within the constraints that you give it. Anyway I cannot make any such expectation. It is just an AI after all. But I am impressed with connecting new ideas like a real general intelligence would do. So the AI is nothing close to tier 2 thinking. I have noticed many covert biases within the conversation, which is impressive regardless. It is mostly has to do with an abuse of relativism, not emphasizing the nuances and in general a bias towards liberalism. It is somewhat complicated. I will discuss them in new posts separately since the whole discussion is not easy to reduce to simple points.

Slavery is now termed as "employment". Slavery 2.0.

So what? The slaves were the conservatives of the time. Liberals owned them. You should take relativity into account. You cannot judge the past using the standards of today. If you are using standards of arbitrary times for assessing liberalism or conservatism, then almost everyone is conservative or anyone can be liberal. The whole exercise loses meaning. Fix a point in time and then do the analysis. When assessing liberals and conservatives of the past, use the past standards for assessing liberalism & conservatism. Also, how do you know who invented slavery? The motivation to venture into new lands and capture slaves was an exercise in bringing "civilization" and liberalism to uncultured and uncivilized barbarians who had to be taught liberal ways of living. So please take credit for inventing slavery as well. You don't say anything tangible or concrete. I am supposed to find out everything when I open my eyes? Just tell me what is it that I am going to find out when I open my eyes lmao.

Will liberals admit that their privilege & affluence they enjoy right now is a result of third world exploitation? Even the liberals of today don't own up to the slavery they profit off of. Their entire world view would crumble infront of their eyes if they own up to it. Even back then, the founding fathers of America, aka the racists were the forward thinking liberals of their time. So you are essentially blaming the liberals for owing slaves back then. Which is why the entire liberal virtual signalling is shallow, petty and deeply hypocritical. They want to guilt trip the conservatives into feeling bad and feel good as a result of it. The whole exercise is just soul crushing. I would stay 10 kilometres away from it.

That's evil only if you could change them. Labelling realities as evil is inherently soul crushing. It's a necessary evil at best. Liberals from a 100 years would probably call the capitalism of today as evil. But it is the best that we could come up with given the circumstances we were in.

Cool. But none of these things make him a conservative. He is paying lip service to entice power from whatever group his is sucking upto. He talks and even spews conservative vision but his actions tell you something else. Now forget everything Hitler said and look at what he did. Is that reflective of what a conservative would do? Also they way I accuse liberalism in Hitler is not as if his conservatism bites itself in the ass and whole thing ended in a shit show that's doesn't look like anything. I am saying that he was born with a relatively complex mind that wouldn't refrain from doing radical things, sort of thing you are likely to expect from Liberals. Only such people can envision complex systems like which hitler deviced. I was giving a simplication indeed. He definitely had a complex mind for sure. Even to write a book and having your thoughts organised is a skill in itself that you cannot expect from a typical conservative. I don't even question his intentions to be clear. Almost all parts of the world has some sort of sterilization policies going on, including India and China. Hitler definitely took it too far, but he got disproportionately more flak for something many more countries were guilty of doing which they managed to sweep under the rug.

@Leo Gura Simply put, hitler was a hurt man who wanted to get revenge and used whatever ideology he found on his way to achieve what he ought to get. It's doesn't make him an example of conservatism or liberalism, going by his actions. Liberalism isn't merely a characteristic that happens to only the upper portion of the spiral. Liberalism maxed out becomes anarchy and war and lawlessness, which is abundant lower down the spiral.

I was talking about his *actions*. The things he did do not speak anything to say he clung to the past. That's many things but that isn't characteristic of conservatism. You cannot deny that. It isn't a typical liberal either. It's just a version of radical liberalism. He was exercising his freedom to the max, the freedom to kill and eliminate all the un-aaryan race from the gene pool. Freedom at the cost of exploitation of others is not a foreign concept to liberalism. It doesn't fit the definition of liberalism, but that's what happens in reality. It's the liberals of the time that championed colonialism and progressive slave ownership. On a similar note: Do you think Trump clings to the past glory of America like he says? No. He will say whatever makes a the average normie conservative republicans wet. Just like Andrew Tate pays lip service to conservative ideology. They don't believe what they say and hence they are not true conservatives. Their audience are conservatives. Trump isn't a typical conservative. He leads the most degenerative life that's not reflective of conservatism, and simply coopted the conservative ideology as a means of power grab. In fact he was a former liberal democrat. If Stalin is a ruthless dictator who used progressive ideology to garner power for himself, it's not hard to think that Hitler, Trump, Tate are all people who lead lives that were not conservative, but tyrants who coopted and payed lip service to conservative ideology. How do I know that these right wing tyrants are not conservative? Because of their actions.

@Novac08 Do you think they(Hitler) appealed to conservative folks merely as a technique to garner support for their revolutionary/progressive world view? Nothing hitler did is what a conservative should do, since a leader is by definition a visionary. A liberal with a forward thinking plan for himself and his people.

By low development of people, you mean the apple executives including the CEO. Am I right? There is nothing stopping them opening manufacturing plant in the US or paying better salaries for the plants they open in third world countries. But they exploits people and convince liberals by gay ceo. This is their playbook. This is like bombing people on a plane while the pilot is LGBTQ so all is fine. It too east to have someone as a gay ceo. It's doesn't take too much work. Anyone can put up a website and write things that pander to liberals. Just give the solution already. What is the green solution? Green is not the solution to the problems of the last stage. Rather, the last stage runs to completion and as a consequence, you move to the next stage. You cannot solve orange problem by pushing for green. That's not how that works. This is something I agree. But that doesn't fit into the traditional notion of liberalism. Do you think that Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos is a liberal? They advocate for massive changes in society and work towards it. But they wouldn't be considered as liberal today, atleast not politically. If you can agree that Elon Musk is a liberal, then I can agree with everything you said. There is a huge challenge in assessing who is a liberal and who is a conservative. I don't believe that you can exploit people to death, appoint some gay or women to be the CEO and claim to be progressive. I am not being cynical of green. I am against exploiting people and whitewashing it all as progressive green stuff. Aka conservatism, going by their actions. Yellow is all about embodying conservatism and applying it to systems. It's about making the tiniest changes that it doesn't even record as a change. Much like evolution. This is the only right way to deal with giant complicated system. This is also where I fundamentally disagree that right is inherently lower than the left. Because the left can be just as dangerous when they come up with whacky ideas and burn everything down to ground, thereby undoing years of progress in the process. For ex: Unchecked immigration. That spiral is just a vague model that someone came up with. EDT is much better in my opinion. SD allows room for too much misinterpretation and flexibility. Reality doesn't strictly adhere to SD model. True liberal thinking, must have some impact on society if it has to be relevant. And that doesn't have in liberal circles, but in corporate and economic world. A true liberal wouldn't even fit well within these places because it would be too limiting for them.

Except that there is no solution. Definitely not a solution that Green liberals can bring. You simply say green woowo bs will solve everything, but doesn't give any exact path that explains how it will solve these problems. Green is not an action oriented ideology at all. Unlike the capitalists. If there is any solution at all, that is coming from capitalists who make capital to do the work. The only solution to stop modern day slavery is more capitalism. It is to build capital that does the slave labour for you so that people will not be exploited. Green liberals are not doing the work for that for sure. They are the ones standing in the way when it comes to building capital. For ex in Nuclear energy. ---------- Liberalism is a constant failure when it comes to policy decisions for a reason. You simply cannot orchestrate massive changes to any large and complex system. You have to be conservative and gentle or else the backlash from the system will be too harsh and the price will be too large. Liberalism almost never works in big systems. At the individual level, it is somewhat okay, given that you are a direct beneficiary of exploitation, or even the individual itself becomes a complex system too sensitive to changes, rendering liberalism a waste.

Slavery was justified in the name of bringing civilization to savages. The liberals of the day were the powerful slave owners. They were the ones who set out to the sails the seas to find and enslave new tribes. Leo is using the standards of today to judge people of the past and attributing all the shit they did to conservatives. But in reality those powerful people who did all the slavery were liberals of the time. That's conveniently ignored. Conservatives of the were the broke slaves who did all the labour. Even today, the liberal world is the direct beneficiary of third world exploitation and slavery. The liberal world view can be sustained only in abundance, which can be facilitated only by stealing from the productivity of the slave labour. Back then, the most forward thinking people had to be slave owners for a reason. That's the only way they could free up their mind to think liberally. In what sense did any of the things that hitler did was "clinging to the past". He was a bleeding edge liberal it seems. Because he envisioned a utopia that no one before has thought of before. He orchestrated radical changes in society which conservatives argue against. Conservative position is to maintain the status quo. What hitler did was to radically alter the fabric of society itself. Going by the simply definition of change = liberal. Clinging to status quo/past = conservative. Hiter tried to orchestrate massive changes to society. That that saw the end of him. The question is if they can sustain their liberalist world view without third world exploitation? And also can you mention the green aspects that apple has outside of their technical innovation, which is essentially the work of an orange cold capitalist. Their green outlook is all talk and virtue signalling. Even in the US they are playing crony capitalist style monopolistic games. Just because they have a gay ceo is enough for them to become progressive? Apple could choose to set up their factories within US soil and be as liberal as they want. But they didn't choose to do it. Like Andrew Tate, they set up their manufacturing in third world countries with loose human rights laws where you can work those people to death. And many people have killed themselves by working in these factories.

@aurum Do you think Apple Corporation is conservative or liberal? All relevant info was included in my post you quoted. I chose the Apple case since this is a practical situation that we both are familiar with and you can engage in as much nuance as necessary.

On the other hand, those rapists were liberals exercising their freedom to free sex and abundance. Those who refrain from giving free sex were the ones who were too conservative and regressive in nature. They simply were not open enough to enjoy sex like bold liberals. You can spin these things any way you want.

What are your standards for being "healthy"? And why is capitalism *inherently* unhealthy? As long as you don't go wolf of Wall Street style capitalism, it's good enough. The problem is when people think they are too smart to replace it comes up with some crap that's even worse. Healthy markets and economy is a function of the government. They set the rules.