Best Philosopher Ever

[promethean75]

If Dr. Jakobi can promise that he won't gas the jews or invade Poland i see no reason why he can't be zee nazi of the forum.

Zee nazi's political idealogy is as sound as any other. The nationalism, economic isolationism, anti-immigration, and all that stuff... you can totally do that in philosophy. A lotta folks might not like you, but tough shit. Long as you got a decent base of people in agreement, you can damn near run your society any way ya'll want to.

There's also a lot of celebrity grandeur around zee nazi's too and it's difficult not to be fascinated by zem. Can anyone really say a military force since ancient Sparta has been as cool as zee nazi's? Shirley not. Dr. Jakobi may just be held in awe at the splendor of the third Reich. I mean, look at their fuckin uniforms. They were sporting Starwars uniforms thirty years before Lucas even read his first sci-fi novel.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So let me get this straight. To see de-industrialization and the decimation of a class of American workers; the opposition to forever wars; the lamentation of the undermining of (conservative) social mores; and noting the social impacts of excessive immigration is neo-Nazism?

[accelafine]

I don't see why not. Every other label has been abused to the point where political labels no longer mean anything. Even the very useful word 'liberal' has been rendered so meaningless by American ignoramuses that people feel the need to tack 'neo' onto it to distance themsevles from the outrageous abomination that it has been turned into.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Zee nazi's political idealogy is as sound as any other. The nationalism, economic isolationism, anti-immigration, and all that stuff... you can totally do that in philosophy. A lotta folks might not like you, but tough shit. Long as you got a decent base of people in agreement, you can damn near run your society any way ya'll want to.

That can’t be right: As sound as any other. You could attempt to say as valid as any other though.

It is true that one can concoct imagined ideologies in “philosophy”. LARPing on those planes is always possible, maybe even fun.

There is however nothing at all wrong with a position of opposition to excessive immigration, nor is there necessarily anything inherently immoral in the Conservative ideal of the preservation of a native demographic.

Your ironies lead you to confused postures, Promethean.

Long as you got a decent base of people in agreement, you can damn near run your society any way ya'll want to.

But that is not how it is going nor how it will go. The recent upsurge in postures of anti-immigration are reactive in nature. It is a counter-stance to a too liberal posture. And there is an activist pole that (I gather) is entirely pro-immigration. The battles will get worse not better.

“You people” are really bizarrely afflicted in your ability to see things straight, without amazing projection. What is the cause of this? I am dismayed.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I don't see why not. Every other label has been abused to the point where political labels no longer mean anything.

I think that we (on the forum) can be a bit more precise, accurate and fair.

Even the very useful word 'liberal' has been rendered so meaningless by American ignoramuses that people feel the need to tack 'neo' onto it to distance themselves from the outrageous abomination that it has been turned into.

That is a good point I think. But it has to do with the contamination of sound terminology.

[FlashDangerpants]

I have described my own position on many matters here in a thread titled Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok). That was in 2019, I probably hold broadly similar views today.

How odd. Given your tendency to hysteria and reactiveness (and shrilly screaming “Nazi!”) I would never have imagined you would advocate for Neo-Liberalism as a political and economic commitment. I must admit that l will have to revise my image of you. (Try to act less freaky, at least for a while, as I get this sorted out).

Neo-liberalism is an economic ideology that emphasizes free market principles, deregulation, and reduction of government intervention in economic matters. It advocates for:

- Privatization of public services
- Free trade
- Globalization
- Reduced social welfare spending
- Increased focus on individual responsibility

Critics argue it can lead to increased inequality and exploitation, while supporters see it as promoting economic growth and efficiency.

That's a description of Thatcherism rather than any moden neoliberalism. I don't recommend reduced welfare spending, and privatization has been taken too far already.

How would you describe the reasons that things have gotten so — what is the right phrasing? — out of hand? Myself, I am still trying to understand.

My personal view is there are likely 3 major factors (my reference-point is America not Europe): 1) the destruction of America’s industrial manufacturing base and the immense harm to wide sectors, 2) the “forever wars”, and 3) the undermining of the American (mostly Europe-descended) demographic by far too aggressive and not discriminating enough mass immigration.

The other factor is the excesses of hyper-liberalism on the level of social mores.

Neoliberalism stands opposed to such populist nonsense.

Obviously you would think that dilution of the white racial gene pool, or of white power in general is what causes problems, you are a nazi and that is the sort of thing they go in for.

[accelafine]

I have described my own position on many matters here in a thread titled Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok). That was in 2019, I probably hold broadly similar views today.

How odd. Given your tendency to hysteria and reactiveness (and shrilly screaming “Nazi!”) I would never have imagined you would advocate for Neo-Liberalism as a political and economic commitment. I must admit that l will have to revise my image of you. (Try to act less freaky, at least for a while, as I get this sorted out).

Neo-liberalism is an economic ideology that emphasizes free market principles, deregulation, and reduction of government intervention in economic matters. It advocates for:

- Privatization of public services
- Free trade
- Globalization
- Reduced social welfare spending
- Increased focus on individual responsibility

Critics argue it can lead to increased inequality and exploitation, while supporters see it as promoting economic growth and efficiency.

That's a description of Thatcherism rather than any moden neoliberalism. I don't recommend reduced welfare spending, and privatization has been taken too far already.

How would you describe the reasons that things have gotten so — what is the right phrasing? — out of hand? Myself, I am still trying to understand.

My personal view is there are likely 3 major factors (my reference-point is America not Europe): 1) the destruction of America’s industrial manufacturing base and the immense harm to wide sectors, 2) the “forever wars”, and 3) the undermining of the American (mostly Europe-descended) demographic by far too aggressive and not discriminating enough mass immigration.

The other factor is the excesses of hyper-liberalism on the level of social mores.

Neoliberalism stands opposed to such populist nonsense.

Obviously you would think that dilution of the white racial gene pool, or of white power in general is what causes problems, you are a nazi and that is the sort of thing they go in for.

How exactly are you 'neoliberal' then (whatever that even means)?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Obviously you would think that dilution of the white racial gene pool, or of white power in general, is what causes problems, you are a Nazi and that is the sort of thing they go in for.

What you’ve done here, again, is to project a whole bunch of stuff onto what you “hear” that was not there nor intended. That’s why you speak of “gene pools” and “white power”. You establish, as an a priori, that 1) it is morally wrong that a people define themselves or protect their space, their culture, or even their somatic being. And you attach tons of shade to it. But examined fairly, and rationally, the desire or inclination is completely normal. What you’ve do, or what has been done and you accept it, is to undermine at the most basic level a people's right to be. You only do this to the hated “White” and your hatred is self-hatred (i assume).

Then, you problematize any defense, any attempt at defending an identity as a moral evil. You turn the most natural and human defense or self-valuation into a moral evil.

I said nothing quite like what you suppose I have said, or moreover what you insist that I said. This is how devious rhetoricians operate.

It is exactly for this reason — the underhanded and devious use of rhetoric and moral blame-slinging — that you (i.e. your ideological camp) push reasonable people with reasonable positions to extreme positions of resistance and opposition. But that is what you actually want. You are not a Liberal nor a Neo-Liberal. You misrepresent yourself Flash. Any stance or position that you don’t like you designate as “Nazi!”

Neoliberalism stands opposed to such populist nonsense.

What you’ve are saying is that some contrived ideological position you define as Neo-Liberal does not like and morally vilifies that the populace does not appreciates or accept the top-down social engineering. Which is in fact what has happened and is happening.

[Alexis Jacobi]

How exactly are you 'neoliberal' then (whatever that even means)?

It certainly does not mean Liberal and does not seem to have much relationship to classically understood liberalism.

[accelafine]

Typical non-response from a moronic American. So it doesn't mean liberal then. Then stop fucking using the word!

[FlashDangerpants]

If you want to actually know about neloiberalism then I recommend the sub for it at Reddit that I already linked to in that thread from 2019 where I went over some of my reasons for preferring that stance.
https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/

I guess the sidebar has changed since then so here's the current version:

About Us
With collectivism on the rise, a group of liberal philosophers, economists, and journalists met in Paris at the Walter Lippmann Colloquium in 1938 to discuss the future prospects of liberalism. While the participants could not agree on a comprehensive programme, there was universal agreement that a new liberal (neoliberal) project, able to resist the tendency towards ever more state control without falling back into the dogma of complete laissez-faire, was necessary. This sub serves as a forum to continue that project against new threats posed by the populist left and right.

We do not all subscribe to a single comprehensive philosophy but instead find common ground in shared sentiments and approaches to public policy.

• Individual choice and markets are of paramount importance both as an expression of individual liberty and driving force of economic prosperity.

• The state serves an important role in establishing conditions favorable to competition through preventing monopoly, providing a stable monetary framework, and relieving acute misery and distress.

• Free exchange and movement between countries makes us richer and has led to an unparalleled decline in global poverty.

• Public policy has global ramifications and should take into account the effect it has on people around the world regardless of nationality.

Not exactly comprehensive but decent stuff that shouldn't really be that problematic. It generally amounts to a repudiation of populist nonsense such as the entire MAGA thing, all of the Fuentes jew-worrying stuff that Jacobi is always promoting, and all the culture wars moral panic that constantly infests this space.

[accelafine]

If you want to actually know about neloiberalism then I recommend the sub for it at Reddit that I already linked to in that thread from 2019 where I went over some of my reasons for preferring that stance.
https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/

I guess the sidebar has changed since then so here's the current version:

About Us
With collectivism on the rise, a group of liberal philosophers, economists, and journalists met in Paris at the Walter Lippmann Colloquium in 1938 to discuss the future prospects of liberalism. While the participants could not agree on a comprehensive programme, there was universal agreement that a new liberal (neoliberal) project, able to resist the tendency towards ever more state control without falling back into the dogma of complete laissez-faire, was necessary. This sub serves as a forum to continue that project against new threats posed by the populist left and right.

We do not all subscribe to a single comprehensive philosophy but instead find common ground in shared sentiments and approaches to public policy.

• Individual choice and markets are of paramount importance both as an expression of individual liberty and driving force of economic prosperity.

• The state serves an important role in establishing conditions favorable to competition through preventing monopoly, providing a stable monetary framework, and relieving acute misery and distress.

• Free exchange and movement between countries makes us richer and has led to an unparalleled decline in global poverty.

• Public policy has global ramifications and should take into account the effect it has on people around the world regardless of nationality.

Not exactly comprehensive but decent stuff that shouldn't really be that problematic. It generally amounts to a repudiation of populist nonsense such as the entire MAGA thing, all of the Fuentes jew-worrying stuff that Jacobi is always promoting, and all the culture wars moral panic that constantly infests this space.

Then don't be such a fucking coward, and use the word correctly. It's not hard to find the meaning and origin of the word 'liberal'. It's doesn't need embellishment.

[FlashDangerpants]

If you want to actually know about neloiberalism then I recommend the sub for it at Reddit that I already linked to in that thread from 2019 where I went over some of my reasons for preferring that stance.
https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/

I guess the sidebar has changed since then so here's the current version:

About Us
With collectivism on the rise, a group of liberal philosophers, economists, and journalists met in Paris at the Walter Lippmann Colloquium in 1938 to discuss the future prospects of liberalism. While the participants could not agree on a comprehensive programme, there was universal agreement that a new liberal (neoliberal) project, able to resist the tendency towards ever more state control without falling back into the dogma of complete laissez-faire, was necessary. This sub serves as a forum to continue that project against new threats posed by the populist left and right.

We do not all subscribe to a single comprehensive philosophy but instead find common ground in shared sentiments and approaches to public policy.

• Individual choice and markets are of paramount importance both as an expression of individual liberty and driving force of economic prosperity.

• The state serves an important role in establishing conditions favorable to competition through preventing monopoly, providing a stable monetary framework, and relieving acute misery and distress.

• Free exchange and movement between countries makes us richer and has led to an unparalleled decline in global poverty.

• Public policy has global ramifications and should take into account the effect it has on people around the world regardless of nationality.

Not exactly comprehensive but decent stuff that shouldn't really be that problematic. It generally amounts to a repudiation of populist nonsense such as the entire MAGA thing, all of the Fuentes jew-worrying stuff that Jacobi is always promoting, and all the culture wars moral panic that constantly infests this space.

Then don't be such a fucking coward, and use the word correctly. It's not hard to find the meaning and origin of the word 'liberal'. It's doesn't need embellishment.

I am using a word in the way that people who use that word have been known to use it, and there's a whole subreddit with 150,000 users who use it the way I do. You don't have any actual grounds to have any issue with this, you just have a personality disorder and a compulsive need to fight over nothing all the time.

[accelafine]

If you want to actually know about neloiberalism then I recommend the sub for it at Reddit that I already linked to in that thread from 2019 where I went over some of my reasons for preferring that stance.
https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/

I guess the sidebar has changed since then so here's the current version:



Not exactly comprehensive but decent stuff that shouldn't really be that problematic. It generally amounts to a repudiation of populist nonsense such as the entire MAGA thing, all of the Fuentes jew-worrying stuff that Jacobi is always promoting, and all the culture wars moral panic that constantly infests this space.

Then don't be such a fucking coward, and use the word correctly. It's not hard to find the meaning and origin of the word 'liberal'. It's doesn't need embellishment.

I am using a word in the way that people who use that word have been known to use it, and there's a whole subreddit with 150,000 users who use it the way I do. You don't have any actual grounds to have any issue with this, you just have a personality disorder and a compulsive need to fight over nothing all the time.

Oh piss off, Sigmund. The word is self-contained. Adding 'neo' to it is illiterate wankery at best--like adding 'cis' to woman. Only fuckwits do it.

[FlashDangerpants]

I am not interested in fighting over the definition of this word. Come up with something meaningful.