report

But as far as the “what’s wrong with this picture” game
1) Progressive idea of progress: Evolution. Conservative values: Survival of the fittest. As I understand politics, conservatives don’t believe that evolution exists, while progressives believe that it’s immoral. Meanwhile, the cold, uncaring universe doesn’t give a shit what rhetoric they espouse, as long as they keep reproducing and continue to prevent other things from killing them.

2) Conservative idea of social progress = Status Quo. Um… no, that’s the conservative idea of the status quo, which they want to conserve. If they were pursing an ideal of social progress, they would be progressive. More importantly, conservatives don’t exist to suggest that the status quo is ideal, but rather to draw attention to the side effects and unintended consequences of changes intended to better society. Much like defense attorneys in a trial, they exist not to make a case, but to poke holes in one. Moreover, political progressives tend to play the role of conservative as well in certain arenas — it isn’t theocrats that typically raise concerns about the potential consequences of using GM crops, or lament the mixed blessings of steel and fire granted us by the gods of industrial revolution.

3) What is the difference between morals and ethics as used there? The only significance is that some people like the sound of one word better; in context they’re essentially the same. Which probably says something about the whole exercise. “Those Progressives have no morals!” “Conservatives and their obsession with morality. If only they could be ethical like us!”

4) Rights: “Others must observe” “Others must not interfere”. So, people should observe your rights. Versus people should not interfere with your rights… If you can’t think of different blurbs for each side, maybe just drop it? Here’s a more practical assessment: Progressive/Conservative = A) Give me the rights that I will use on a regular basis and never violate them under any circumstances, B) of the remainder, remove the ones that others use in a way that irritates me or offends my personal sense of morals/ethics, even if the harm done to them in being deprived of a lifestyle of their choosing vastly outweighs the harm their freedom does to me on the whole, C) I don’t give a shit about the rest unless it gives me an excuse to call the other side “fascists”.

5) The Hawks/Doves thing is, in political practice, also completely bullshit. Speaking only for the American experience, which side is pro-war and which side is anti-war is almost solely related to which side actually gets to be in charge of the war. The Republicans that were gung ho for invading Iraq bitched about Clinton’s excursions in Africa and the Balkans, and it was progressive heroes Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy that launched us into WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, respectively.

6) Some of the shit in “Support” is so vague as to be useless. War? Really? You sure you’re not referring to a specific one? And 78-87% support God? I mean, good for you, God. Most leaders would kill for those kinds of approval ratings. In fact, most leaders with those ratings probably had to kill to get them.

7) “Fairness” versus “Social Order”. In principle, both sides support “fairness”, although their impulses about what is fair differ. When a murderer gets a light sentence, conservatives aren’t angry because of “social order”, but because they feel the verdict is unfair to that person’s past (and possibly future) victims. When a poor, minority defendant gets railroaded by racist cops, a politically opportunistic DA, and a timid and apathetic jury, it’s unfairness that angers progressives. One side feels it’s unfair that a person has to suffer deprivation when others have plenty. Another side feels it’s unfair to take from those that have earned their income, to give to people who have done nothing so deserving. And a lot of people get way more nuanced than those extremes of thought would indicate.

8) Both sides also support social order. Conservative thoughts on social order are obvious enough (hint: it’s the one they grew up with, minus the shitty parts). But progressive thought has a lot to say about the public good, specifically the public health side of progressive thought, such as the CSPI. It’s the side that seeks to control behavior in terms of food intake (no salt, trans fats, bad cholesterol, natural sweetener, artificial sweetener, or anything else that makes food enjoyable), drug intake (they’re anti-booze and anti-cigs, so don’t think for a second they’ll liberalize any other drug), proper amounts of exercise (think of the children!), proper amounts of TV (minimal, mostly educational, thoroughly purged of violence or entertainment value), proper amounts of PC gaming (none), proper forms of music (classical), etc. Despite lip service to democratic ideals, they generally assume that 90% of people are idiots unfit to run even their own lives (let alone a country) and the progressive man’s burden is to correct others’ decisions by legally removing the possibility of bad ones, so that one day his less enlightened countrymen may wake up and deliberately choose the correct lifestyle without compulsion. That they follow an ideology largely committed to cultural relativism only indicates how very much they loathe the very concept of irony. The main difference between nanny-staters and old-school puritans is that instead of quoting Bible verses, they’ll quote statistics and carefully crafted “studies”, and instead of talking about God’s will, it’ll be about society, the public, the nation, the general welfare, the greater good, etc.

report

Uproar East! Strike West!

report

report

report

On another note, I would say that Demon’s Souls (which isn’t quite as hard as reviews say) has combat that’s about as intense and engaging as Bushido Blade because of sheer lethality. Yes, a few strikes in PvP is all it takes to take you down, so you’ve got to dodge, duck, weave, and block. And Heaven help the poor guy whose attack you actually manage to parry.

report

report

report

I enjoy puzzles in my games, but I don’t enjoy articifical and unexplained limitations that are put upon me. Sam & Max S1E5 was also a big offender in this regard. I made up some quite nice solutions in my head, but the game didn’t allow me to try any of them out. It didn’t even comment on them. That frustrated me a lot, so I stopped playing. I don’t like to read the designer’s minds, sorry.

report

The sad thing is it is mostly these people that claim they're full right or full left that end up on TV acting the fool. Republicans and Demo's alike saying one then then doing the other. It is most funny for me when a Republican that goes nuts about family values get's caught cheating on their wife, then a Democrate comes out and bashs them and it turns out they're doing something hypcritical too (say I dunno talking about how much capitalism sucks and then making a ton of money under that same system)

I think most people in most countries fall some place in the middle and are getting more and more tired of the parade that politics has become. what do you guys think?

report

report

My thoughts exactly. Mr. Walker nailed that Question Time piece.

Hopefully these protestors will go and read about Hitler’s rise to power and realise the irony in what they’re doing. They’re about one step away from claiming the BNP burned down the Reichstag.

We will never end up with a dictatorship as a result of some pantomime villain going on Question Time. The population allowing – and even encouraging – the establishment to start silencing certain political parties is far more dangerous. If you let them think it’s OK to strong-arm the BBC into silencing the (elected) BNP, where does it go from there?

report