ideology and politics

The centrist doesn’t care about the content of political ideologies but simply their relations to one another. So they can posit a “horseshoe” because for them the far-left and far-right have a similar hostile reaction to the “rational center” while at the same time ignoring the content of these ideologies and of the nature of disagreement with “centrism”

4

Each main Legend of Korra villain represents a different political ideology.

Even the more minor villains like Varrick (who started off as a villain but underwent character development) and the Earth Queen represent ideologies as well:  Capitalism and Monarchy, respectively.

It’s really sad that Markiplier and other big time PewDiePie defenders seem genuinely more upset at Felix being labeled anti-Semitic than basically anything else going on in the past like three years.

Like where the fuck was Mark with his respect video when Anita Sarkeesian got thousands of death threats for simply saying video games had sexist content in it? Where was it when Zoe Quinn got doxxed and her family threatened for simply wanting video games to be a more welcoming environment for women? This is just stuff that was going down in the YouTube/Gaming community too, not even going to mention the grander sociopolitical issues. Even sadder is Felix has endorsed a dude who was very active in harassing both these women.

Markiplier and others don’t need to comment on every single global tragedy or political event but when they only do to express grief over an immensely privileged individual being accused of racism that’s pushing an extremely dangerous narrative that accusation of bigotry are more harmful of actual bigotry.

They also seem to maintain the ideology that as long as they intend for their videos to be pure entertainment and apolitical then that’s what it is. This isn’t true at all, everything we say is a reflection of our core political ideology, Socrates knew this thousands of years ago. Nothing exist outside of our social superstructures and we always have to be conscious of how we operate in it, this goes double for people with a following like Mark and Felix.

It’s very intentional that the US education system doesn’t teach the definitions of communism and socialism in school. They don’t teach kids that capitalism is when the wealthy elite own the means of production, they don’t teach kids that socialism is when the people own the means of production.

What they do teach is in the direct interest of the wealthy elite, the people who control the way the children are educated. You don’t learn true definitions until you look into it, or allotted the opportunity to look into it, usually when you’re already wealthy and have the ability to attend a university.

This obfuscation, this confusion, this is all intentional. It’s absolutely beneficial to capitalists to have the world unsure what revolution is, it’s beneficial for capitalists to have the world not understand that the people could take the means of production from them.

This is the reason most do not know basic definitions of these political ideologies. This is the reason why people so adamantly defend that which is against their own interest, they are lied to from childhood. Indoctrinated in capitalist ideology from birth; built to defend a system structurally eliminating them.

types of comments on youtube videos of classical music
  • i am the ghost of johann sebastian bach himself and i can tell every nuance of this music. one of the violists played the second sixteenth note on the third beat of measure 65 exactly 2.53 hertz sharp. absolutely appalling.
  • absolutely gorgeous. sublime. this brought tears to my eyes, cleared my skin, and solved all my life problems. thank you maestro for this gift.
  • i am actually only 2 years old and i am playing this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!1!1
  • i simply love this piece and i love this version, but i think that the tempo is a tad too fast for my tastes. [53 comments later] what you state is true to a certain extent and in certain situations; however, i do believe that the true fallacy of this political ideology is tha-
  • i love how the composer artfully modulated to the peaceful flowing f major in bar 73 from a stormy c minor to give us a sense of security, all the while interweaving the second motif throughout the texture [insert detailed analysis of entire piece]
  • THIS PERSON’S/THESE PEOPLE’S TECHNIQUE IS FLAWLESS HOW ARE THEY EVEN HUMAN

feel free to add on

SJWs: “We love and respect women”

Also SJWs:
[Lauren Southern getting pissed poured on her]
[Lauren Southern getting assaulted and people pretending they didn’t see it]

SJWs: “We love and respect black people. We think black lives matter”

Also SJWs:

SJWs: “We love and respect trans people”

Also SJWs:

SJWs: “We love and respect gay people”

Also SJWs:
[Milo Yiannopoulos getting threatened by activists].

SJWs: “We love and respect Muslims. Listen to moderate Muslims”

Also SJWs:

They only “love”, “respect” and “protect” these groups as long as they’re compliant, as long as they’re in agreement with the tenants of social justice, if they ever deviate from the group, they become a target.

You people don’t care about women. You don’t care about black people. You don’t care about Muslims, trans or gay people. You care about your political allies and your ideology, that’s all.

the negative Amazon reviews on American gods are hilarious


“If i could give this series a zero i would. One, it was too slow. I mean extremely slow. Two, you get lost in the whole thing, and not in a good way. And third, out of all the movies, tv shows, everything in my life, i have never been grossed out by a sex scene.“

“If you want a too quirky show that rolls around in liberal ideology. This is for you. If you are not a supporter of uber-liberal tripe, then skip this. Within the first couple of episodes, you get a thinly veiled black-lives rant, and multiple drawn out (way past any need to tell a story) gay/lesbian scenes that are simply gratuitous. Sad commentary on what passes for story telling.”

“One star with an explanation. The show is wonderful; visually stunning with the likes of Ian McShane leading an all star cast. Then? Then they went and did it; gay crap for the sake of, what? Appeasing the so called gay community? The scene was senseless. It added nothing to the story. All it was was a gay writer and/or director throwing in a disgusting scene for kids to see. Yeah, you can say no kids should be watching this show but, really? Of course they’ll be watching along with everyone else. So, there you have it. A shining show with a permanent black mark against it just to push forward political ideology in what is supposed to be entertainment. Parents, keep your young ones from watching. Who knows what further abnormal trash the creators have approved?”

“well…I was interested…until ep 2 begins with a self-indulgent, white-hating, racist diatribe…cancelling starz access…”


Thank you @neil-gaiman and Bryan Fuller for pushing your gay liberal agenda on us. 

After 32 years in the House of Representatives, here is my advice on how people opposed to President Donald Trump’s assault on our basic values — a majority of those who voted last November — can best influence members of Congress. 

Done the right way, communications from citizens can have a significant impact on legislators, even when they claim to be immune to “pressure.” (“Pressure,” in legislative jargon, is the expression of views with which legislators disagree, as opposed to “public opinion” — the term used for sentiments that reinforce their own.)

The key to doing it right is being clear about the goal, which is to persuade the Senator or Representative receiving the communication that how he or she votes on the issue in question will affect how the sender will vote the next time the legislator is on the ballot.

This means the following:

Make sure you’re registered to vote — lawmakers check.

Many office holders will check this, especially for people who write to them frequently. Elected officials pay as much attention to those who are not registered to vote as butchers do to the food preferences of vegetarians.

Lawmakers don’t care about people outside of their district.

You can only have an impact on legislators for or against whom you will have a chance to vote the next time they run. In almost all cases, this means only people in whose state or district you live. Senators or representatives whose names will not be on the ballot you cast are immune to your pressure. There is a small set of exceptions — representatives who want to run for a statewide office in the next election will be sensitives of voters throughout their states.

Your signature — physical or electronic — on a mass petition will mean little.

You are trying to persuade the recipient of your communication that you care enough about an issue for it to motivate your voting behavior. Simply agreeing to put your name on a list does not convey this. I have had several experiences of writing back to the signer of a petition to give my view on an issue only to be answered by someone who wondered why I thought he or she cared.

The communication must be individual. It can be an email, physical letter, a phone call or an office visit. It need not be elaborate or eloquent — it is an opinion to be counted, not an essay. But it will not have an impact unless it shows some individual initiative.

Know where your representative stands. 

If you have contact with an organization that is working on this issue, try to learn if the recipient of your opinion has taken a position on it. When I received letters from people urging me to vote for a bill of which I was the prominent main sponsor, I was skeptical that the writer would be watching how I voted.

Communicate — even if you and your representative disagree.

On the other hand, even where you are represented by people whom you know oppose you on an issue, communicate anyway. Legislators do not simply vote yes or no on every issue. If enough people in a legislator’s voting constituency express strong opposition to a measure to which that legislator is ideologically or politically committed, it might lead him or her to ask the relevant leadership not to bring the bill up. Conflict avoidance is a cherished goal of many elected officials.

Say “thank you.”

If your Representative and Senators are committed to your causes, you should write or call to thank them — not frequently, but enough for them to feel reinforced.

Enlist the help of friends in other districts.

Your direct communication with legislators outside your voting area will have no impact. But you do have friends, relatives, associates etc. Find out who the potentially influenceable legislators are on issues of prime importance to you, think about people you may know in their constituencies, and ask those who share your views to communicate with those who represent them. On an extremely important issue, get out the list to who you mail holidays cards or important invitations and ask them to communicate with their legislators.

To repeat the essence of point 5, if a legislator who you might have expected to vote differently — e.g. a Republican who votes no on a Trump priority — votes as you have urged, send a thank you. 

— Barney Frank, former Democratic representative for Massachusetts. Read more

Biology

  • Biology
  • Creating a Race (2)
  • Creating Animals (2)
  • Disease (2)
  • Ecosystems (2)
  • Evolution (and Space)
  • Flora and Fauna
  • Genetics
  • Inventing Species
  • List of Legendary Creatures
  • Night Vision/Color Vision
  • People

Constructed Language (Conlang)

  • Basics/Phonology (2) (3)
  • Conlang
  • Conlang Guide
  • Conlang vs. English
  • Creating a Language (Revised)
  • Culture + Language
  • Curse Words
  • How to Create Your Own Language
  • How to Create a Language
  • IPA Pronunciation
  • Making Up Words

Culture Guides

  • 7 Deadly Sins
  • Alien Cultures (2)
  • Alternative Medieval
  • Avoiding Cultural Appropriation
  • Avoiding Medieval Fantasy (2)
  • Avoiding One-Note Worlds
  • Avoiding Utopia
  • Change (2)
  • Class/Caste System (2)
  • Culture
  • Designing Intellectual Movements
  • Everything (2) (3)
  • Fantasy
  • Gender-Equal Societies
  • Historical Background for Ideas (2)
  • History
  • Matriarchy (2)
  • Nationalism
  • Nations
  • Slavery
  • Static World
  • Structure
  • Wandering Peoples

Economy

  • Basic Economics
  • Capitalism
  • Currency (2) (3)
  • Current Global Economies
  • Economic Systems
  • Economics (1500-1800 AD)
  • Economics and Government
  • Economics for Dummies
  • Economy
  • Inflation
  • International Trade (2)
  • Marxist Communism
  • Medieval Economics
  • Schools of Economic Thought
  • Socialism (2)
  • Types of Economic Systems
  • World Economy (2)

Everyday Life

  • Art
  • Ceremonies
  • Clothing
  • Clothing Terminology (2) (3) (4)
  • Clothing Reference
  • Demographics
  • Disease
  • Drugs
  • Education (2)
  • Fame and Infamy
  • Family
  • Food (2)
  • Food Timeline
  • Immigration/Emigration
  • Literature
  • Marriage
  • Months
  • Music
  • Sex
  • Slang
  • Stories
  • Travel

Government

  • Collective/Traditionalist Societies
  • Creating a Government
  • Diplomacy
  • Empire (2)
  • Fancy Latin Names for Government
  • History and Politics
  • International Relations (2)
  • Justice System
  • Lawlessness
  • Non-monarchical (2) (3)
  • Oppressive Government
  • Political Ideologies
  • Propaganda
  • Republic
  • Rise and Fall of Civilizations
  • Secret Societies
  • Shapeshifter Society
  • Totalitarianism, Atmosphere Necessary For
  • Tribal Society
  • Types of Government
  • Utopia
  • Writing Politics

Keep reading

Growth and Failure

The longer the story, the more failures there should be and the greater the change that should occur.

This is the case for anything you write, but the more episodic the series is, the more this holds true. TV series, ongoing web series, and web comics are the most obvious examples of this.

Basically what this means is that your characters can’t succeed at everything they try to do. One thing about shows like Supernatural (the early seasons) is that you as the viewer know that, for the most part, by the end of every episode, the Monster of the Week will have been defeated and everyone you care about will still be alive and healthy. There are overarching plots, but they are tangential to most episodes and don’t affect much.

In Stargate SG-1, on the other hand, they spend eight season facing one major enemy (the Goa’uld), and they spend many of the episodes fighting the Goa’uld in some form or another. And sometimes they fail and the Goa’uld win, and sometimes they win and that later helps the Goa’uld win, and sometimes they don’t fight the Goa’uld at all, and those missions may be either successful or not to a lesser degree. Beyond that, there are lower level failures: they try to make a spaceship and it almost kills some of them, they try to make a new spaceship, it doesn’t work as hoped at a pivotal moment and they almost lose the entire planet, they build a giant spaceship and it gets stolen (briefly), they build more giant spaceships and one gets shot down over a planet and then later they need to get that spaceship home and it (temporarily) gets stuck in a giant sentient gas cloud. All of this means that sometimes they don’t have a spaceship that can do what they need even though they’ve been trying to build one for most of the show, but at the end of the show, they end up with spaceships whose capabilities and weaknesses play a pivotal role in the show.*

My point in recounting all of that (other than to get you all to watch Stargate) is to show that, especially when you have a long series where you want to show a great deal of growth (and I’ll explain why you need that in a second), you can’t just have them win every time they try to grow or every time they try to defeat an enemy. You have to have them fail, too, or there will be no stakes and it will be hard to suspend disbelief.

So…why do you need growth?

Basically, if you end up in the same place that you started, what was the point of your story?

Well, you cry, they defeated the major enemy. Isn’t that enough?

And to that I ask (because I like holding imaginary teaching sessions): If they could defeat the major enemy (or if they could get the girl/boy/non-binary person, or if they could get into the school they wanted, or if they could do whatever else they want to do) with the capabilities they had in the beginning, why didn’t they? There is no need for a story if your characters have everything they need to succeed when the story starts.

And as for why you need failure? Here are three reasons.

One, failure is realistic. Things rarely work well on the first try, especially more than once, which means that the more things a character (or group, organization, etc.) is trying, the more they should fail. If you think about someone trying to learn a language, they basically never (without an eidetic memory) remember all words the first time they see/hear them, or use grammar perfectly on the first try, or pronounce every word correctly. They will get some, but they will rarely get all. The same should go for someone who is trying to learn how to fight, for example. Even if you get everything right the first time you are shown it (which may or may not happen), you’re not going to get it right every time. You might fail more at some things than at others, or fail at the same thing over and over. Sometimes it’s because you don’t understand how to do it, sometimes it’s because your brain and your body aren’t communicating well, and sometimes it’s because your muscles just aren’t strong enough or your body isn’t flexible enough for it to work. Those are all failures that can and do happen in real life.

Two, failure raises the stakes. If you know the main characters are going to succeed at everything they try, or that their failures aren’t going to have any consequences beyond that episode (or chapter, etc.), there are no stakes. There is no concern for whether the character will do well or whether they will be ready in time, because they always are. There is no risk, because there is no failure.

Three, failure is interesting. As we see in Stargate, entire episodes can be built around failures. Failures make for interesting storylines, and sometimes successes that turn into failures can turn into even more interesting storylines. You defeat the Big Bad only to have a Bigger Bad rise up because of it? That’s a great storyline, and shows what was ultimately a failure by the characters. You stop someone for personal reasons at the expense of stopping someone for strategic reasons? Great storyline, because it not only prolongs and changes the conflict, it also adds an opportunity for personal growth and/or conflict into the mix.

With that, failures can also cause really interesting interpersonal interactions. Let’s so all of the characters are counting on Bob to pull off one part of the plan, and despite trying his best, Bob fails. Now everyone blames Bob (or maybe some subset of them blame Bob, depending on their personalities) and it causes tension in the group. Maybe this tension ultimately leads to Bob leaving because he can’t take the blame anymore. Now you have a splintered group all from Bob’s one failure.

What types of growth and failure can you have?

(I’m glad you asked, me.)

Here are some examples (primarily for militaristic/adventure type stories, but there’s a mix)**:

  • Building an army (or a group of people)
    • Not be able to convince people to join
    • Have traitors in the midst
    • Have large numbers die/be killed
    • Have people defect
    • Have ideological/strategic differences with allies
  • Building a new form a transportation
    • Not have it ready in time
    • Have it not go far enough
    • Have it not go fast enough
    • Have it fail mid-journey
    • Have it explode mid-journey
  • Building a weapon
    • Not have it ready in time
    • Have it not work
    • Have it explode in testing
    • Have it fail during use
  • Learning to fight
    • Not be ready in time
    • Hurt self while training
    • Not have the strength
    • Not have the endurance
  • Learning magic
    • Lose control
    • Not have the magical capacity
    • Not understand the theory
    • Not perform key rituals
    • Perform key rituals wrong
    • Not have key materials
  • Learning a language
    • Forget vocabulary
    • Forget grammar
    • Not understand grammar
    • Be unable to pronounce words
    • Be unable to understand spoken words
    • Misunderstand nuances
  • Translating/decoding something
    • Misunderstand nuances
    • Mistranslate words
    • Know the wrong dialect
    • Have the wrong key
    • Looking for something
    • Follow misleading clues
    • Have someone else find it first
  • Taking territory
    • Not have sufficient forces
    • Not have sufficient ability to break walls
    • Lose too many forces
    • Be unable to hold territory
  • Getting a romantic partner
    • Cheat
    • Make bad decisions while intoxicated
    • Forget significant dates/events
    • Say inappropriate or mean things
    • Misunderstand what is being said
    • Miscommunicate
  • Getting a degree
    • Not having enough money
    • Not studying enough
    • Not getting good enough grades
    • Not having the time
    • Having other life issues that distract from it
  • Forming a government
    • Have ideological splits
    • Have political splits
    • Have factions form
    • Have coup attempts
    • Be unable to govern
    • Be unable to create a working organizational structure
    • Be unable to create adequate civil service (police, roads, etc.)

*Of course, Stargate has some of its own issues with this, like the fact that Daniel has been brought back to life more than once, so the viewers stop believing that Daniel is ever actually dead.

**When I use the term failure, I don’t mean that it is the fault of the character or organization (necessarily, though in some cases it might be). I just mean that it is not-success.

anonymous asked:

What is horseshoe theory normally? Your horseshoe post says "corrected"

Capitalist ideology intended to make liberalism appear “neutral” and “above the fray”. In the capitalist political spectrum, it is true that liberalism is generally at the center (with some very slight leeway into center-left and lots of leeway into full right-wing), but that doesn’t make it “neutral”. Political centrism is merely ideology that challenges nothing about the status quo. (The left seeks change that brings about less class distinction and the right seeks a reassertion of old traditions that maintain class stratification.) 

I’ve said before that liberalism is the dominant ideology under capitalism, and it’s true. It permeates our political landscape in how it sees capitalism as the end of history, how it contextualizes ideology as a “marketplace of ideas” where the best ideas inevitably outcompete, how it holds steadfast to giving “all viewpoints” a platform (with no class analysis or understanding of how dominant ideas remain dominant), how it believes that the system can be peacefully reformed to eventual perfection (even if there’s disagreement over what those reforms should entail), etc. 

The horseshoe frames communism and fascism as though they were fundamentally similar in practice, if not in rhetoric. This is ahistorical, and it ignores what the true grit of politics has always been about since the dawn of civilization: class struggle over the gears that reproduce daily life (i.e. the resources and the means of production) and the accompanying social ideologies; in other words, power, as realized through control over the sources of social wealth. I took the horseshoe and grafted it to the way in which “liberal” and “conservative” are viewed as rhetorical opposites – but are in fact both the same in practice. Modes of production (feudalism, capitalism, etc.) have material interests that dictate how they behave, typically focused around those with a dominant class position and around the broader longevity of the system as a whole. Under capitalism, this is realized in both the capitalists (those with the dominant class position) and the state (the apparatus that looks out for the longevity of the system as a whole). In the end, I boiled it down to this:

I don’t know if it’s altogether perfect, since assigning positions to political ideology along a line or a compass is hard to quantify, but I think it’s certainly better than the original liberal horseshoe chart. Of important note, I wouldn’t say that social democracy is a “halfway point” between capitalism and socialism, nor would I say that of distributism. But in terms of ideology, I think they come close to mapping between the two modes of production. Mutualism or market socialism is probably a better “intermediary” mode of production between the two (it involves markets but with collective control of means of production and banking). 

TLDR: It’s bullshit to write off political leftism and political rightism as fundamentally similar when they are founded upon opposing ideas about who ought to control social production in society. Centrism and liberaltarianism try to avoid this question, but they are just as ideological as either side – they assert that we should just “leave people to their own devices”, but their political ideology is one where capitalists control the means of production in top-down fashion as realized through private property rights, a fundamentally right-wing conception of society. There is no political “objectivity” – the centrist position inevitably supports those with power in society. 

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor” -Desmond Tutu

-Daividh

2016
  • voters: we want a politician who listens to us and fights for the issues we care about
  • clinton: ok im listening, what issues do you care about?
  • voters: universal healthcare, free college, campaign finance reform, stopping climate change, and racial justice
  • clinton: ok i will fight for universal healthcare, free college, campaign finance reform, stopping climate change, and racial justice
  • voters: no u only said u liked those things bc we said we liked them. so we're not gonna vote for u
  • clinton: ...........
The United States is opposed, naturally, to any attempt on the part of any society to use its resources for its own purposes, instead of to integrate itself into what we call an “open world” system, which means a system that’s open to American economic penetration and political control. If any society deviates from that, whether it’s capitalist, fascist, communist or whatever, the United States will oppose it.
—  Noam Chomsky