So, do you remember when I said Thiel is not a technoprogressive but guys like Musk are?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techno-progressivism

Techno-progressivism maintains that accounts of progress should focus on scientific and technical dimensions, as well as ethical and social ones. For most techno-progressive perspectives, then, the growth of scientific knowledge or the accumulation of technological powers will not represent the achievement of proper progress unless and until it is accompanied by a just distribution of the costs, risks, and benefits of these new knowledges and capacities. At the same time, for most techno-progressive critics and advocates, the achievement of better democracy, greater fairness, less violence, and a wider rights culture are all desirable, but inadequate in themselves to confront the quandaries of contemporary technological societies unless and until they are accompanied by progress in science and technology to support and implement these values.[2]



Compare this with utopian socialism:

Utopian socialism is a label used to define the first currents of modern socialist thought as exemplified by the work of Henri de Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, Étienne Cabet, and Robert Owen.[1] Utopian socialism is often described as the presentation of visions and outlines for imaginary or futuristic ideal societies, with positive ideals being the main reason for moving society in such a direction. Later socialists and critics of utopian socialism viewed "utopian socialism" as not being grounded in actual material conditions of existing society, and in some cases, as reactionary. These visions of ideal societies competed with Marxist-inspired revolutionary social democratic movements.[2]

The term is most often applied to those socialists who lived in the first quarter of the 19th century who were ascribed the label "utopian" by later socialists as a pejorative in order to imply naiveté and to dismiss their ideas as fanciful and unrealistic.[3]



That was 200 years ago, but now is now.

This is the way I've condensed it to describe it one line: All socialists are utopian socialists, they just didn't and don't realize it, and all utopian socialists are technoprogressives, waiting for the right time.

I'm not saying it's The Answer, but I'm blown away that most people have never even thought about it to any degree. I assumed everybody has watched or read science fiction, dystopian and utopian, and imagined how the societies and civilizations got to that point.

I've imagined there was a threshold, a breaking point, societies rammed up against it, and quickly veered one way or the other. I don't think it needs to be said which way we're going now.

Left-libertarianism (or left-wing libertarianism) names several related but distinct approaches to political and social theory, which stresses both individual freedom and social equality. In its oldest usage, left-libertarianism is a synonym for anti-authoritarian varieties of left-wing politics, either anarchism in general or social anarchism in particular.[1][2] It later became associated with free-market libertarians when Murray Rothbard and Karl Hess reached out to the New Left in the 1960s.[3] This left-wing market anarchism, which includes Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's mutualism and Samuel Edward Konkin III's agorism, appeals to left-wing concerns such as egalitarianism, gender and sexuality, class, immigration, and environmentalism.[1] Most recently, left-libertarianism refers to mostly non-anarchist political positions associated with Hillel Steiner, Philippe Van Parijs, and Peter Vallentyne that combine self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources.[4]

Left-libertarians state that neither claiming nor mixing one's labor with natural resources is enough to generate full private property rights[5][6] and maintain that natural resources (land, oil, gold, vegetation) should be held in an egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively. Those left-libertarians who support private property do so under the condition that recompense is offered to the local community.[6]


Like I said, humans can't have nice things.

which part?

2 cavemen were once standing before 2 caves. 1 said, this is good, we both have a place to live. The other said, no, I own both of those, they are mine. The 1st 1 asked, but wait, you can only live in 1, why do you need 2? The other replied, I do not know.

Give a man a fish
And he eats for a day
Own the lake
And you own his soul

the internet ate my post on the subject.

He thinks liberal undergraduates at Oberlin College are the core constituency of the Democratic Party. this is, shockingly enough, not true at all. who are the Democrats? you have to do a little bit of research, even Wikipedia will do, to find out. huge huge spoiler warning: they're not all white. he thinks they are because, well, I don't want to speculate too much, or jump to conclusions. move Charleston or something if you remain perplexed. but be careful who you fall in love with, yo.

Point taken wrt unions and working people, but don't forget that the people complaining about the university PC culture are the same people complaining about 'happy holidays' and kneeling in football games. The conservatives are just as absurd in their demands for cultural conformity, but with an added layer of hypocrisy

revots, do you seriously get angry when you read about the Mommy Wars in Manhattan? like, why, lol? I am truly at a loss here.

no, we need you. tom is right, but that sounds more evil than it is. hire a good werewolf as your chief, but only if they can lead a village too. you know of whom I speak.

I am in a liberal bubble and likely 80%+ of the people I regularly interact with would identify as liberals. Only a very small percentage of people actually tone-police or demand abnormal levels of sensitivity. Of those who do, they actually seem sincere about it and have no ulterior motives of 'one-up'ing.

This is just my experience, interested in hearing others'

I think you would make a great civic leader. Hope you give it a go.

Well, I'm going to do my part to reach out. I'm going to TRY to be less of an ******* regarding criticizing the flaws of other people. I hope people on the right will meet me in the middle by trying to have a true and honest discussion.

Edit: Also I'm not afraid to say it

Been trying my fair share of hand-holding on facebook since the election, not to much avail. The propaganda runs deep

The only liberals I ever interact with are online. Or, the only white ones. It's very amusing that white liberals believe themselves to be such wonderful persons. I think most of them are (good), but Shuffle actually went and said something true. Now, Shuffle thinks I supported HRC in solidarity with my elite coastal brethren that virtue signal in The New York Times, and I want to move to The Hamptons one day. why he think this I have no idea. first off I did not vote in the Democratic primary at all. but I did support her candidacy over Sanders. I did so primarily because Sanders didn't want to get in the mud and wrestle with Clinton and that he could not be more tone deaf to Democrats here in the south. nothing ever prevented him during his terms in public Life as a US senator from visiting and listening to members of his own political party outside of his little Enclave in New England. especially if you plan to run for president someday. I mean Dear God.

He didn't plan to run for president.

The ever good Rortybomb on the next couple of years

https://medium.com/@rortybomb/prepar...b48#.sy8g0mi7r

The End of the Post-Racial Myth, from a writer I think 5ive recognized before (Nikole Hannah-Jones). Part of a long series of views on the election and what it says about America from several different states, from several different authors.

But this one, in Iowa, this one particularly.

She makes a similar point as others have about why Obama made inroads with white people in 2008:

...and then as conditions improved, white people got back to doing white people things.

Sigh.

I need to stop pasting, but I think this is a worthwhile read. Okay, one last snippet:

If you check out the other parts of this collection, there's a repeated theme from the black authors of the group - they talk about how their older family members (parents, grandparents) reacted to Trump's election. While for many born after the civil rights movement, this is all new and scary, they describe the older generation as seeming surprised and shocked by nothing, that being let down like this is business as usual for being a black person in the USA.

Want to know what the number 1 problem of the left and the democratic party? political correctness. Now you can't even refer to a group of african americans as a posse. this liberal political correctness bull**** needs to stop.

Yeah, all it took was one President who wasn't explicitly in the corner of white people everywhere for White America to lose their ****.

You can run a white supremacist website and become chief strategist to the president. I wouldn't worry too much about the word posse.

The unemployment rate wasn't the cause. Maybe people were willing to give the other party a try when the fears of the market collapse loomed...



Did the unemployment rate in Iowa improve since then? It's still the same but it has improved after the spike in 2009

https://www.iowa.gov/chart/unemployment-rates

Yeah but why do republicans keep winning everything from local to national elections because the liberal media and politicians like keep changing the parameters about what is correct to say and around minorities and what's offensive. With the Democratic politicians and media it's becoming like the boy who cried wolf when a serious and dangerous threat like Trump arises it falls on deaf ears. because dem's and msm credibility keeps eroding away.

It's already been posted by why are Democrats the people who are in charge of what's appropriate to say? The correct statement should be "blind squirrel finds a nut. I guess the Democrats were right for once!". Instead we see that people voting for Trump had no independent agency, they were reliant on Democrats to tell them what was racist or not.

This definitely seems to be the overarching theme of the post-election analysis.

Why are you putting politicians and newspapers in charge of what you can and cant say? Say whatever the **** you want.