Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Yannanth]

I was with you up to the 4th paragraph Descan. Change is not inherently good. It's not inherently bad either. It's one of those stupid buzzwords politicians (on both sides of the spectrum, and ones outside of it like communists, fascists and anarchists) use to rope you into agreeing with them.

You are right on one thing though. Politics should not be driven by an overarching ideology, because that is non-pragmatic extremism. I will never vote for a communist, fascist, or any politician that subscribes to a certain ideology that has been defined by a set of points, like Krugman's definition of the virtues of liberalism (in the American sense) which probably best describes American 'progressives' (another buzzword that only exists because the status quo doesn't fit the 'progressive' agenda).

Libertarianism, like all ideologically-driven movements has an extremely high degree of internal consistency. Conservatives and Liberals actually don't. They are pragmatic and generally take things on a case-by-case basis. These are the politicians you should vote for, because cognitive dissonance does no affect them. Not being members of a political party or unofficial alliance is even better, as it reduces the level at which this occurs (it still depends on the politicians 's convictions, of course).

[Loud Whispers]

Putin promising annihilation.

[LordSlowpoke]

Putin promising annihilation.

any eta on the entirety of the caucasus being nuked?

[Lagslayer]

But what if the consistency itself were to have value? If every rule has a few dozen exceptions, and there are many thousands of rules, how is anyone expected to actually understand them? Further, exceptions sets the precedence that you can make even more exceptions (just one more couldn't hurt...). And there is no guarantee that the next exception will be a "good" one.

edit: This isn't to say that those people actually understood the things they were saying. My experience tells me that they probably don't. I'm just trying to express how I rationalize it.

[Sheb]

Putin promising annihilation.

How is this different from Bush or Obama promising to track down terrorist that struck the US?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Putin promising annihilation.

How is this different from Bush or Obama promising to track down terrorist that struck the US?

Neither of them were exactly psychotic like Putin proves himself to be. This might just be talk, but I could see him waging a genocidal conflict over things like this.

[Descan]

I was with you up to the 4th paragraph Descan. Change is not inherently good. It's not inherently bad either. It's one of those stupid buzzwords politicians (on both sides of the spectrum, and ones outside of it like communists, fascists and anarchists) use to rope you into agreeing with them.

I didn't say it was inherently good, just that it's not inherently bad. :V

[Guardian G.I.]

Putin promising annihilation.

How is this different from Bush or Obama promising to track down terrorist that struck the US?

Neither of them were exactly psychotic like Putin proves himself to be. This might just be talk, but I could see him waging a genocidal conflict over things like this.

I guess it's more a cultural than political question, but I've always wondered: why it is so common in America to portray its political enemies either as incompetent buffoons or insane maniacs?
For comparison, the enemies of Soviet Union and Russia have been always portrayed in Soviet and Russian media as calm, very intelligent and extremely ruthless people.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I've always wondered: why it is so common in America to portray its political enemies either as incompetent buffoons or insane maniacs?

Probably because a lot of world leaders fall into one or both of those two categories.

For comparison, the enemies of Soviet Union and Russia have been always portrayed in Soviet and Russian media as calm, very intelligent and extremely ruthless people.

I would say that is an accurate characterization of Putin as well, but that doesn't mean he isn't psychotic. He even worked for the KGB. I would automatically question the mental health of anybody who was one of them.

[WealthyRadish]

I guess it's more a cultural than political question, but I've always wondered: why it is so common in America to portray its political enemies either as incompetent buffoons or insane maniacs?
For comparison, the enemies of Soviet Union and Russia have been always portrayed in Soviet and Russian media as calm, very intelligent and extremely ruthless people.

I have no idea what you're talking abou-

Putin confirmed leader of Almighty God's Asian Army destined to confront German-led European Union to punish them for the Holocaust

*cough*
GOD BLESS AMERICA

[Guardian G.I.]

For comparison, the enemies of Soviet Union and Russia have been always portrayed in Soviet and Russian media as calm, very intelligent and extremely ruthless people.

I would say that is an accurate characterization of Putin as well, but that doesn't mean he isn't psychotic. He even worked for the KGB. I would automatically question the mental health of anybody who was one of them.

I really don't think that psychos would be allowed in any counter-intelligence or state security agency anywhere in the world these days (KGB fulfilled both of these duties in the USSR). The job of a secret service operative is not the one that madmen or psychopaths can effectively fulfil.
One may point at people like Lavrentiy Beria, but it's likely that many reports about their psychosis come from either reports written by their Soviet political rivals or from Western anti-Soviet propaganda. It's not clear if these sources are true or not, and we can definitely and fruitlessly argue about it for eternity.

Putin confirmed leader of Almighty God's Asian Army destined to confront German-led European Union to punish them for the Holocaust

lolwut?

[Owlbread]

Well it depends on how you define "psychopath". Many extremely successful people could very well be psychopaths, particularly in business and politics. Here's some psychopathic traits from the "Psychopathic Personality Inventory" (PPI):

• Fearlessness
• Stress immunity
• Machiavellian egocentricity
• Rebellious nonconformity
• Blame externalisation
• Carefree nonplanfulness
• Coldheartedness

You could say that Putin would fit a number of those points. Some of them I couldn't be sure of because I obviously don't know him personally (e.g. "rebellious nonconformity" is a bit dubious, and he certainly plans) but I'd say most of those fit. They fit with most successful politicians, soldiers. Why not secret policemen?

[kaijyuu]

Lacking empathy seems a requirement to be in these sorts of things, not a disqualifying factor.

[scriver]

The wording wasn't "psychopath" but "psychotic", though. There's quite the difference.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Islamists  attack random people, Russians arrest random people in response......

Russian law enforcement agencies have detained more than 700 persons in a special operation launched after the two deadly bombing attacks in the city of Volgograd.