[Politics_Observer]

But that doesn't matter because the way things were in the States before Reagan were NOT socialist. Having high paying wages, labour unions, and better welfare has nothing to do with socialism.

You could use those things to get to socialism, even though by definition, that's not what socialism is. But the States never used those pre Reagan economics to get to socialism.

The United States is a religious, family oriented, materialistic, and celebrity obsessed state that used high wages, unions, and welfare to get to that. What you said has nothing to do with socialism. This shows that you don't understand what socialism is, thus making your opinionated statements as useless.

Well I agree, but my goal is not to turn the United States into Soviet Republics where the means of production are commonly owned through the state. I do not want to see the US economy turned into an economy that is a total and completely planned socialist economy. My goal is not economic equality either. Economic inequality is not in and of itself objectionable. The focus should not be on economic equality but rather on reducing poverty and excessive affluence. That may very well entail a reduction of inequality.

The reduction of inequality cannot be our primary goal. Economic equality is not a compelling idea. Instead our efforts should be to repair a society where in which many have far too little while others have the comfort and influence that go with having more than enough. Those who are much better off have a serious advantage over those who are less affluent.

It's an advantage they tend to exploit in pursuing inappropriate influence over electoral and regulatory processes. The anti-democratic effects of this advantage must be dealt with, partly with legislation and regulation designed to protect such processes from abuse or being eliminated altogether.

What is morally important is that each should have enough and not necessarily the same. If everyone had enough money, it would be of no special concern whether some people had more money than others. Economic equality for it's own sake is a mistake in my view. If the view of economic equality is pushed far too much then you will inevitably end up with a situation where everybody is equal but nobody has enough.

So, it would seem our central goal is not such economic equality through an entirely state owned planned economy, but rather more a doctrine of sufficiency where not everybody is equal but everybody has enough. This comes through a mixed economy with social programs and private enterprise and proper legislation and regulation. However, these pieces of legislation and regulation need to be protected from distortion, manipulation and abuse once finally enacted.


References

Frankfurt, Harry G. "Chapter 1 Economic Equality as a Moral Ideal." On Inequality, Princeton University Press, 2015, pp. 1-9.

[SSDR]

Well I agree, but my goal is not to turn the United States into Soviet Republics where the means of production are commonly owned through the state. I do not want to see the US economy turned into an economy that is a total and completely planned socialist economy. My goal is not economic equality either. Economic inequality is not in and of itself objectionable. The focus should not be on economic equality but rather on reducing poverty and excessive affluence. That may very well entail a reduction of inequality.

The reduction of inequality cannot be our primary goal. Economic equality is not a compelling idea. Instead our efforts should be to repair a society where in which many have far too little while others have the comfort and influence that go with having more than enough. Those who are much better off have a serious advantage over those who are less affluent.

It's an advantage they tend to exploit in pursuing inappropriate influence over electoral and regulatory processes. The anti-democratic effects of this advantage must be dealt with, partly with legislation and regulation designed to protect such processes from abuse or being eliminated altogether.

What is morally important is that each should have enough and not necessarily the same. If everyone had enough money, it would be of no special concern whether some people had more money than others. Economic equality for it's own sake is a mistake in my view. If the view of economic equality is pushed far too much then you will inevitably end up with a situation where everybody is equal but nobody has enough.

So, it would seem our central goal is not such economic equality through an entirely state owned planned economy, but rather more a doctrine of sufficiency where not everybody is equal but everybody has enough. This comes through a mixed economy with social programs and private enterprise and proper legislation and regulation. However, these pieces of legislation and regulation need to be protected from distortion, manipulation and abuse once finally enacted.


References

Frankfurt, Harry G. "Chapter 1 Economic Equality as a Moral Ideal." On Inequality, Princeton University Press, 2015, pp. 1-9.

Your first paragraph makes you sound very liberal. And there is no "our" goal since we have different politics.

There were slaves that had enough. There were even wealthy slaves in the Ottoman Empire. There are women who are ruled by their husbands who have more than enough. Just because someone has enough, doesn't mean anything. That has nothing to do with progressivism.

"Our" goal in this case is to combat the far right, and those who support slavery.

[Politics_Observer]

Your first paragraph makes you sound very liberal. And there is no "our" goal since we have different politics.

There were slaves that had enough. There were even wealthy slaves in the Ottoman Empire. There are women who are ruled by their husbands who have more than enough. Just because someone has enough, doesn't mean anything. That has nothing to do with progressivism.

"Our" goal in this case is to combat the far right, and those who support slavery.

That's because I AM very liberal. What is YOUR OTHER goals besides combating fascism if it is not to make the lives of working people better and to help them move up the ladder and gain access to things like a good university or trade school education? Is it REALLY your end goal to make the lives of working people better as a communist? I would also argue that ultimately, hatred is not a fuel in the long term but a poison looking at your signature. A very dangerous sort of poison that can be bring great harm to one's self and to others.

[SSDR]

That's because I AM very liberal. What is YOUR OTHER goals besides combating fascism if it is not to make the lives of working people better and to help them move up the ladder and gain access to things like a good university or trade school education? Is it REALLY your end goal to make the lives of working people better as a communist?

This response is also very liberal. Valuing someone according to the "good" university that they attend promotes social hierarchy. Just because someone doesn't go to an university doesn't make them a "loser."

The only useful things that universities or trade schools do is educate people onto doing talented occupations such as electricians, HVAC technicians, plumbers, machinists, or surgeons. Society needs people like that, and the more people that are like that, the better.

But society also needs untalented labour. Assembly labourers, farmers, delivery drivers, truck drivers, custodians, shelf stockers, and painters are also needed. If everyone went to an university and became a talented "professional," then who's gonna stock food on shelves? Who's gonna deliver things? Who's gonna harvest crops? Who's gonna sweep floors and clean public toilets?

"As a communist?" There is no such valid response as that. It sounds like you view it as a belief, and there is nothing to believe in. It's all about realizing things via gaining real consciousness.

[Politics_Observer]

This response is also very liberal. Valuing someone according to the "good" university that they attend promotes social hierarchy. Just because someone doesn't go to an university doesn't make them a "loser."

The response I gave that you are indicating with the quote above was just identifying my political beliefs. Which anybody can do that without being a liberal. I referenced the author of the book because the ideas I was expressing came from his book which is his intellectual property. That intellectual property does not belong to me. So I can't take credit for somebody else's intellectual property. That's plagiarism. I certainly don't view the working class as "losers." Many them work in some very terrible conditions and work very hard. I mean, it's tough being working class. Very tough. They are just trying to play the hand they were dealt in their life to the best of their ability.

We all have a responsibility to assure that working class members have the ability to move up the ladder and or assure that their kids are able to move up the ladder and have a better life. We also have an obligation to assure that these workers have decent pay, safe working conditions and a REAL voice in the working place and that they have REAL access to higher education or a good trade school. By REAL access to higher education, that means not being drowned in crushing student loan debt and having a means to escape the very exploitative and vicious cycle of poverty that many working class members find themselves in.

Their is so much more to a university education than just mere jobs training. Jobs training is important because people need to make a living. But just having jobs training alone is not a real education. You have to have a well rounded, in depth education with some breadth too. Like how to write for example. Critical thinking skills and an appreciation for creativity as well as the arts. Jobs training is a key and important part of education but it's also just one part.

Aside from the all that, what are ways to identify and recognize fascism in your view?

[SSDR]

@Politics_Observer When you reply, press the "@" button, and then put my name (if you type it, it will pop up) so that way, I get a notification that you replied to me, and that we all know who you're talking to when you're replying.

It is not "tough" to be working class. It is oppressive to be working class. Stressing out about bills and money, having to worry about managers and owners terminating you for not liking you, and especially in conservative economies, lacking financial security is oppressive and shitty.

Move up what "ladder?" I do not understand what you view by that.

Education teaches people talents and skills that they need to do their part in society. Education also exercises brains of younger people, so that their natural intelligence can develop a little more. That's all there is to education. "Critical communication skills" are not needed. It is all wasteful and inefficient. Americans being obsessed with "customer service" is not needed to motivate people to work.

Ways to identify and recognize fascists, ultraconservatives, far rightists, and Catholic shunners?

- They are shame inflicting. They shame anyone who goes against their beliefs, and authorities.

- They are overly emotional. They tend to express everything emotionally.

- Men are super bossy. If you go against that, they will intimidate you, shame you, and say that "feminism teaches you to go against those values."

- Women are ignorant and lazy. They say that "thanks to feminism, "I" have to do a "man's" job."

- They are VERY strict. No cursing. No drinking. No masturbation. No going against the family institution. No reporting domestic abuse.

- They are VERY "Anti Communistic." They will enforce family ceremonies and celebrations. They will enforce patriarchy. They are very aggressive in an anti feminist manner. Their men are very aggressive, and their women are weak and ignorant. They are against social egalitarianism. They are like knifes stabbing a liberated heart.

- They are very sexist. They expect women to be obedient. Their men are EXTREMELY aggressive and uncomfortable to be around with.

- The Catholic far rightists, which are FAR WORSE than fascists, are very shunning. They shame ANYONE who goes against ANYTHING they believe in.

- People in this part of the political spectrum make working conditions uncomfortable as a way to motivate workers to work. Since it's uncomfortable, they expect the workers to use religion, and/or fascist politics to cope with these social conditions.

Below, are some pictures of people with these oppressive politics.









They look aggressive, anti relaxed, and strict. And they expect you to use their politics to cope with that.

[Politics_Observer]

@SSDR

When you reply, press the "@" button, and then put my name (if you type it, it will pop up) so that way, I get a notification that you replied to me, and that we all know who you're talking to when you're replying.

It is not "tough" to be working class. It is oppressive to be working class. Stressing out about bills and money, having to worry about managers and owners terminating you for not liking you, and especially in conservative economies, lacking financial security is oppressive and shitty.

Move up what "ladder?" I do not understand what you view by that.

Education teaches people talents and skills that they need to do their part in society. Education also exercises brains of younger people, so that their natural intelligence can develop a little more. That's all there is to education. "Critical communication skills" are not needed. It is all wasteful and inefficient. Americans being obsessed with "customer service" is not needed to motivate people to work.

Ways to identify and recognize fascists, ultraconservatives, far rightists, and Catholic shunners?

- They are shame inflicting. They shame anyone who goes against their beliefs, and authorities.

- They are overly emotional. They tend to express everything emotionally.

- Men are super bossy. If you go against that, they will intimidate you, shame you, and say that "feminism teaches you to go against those values."

- Women are ignorant and lazy. They say that "thanks to feminism, "I" have to do a "man's" job."

- They are VERY strict. No cursing. No drinking. No masturbation. No going against the family institution. No reporting domestic abuse.

- They are VERY "Anti Communistic." They will enforce family ceremonies and celebrations. They will enforce patriarchy. They are very aggressive in an anti feminist manner. Their men are very aggressive, and their women are weak and ignorant. They are against social egalitarianism. They are like knifes stabbing a liberated heart.

- They are very sexist. They expect women to be obedient. Their men are EXTREMELY aggressive and uncomfortable to be around with.

- The Catholic far rightists, which are FAR WORSE than fascists, are very shunning. They shame ANYONE who goes against ANYTHING they believe in.

- People in this part of the political spectrum make working conditions uncomfortable as a way to motivate workers to work. Since it's uncomfortable, they expect the workers to use religion, and/or fascist politics to cope with these social conditions.

Below, are some pictures of people with these oppressive politics.

They look aggressive, anti relaxed, and strict. And they expect you to use their politics to cope with that.

You're better off to outsmart rather than outfight your political opponents. I have worked working class jobs before. Work isn't easy and you are going to have to put up with some bullshit in the work place. That's just life. No such thing as easy money. Yes, sometimes, hard work doesn't pay when you don't have unions representing you, the cost of living is outrageous and working people are suffering from wage stagnation. Hard work has got to pay too, so those are legitimate gripes that the working class has.

Yes, you got to deal with difficult personalities some that are sociopathic and narcissistic that seem to climb the corporate ladder faster (and part of that is due to a lack of unions to check these type people who use, manipulate and stab others in the back to move up). By "ladder" I mean moving up economically, which I think you know what I meant.

I don't know where you are from but you sound like you are from one of the Scandinavian countries which tend to be much more feminist and have more laws protecting women's rights. Of course, that is just a guess which could be incorrect. You seem to downplay the value of education and training in skills that are heavily in demand. Education is extraordinarily important and needs to be accessible. Accessibility is a problem in the United States. Plus, if an economy is to be more productive, you need more educated people and if a nation is not turning out enough educated people, the the economy will be less competitive and suffer.

It sounds like you have zeroed in on men with your description of fascists. It's natural for guys to be macho sometimes as long as it's not taken too far. It's part of how we are hardwired. It's part of having a lot of testosterone and no woman wants a man who is weak and submissive. Plus, nobody respects a "bossed around husband." That being said, men should of course respect women, not be domineering over them and their rights to equal pay for the same work and having the same job opportunities plus the right to an abortion (it's their body and their life). Also, can't women be fascist too? Is the definition of fascism merely based on the appearance and behaviors of people?

[SSDR]

@Politics_Observer,

That's why you're a capitalist, because you think work isn't "easy" so you're using liberalism and capitalism to motivate you. I am a worker, and I am working class, yet I do not view my occupation as "difficult" because it needs to be done. Floors need to be mopped. Construction material and furniture need to be delivered. Coal needs to be mined. Shelves need to be stocked. It's not "hard." You believe that these needed services are "hard" so you're using capitalism to motivate you.

"Personalities" have nothing to do with occupations. You work to work. Not for drama or social bullshit. "Get Your Money And Go Home." Is how one should work in a capitalist economy.

Feminism is not just about "women's rights." It's about ending men to be forced to act masculine and disrespectful. When men act like this, this forces people to want to start their own companies, so that no man is bossed around another. This makes the economy domestic, thus enforcing the family institution, because no masculine man wants to listen to any bossy man besides his father. Education is needed, but some occupations tend to waste a lot of labour. People can pull paper towel, so why does one have to waste knowledge and electricity to invent an automatic paper towel giver where it can sense your hand? It's far easier to just pull.

"Accessibility is a problem in the United States."

- The United States is the WEALTHIEST state in the world. There are fat poor people. There are homeless people who wear expensive shoes. Food is so accessible. American homes are huge! And Americans also waste A LOT. People also misuse welfare there too. There was this one girl that someone I knew lived in the States, and she was given 400 USD per month of food stamps, she has herself and one daughter, and SHE USED IT ALL IN THREE WEEKS!

Men who are "macho" were conditioned to act like this to keep the economy domestic. Men are not "hardwired" to be macho. They HAVE to act like that because that's part of a masculine culture. Americans are masculine people who are big and muscular. Having lots of testosterone is bad, and dangerous. There are lots of women who want men who are not bossy, and who are respectful. Women who are not like that are traitors of feminism. Anti feminists do not respect men who are not bossy. And yes there are many fascist women. And what you just claimed is what fascist women tend to say. Your final paragraph makes you sound more anti feminist, and more conservative leaning. Fascists also say what you just claimed. But we all individually have our own views.

Fascist women are shame inflicting, ignorant, money loving (many are somewhat gold diggers), weak, lazy (they don't want to do a "man's job"), and more lame looking. Fascist women are also very family oriented, they love drama and love to go to stressful family ceremonies.

[Politics_Observer]

@SSDR

That's why you're a capitalist, because you think work isn't "easy" so you're using liberalism and capitalism to motivate you. I am a worker, and I am working class, yet I do not view my occupation as "difficult" because it needs to be done. Floors need to be mopped. Construction material and furniture need to be delivered. Coal needs to be mined. Shelves need to be stocked. It's not "hard." You believe that these needed services are "hard" so you're using capitalism to motivate you.

I am not part of the elite nor do I consider myself working class. I come from a middle class family. That being said, I know what work is and I haven't seen any easy work or easy money. I have inherited some of the advantages that originate from being in a middle class family but I have also had to work hard. I work hard because I need to and I have an incentive to at times. Plus, I like to set goals and work towards those goals. Goal setting is important. That being said, since we are talking about classes in society, I think it's important to dispel a myth about classes.

There are not three classes. Typically, most people believe that there are three classes when in fact there are six classes. At least, there are six classes in the society where I am from which is the United States. These six classes consist of the underclass, working poor, working class, middle class, upper middle class and then the elite upper crust. Here is a diagram to show and demonstrate the various social and economic classes that exist in my society here in the United States:

"Personalities" have nothing to do with occupations. You work to work. Not for drama or social bullshit. "Get Your Money And Go Home." Is how one should work in a capitalist economy.

That's not how it works anywhere I have seen. It helps do a good job but that's not everything when it comes to keeping and holding down a job. You got to learn to navigate and deal with sometimes very difficult personalities in addition to doing a good job. Even if you do an outstanding job you can still still lose your job if you are not skilled in navigating and deal with difficult personalities in the workplace. They are their and you got to have the skills and strategy to deal with them when you run across them. It's also a good idea to do research on company before accepting a job with them.

If you don't, you could very well be taking a job with a company that has a very toxic work environment. I generally like to use Glassdoor.com to research what kind of reviews past employees have left for a company on what's like to work for them. That way I know whether I should take a chance on working with that company. You see, the thing it's important to understand, is that it's not just the company taking a chance on you. You are taking a chance on the company you accept a job with. You want to make sure you are not getting hired into a bad situation before taking a job with them or that you will end up in a toxic work environment. That's why doing your research and reading past reviews left on companies by past employees is important to read up on.

Feminism is not just about "women's rights." It's about ending men to be forced to act masculine and disrespectful. When men act like this, this forces people to want to start their own companies, so that no man is bossed around another. This makes the economy domestic, thus enforcing the family institution, because no masculine man wants to listen to any bossy man besides his father. Education is needed, but some occupations tend to waste a lot of labour. People can pull paper towel, so why does one have to waste knowledge and electricity to invent an automatic paper towel giver where it can sense your hand? It's far easier to just pull.

Women have a lot of power already. If you don't like men being disrespectful don't reward bad behavior. Women have the sexual power of selection and sometimes women reward bad behavior by selecting the "bad boys." So don't tolerate and reward bad behavior and you will see less men acting disrespectful. Women have a big influence on how men act because they have the sexual power. Women are the selectors. That's just the way it is. That being said, their is an aspect to men where there is a level of testosterone and masculinity and that's just part of our nature. Men like to be competitive and compete. Men have to show themselves worthy to women by being competitive.

If men were not competitive, then the human species would be more susceptible to disease and have worse off genes which would harm our survival as a species. So being competitive with testosterone assures that men compete with each other and women select the best to assure the survival of the species. That's why those species who reproduce sexually rather than asexually have less disease and are better able to survive. It's a practical necessity that evolution created two sexes where one sex is the selector and the other sex compete with each other for the favor of the opposite sex. It assures the species evolve over time with better genes to grant that species a better chance of surviving and not going extinct.

[SSDR]

@Politics_Observer,

You sound very American. That's part of Yankee culture, they throw away energy to deal with "personalities." Stock shelves. Put bricks on walls. Drive semi trucks. Sweep floors. Perform surgeries. Bake bread. Everything relates to the occupation, and then once a work day is over, one leaves and lives their personal life. Make sure everything relates to the occupation (unless if it's emergency medical, natural disaster, or transportation issues) and don't have any off occupation topics brought in.

Don't care about other workers. Do you part, and leave. It's that simple. You're not at your job to start/have drama. You are there to contribute to the survival of humanity (work).

Women who fall for "bad boys" are self enslaving.

Your last paragraph makes you sound more like a Nazi in a bad way.

[Politics_Observer]

@SSDR

You sound very American. That's part of Yankee culture, they throw away energy to deal with "personalities." Stock shelves. Put bricks on walls. Drive semi trucks. Sweep floors. Perform surgeries. Bake bread. Everything relates to the occupation, and then once a work day is over, one leaves and lives their personal life. Make sure everything relates to the occupation (unless if it's emergency medical, natural disaster, or transportation issues) and don't have any off occupation topics brought in.

In my experience, it can also be very much part of German culture too. Germans are human being like Americans too and are not immune from drama. Life is not so simple and cut and dry. You have to have some level of social intelligence in knowing how to deal with people. Sure cultures are different. Can be radically different sometimes. But I have dealt with Germans before (and from what I read of some of your other posts I am left with the notion that you are German).

Don't care about other workers. Do you part, and leave. It's that simple. You're not at your job to start/have drama. You are there to contribute to the survival of humanity (work).

I do care about other workers. I have to work with them. You can't achieve anything without teamwork. My past successes have NEVER come by doing EVERYTHING ALL BY MYSELF. I had help from family and friends and fellow workers. Without that help, I would not enjoy some of the successes I have had in life. Other people deserve to be happy too (and that includes workers and those who are not born into wealth and privilege). Not just you or me. And I am happy to help them find happiness.

That being said, whether you be German or American and I have dealt with Germans, drama is part of human nature (and that goes for Germans too) and you just have to learn to navigate it sometimes or to deal with it in a constructive way. Some people you can't get along with and those are the ones you try to avoid when and if you can.

Women who fall for "bad boys" are self enslaving.

I couldn't agree more but a lot of them do.

Your last paragraph makes you sound more like a Nazi in a bad way.

I acknowledge that it probably does to some degree except I would never agree to putting the disabled into concentration camps or trying to create a "superior race." I believe in protecting and helping the disabled and not picking on people just because they were not born of the best gene pool. But, the reason why I made that statement was because i was reading about why humans reproduce sexually and not asexual like some other species do. The reason according to scientists in the article I was reading is that it enables to assure competition and the best survival of the best genes.

Species that reproduce sexually are not as susceptible to disease and have a better chance at survival than those species who reproduce asexually. Species who reproduce asexually tend to have more diseases and more problems because their is no competition. Capitalism is also based on competition too just like the mating game in species that reproduce sexually instead of asexually.

However, just because I am a capitalist doesn't mean I am a Nazi and just because I think that men compete for the favor of females doesn't mean I am a Nazi either. The science article I read came from a very well respected publication that is not slanted towards political views. It was just a scientific publication that your ordinary scientist would read, but that doesn't mean these scientists are Nazis either. Their job is to be objective and scientific as possible. Doesn't mean they are a Nazis though or that they believe in a "superior race" or eliminating those who do not have the best genes.

I am a middle age gentleman, and from my experience, beauty in women is just a depreciating asset that disappears with time and men tend to have bidding wars on women who were born with beauty. I tend to look for the "hidden" value of the neglected less beautiful women. Beauty never lasts forever in most cases and when the beauty is gone, what do you have left in a wife as a man?

If you are not willing to make a commitment as a man, you will live an unhappy, shallow and empty life. You also want to be sure that what you commit to in life is healthy and good for you. Committing to things that will be good and healthy for you is important to have a happy and fulfilling life. So, for me, beauty is not skin deep and true beauty cannot be seen or touched but can only be felt with the heart. I am like the capitalist value investor looking for the neglected company that nobody pays attention to and/or runs from. That is where the true wealth and true beauty is at. I value real long term substance over the short fleeting superficial.

[SSDR]

@SSDR



In my experience, it can also be very much part of German culture too. Germans are human being like Americans too and are not immune from drama. Life is not so simple and cut and dry. You have to have some level of social intelligence in knowing how to deal with people. Sure cultures are different. Can be radically different sometimes. But I have dealt with Germans before (and from what I read of some of your other posts I am left with the notion that you are German).



I do care about other workers. I have to work with them. You can't achieve anything without teamwork. My past successes have NEVER come by doing EVERYTHING ALL BY MYSELF. I had help from family and friends and fellow workers. Without that help, I would not enjoy some of the successes I have had in life. Other people deserve to be happy too (and that includes workers and those who are not born into wealth and privilege). Not just you or me. And I am happy to help them find happiness.

That being said, whether you be German or American and I have dealt with Germans, drama is part of human nature (and that goes for Germans too) and you just have to learn to navigate it sometimes or to deal with it in a constructive way. Some people you can't get along with and those are the ones you try to avoid when and if you can.



I couldn't agree more but a lot of them do.



I acknowledge that it probably does to some degree except I would never agree to putting the disabled into concentration camps or trying to create a "superior race." I believe in protecting and helping the disabled and not picking on people just because they were not born of the best gene pool. But, the reason why I made that statement was because i was reading about why humans reproduce sexually and not asexual like some other species do. The reason according to scientists in the article I was reading is that it enables to assure competition and the best survival of the best genes.

Species that reproduce sexually are not as susceptible to disease and have a better chance at survival than those species who reproduce asexually. Species who reproduce asexually tend to have more diseases and more problems because their is no competition. Capitalism is also based on competition too just like the mating game in species that reproduce sexually instead of asexually.

However, just because I am a capitalist doesn't mean I am a Nazi and just because I think that men compete for the favor of females doesn't mean I am a Nazi either. The science article I read came from a very well respected publication that is not slanted towards political views. It was just a scientific publication that your ordinary scientist would read, but that doesn't mean these scientists are Nazis either. Their job is to be objective and scientific as possible. Doesn't mean they are a Nazis though or that they believe in a "superior race" or eliminating those who do not have the best genes.

I am a middle age gentleman, and from my experience, beauty in women is just a depreciating asset that disappears with time and men tend to have bidding wars on women who were born with beauty. I tend to look for the "hidden" value of the neglected less beautiful women. Beauty never lasts forever in most cases and when the beauty is gone, what do you have left in a wife as a man?

If you are not willing to make a commitment as a man, you will live an unhappy, shallow and empty life. You also want to be sure that what you commit to in life is healthy and good for you. Committing to things that will be good and healthy for you is important to have a happy and fulfilling life. So, for me, beauty is not skin deep and true beauty cannot be seen or touched but can only be felt with the heart. I am like the capitalist value investor looking for the neglected company that nobody pays attention to and/or runs from. That is where the true wealth and true beauty is at. I value real long term substance over the short fleeting superficial.

People who are all about drama are self enslaving. That's what usually starts all of the problems, regardless of politics. People who are judgmental, dramatic, and crazy emotional, tend to be trouble makers. The most shitty parts of the existence of humanity, is dealing with social drama. That's what starts the most problems.

Yes we are humans. We use each other to survive. One used their mother when they were inside her womb. But trying to find happiness in that, usually starts problems. It causes useless drama, thus promoting problems.

Drama cannot be avoided. But, people who try to find subconscious happiness in anything they deal with tends to start problems, because finding those useless social constructs makes one do problematic activities.

You seem to strongly invest in seeking "happiness" because you need that to motivate you to work.

[Politics_Observer]

@SSDR

Of course, what motivates me to work is happily serving other people and also making money too. Though there is a "me" element to it, it can't be all about me, it's gotta be about other people too. You have to have meaning in your life. Serving a cause greater than yourself can be motivating in addition to getting paid for the work both together. Serving a cause greater than yourself brings meaning to your life but it's also nice to be rewarded for working hard and being well educated. It sucks though to work hard and not be rewarded for it.

So, it's sort of like a duality of both a "me" element and a "we" element so to speak that motivates me. I enjoy being happy and of course as human beings we are emotional creatures. I can be emotional too like anybody else. It's just part of our nature. I am not a believer of the British "stiff upper lip" or those who practice stoicism and seem to be unemotional. It is healthier and better for you to sometimes be emotional rather than trying to be emotionless all the time.

[Pants-of-dog]

Also, punching them in the face and deplatforming them.

[Pants-of-dog]

Oh wait, we are discussing nonviolent methods.

Milkshakes and deplatforming!

[Politics_Observer]

@Pants-of-dog

I am assuming the commies don't have any "non-violent" methods for combating fascism. I haven't seen a commie that fights there adversaries the Ghandi way. However, it would seem communists have a liking for the "re-education camp" method of combating fascism and other adversaries. Sort of like after the North Vietnamese won the Vietnam War all the South Vietnamese (except the South Vietnamese weren't fascists, just on the losing side of the Vietnam War) had to report for "re-education" to "learn the value of work." I think it would be safe to assume that one communist method for "combating fascism" would be to have them report for "re-education" in a "re-education camp."

[Pants-of-dog]

Please note that using militant methods against fascists works. WWII is the most obvious example.

But these days we do not need to go so far.

Two things have been shown to work with modern day fascists: public ridicule and deplatforming.

The first works because people seem them for who they are: advocates of a self serving ideology that would transform the rest of us into second class citizens (for the lucky ones).

The second works because we live in a capitalist society, and people with no money usually have no power.

[emilynghiem]

So, I am not a communist by any stretch of the imagination. Yet, I think there might be a few things we can learn from the commies. For example, what is fascism and how to fight it. That being said, the commies are not known for being all peace loving hippies who believe in non-violence. The literature on communism I have read is that most communists believe in violent global revolution. So, is there a way for some of us non-violent types to combat fascism in a constructive non-violent way? Do our communist friends on the forum have suggestions on how to combat fascism through constructive non-violent means? I figured you guys might have a few ideas on how to identify fascism and how to fight it constructively without war, violence or violent revolution.

Dear @Politics_Observer the most effective constructive way I know to work with people from opposing or conflicting ideologies is to EMBRACE and work with them, and use "reverse psychology." Apply their own philosophy back to themselves, and help them enforce and own their own systems.

For people wanting universal health care, help mentor and educate them on all the work it takes
to develop, run and own their own Health Care Cooperative Example: www.patientphysiciancooperatives.com

For people wanting to impose socialism on everyone else through govt, ask them about Christians imposing Christianity on everyone through Govt, including Spiritual Healing to save lives by curing physical, mental
and social ills for FREE. This will ALSO help them achieve universal care for all, by incorporating Christian
practices to cut the costs of crime and disease, so all those resources saved can pay for Socialist programs!

Give them what they want.

Show them that the way to get what they ask is to BUILD IT AND OWN IT THEMSELVES.
Then if the PEOPLE are the Government, then helping the PEOPLE to OWN the programs
and control of resources, the people DO BECOME self-governing.

I would WELCOME them and introduce them to all other Libertarians and Conservatives
who ALSO want people to regain full control of resources.

The socialists and communists will need one-on-one mentorship to build their own cooperatives
for workers to run. So I'd start introducing them to business leaders and investors
who can help them to achieve such lofty goals!

[SSDR]

@SSDR

Of course, what motivates me to work is happily serving other people and also making money too. Though there is a "me" element to it, it can't be all about me, it's gotta be about other people too. You have to have meaning in your life. Serving a cause greater than yourself can be motivating in addition to getting paid for the work both together. Serving a cause greater than yourself brings meaning to your life but it's also nice to be rewarded for working hard and being well educated. It sucks though to work hard and not be rewarded for it.

So, it's sort of like a duality of both a "me" element and a "we" element so to speak that motivates me. I enjoy being happy and of course as human beings we are emotional creatures. I can be emotional too like anybody else. It's just part of our nature. I am not a believer of the British "stiff upper lip" or those who practice stoicism and seem to be unemotional. It is healthier and better for you to sometimes be emotional rather than trying to be emotionless all the time.

Wanting a "reward" is used to control you. Buying "rewards" makes the elite more rich, so they manipulate you into thinking that way. Your reward for working is whatever you worked for. If you pave roads, then there are paved roads. If you deliver construction material, then workers can build homes and factories. If you perform heart surgery, you saved a worker's life. If you clean an office, then there is a clean office. If you cut grass, then the grass is elegant. If you assemble a car, then you helped build a car. That is how I view it.

Usually when someone's emotional, it's because their conditions or their environment put them in the situation to feel that way. If one creates an useless, stressful wedding with lots of social emotional constructs, then one in that environment may have to get those emotions produced because of what that environment produced. The same with harassment. Harassing someone puts them in a position to have emotions that produce the feelings of sadness, anger, or loathe.

[Politics_Observer]

@SSDR

Wanting a "reward" is used to control you. Buying "rewards" makes the elite more rich, so they manipulate you into thinking that way. Your reward for working is whatever you worked for. If you pave roads, then there are paved roads. If you deliver construction material, then workers can build homes and factories. If you perform heart surgery, you saved a worker's life. If you clean an office, then there is a clean office. If you cut grass, then the grass is elegant. If you assemble a car, then you helped build a car. That is how I view it.

Usually when someone's emotional, it's because their conditions or their environment put them in the situation to feel that way. If one creates an useless, stressful wedding with lots of social emotional constructs, then one in that environment may have to get those emotions produced because of what that environment produced. The same with harassment. Harassing someone puts them in a position to have emotions that produce the feelings of sadness, anger, or loathe.

Yeah, you definitely sound like a materialist and a communist which I am NO materialist or communist. I can't imagine living under such a system. Capitalism isn't about control so much as it's what works as long as it's governed by rules and regulation to the benefit of society. Humans are inherently selfish to some degree, so it appeals to our nature as humans to get us to work because it provides incentives that socialism can't provide. Sure humans can be selfless, but a more common characteristic of human beings is selfishness, which CAN be healthy so long as it is not taken to an extreme. If anything is taken to an extreme it can of course be unhealthy and bad for everybody. Even when the Soviets ruled Russia and the former Soviet republics capitalism couldn't be crushed because it is a fundamental part of human nature. But capitalism was officially illegal under the Soviet system so the capitalists in the Soviet Union was the mafia and the black market or what is commonly known today as the Russian mafia. So long as human beings exist, so will capitalism. It's never going to go away and it can't be crushed so long as man exists. Plus the Soviet elite (though they were not supposed to exist) had a taste for the finer things in life like anybody does. And who can blame them? And there were plenty of people will to supply it for the right price. Specifically from the mafia and the black market. In addition, socialism or a planned economy is not economically efficient due to a lack of incentives that appeal to our inherent human nature.