I don't want a gaming forum where politics and social issues are disallowed. I want a gaming forum where radical leftist politics and social issues get shit on. The era of apolitical spaces is over. If you're not explicitly anti-leftist, you will become leftist.
I'm perfectly happy with an apolitical gaming space, the problem is that the Left is so aggressive and totalitarian that since everything is political, then everything is subject to their aggression.
In order to be both apolitical and not explicitly anti-Leftist, the Left would have to not attack.
This hasn't happened once in over 200 years. The only question is not if the Left will attack, but when.
I don't object to Leftist criticism or argumentation, hell: you need to know what your enemy is doing. Crushing dissent only breeds weakness in those who are protected. They, we, must fight for ourselves. However, something akin to an apolitical area must be carved out and defended from Leftist aggression, and the defensive system for that space must by dynamic and de-centralized.
Almost every new video game is laced with leftist ideology. Not talking about the Marxist incursion into gaming is no different than not talking about gaming. There is no refuge from these people other than explicitly anti-marxist spaces.
There is such a thing a apolitical systems within a society, and liberalism is not the problem. Leftism is.
What we have is the problem that Leftism has been unceasingly aggressive for 200 years and is in a massive push to seize total control. Politics is about the assignment of power & control, and the Left is attempting to seize power & control over all things, making all thing political because they are on the attack. The color of a paperclip should not be a political discussion. It is only a political discussion because Leftists are attempting to give power to a bureaucrat in order to make that bureaucrat an ally.
LIberalism would be a rejection of all of those things. The problem is that the term "Liberal" was co-opted by leftists. No Liberal should be arguing for a strong centralized government with unlimited jurisdiction at the expense of individual liberty. The Left has murdered language so hard that they are calling Liberals "Conservatives", and Leftists/Socialists "Liberals", and Communists "Democratic Socialists".
Specifically, it's an attempt to fulfill the potential of its ideals (equality, "liberty," inclusion, rights, etc) which liberalism has failed to do, and offers itself as a solution to the liberal failures. Marxists, commies who oppose modern left and liberalism are pretty decent, even though I disagree with their solutions.
This is all wrong. Equality is only of value in how the state seeks to judge you via the law. Other than that, equality doesn't exist. Inequality is a natural state of being, the point of liberalism is to grant people liberty from tyranny so that they may advance themselves. Any sort of "Equality" outside of that is Leftist double speak for "outcomes the Jacobins determine to be just". Inclusion is a Leftist doctrine that means "give my slaves access to your privacy". Liberalism doesn't solve the cosmic injustices of life. It simply frees people from tyranny. Marxists and Commies are the modern Left, and there is nothing decent about them.
that's just liberal attempt to mystify reality.
No, again, this is just a Leftist attempt to create a problem that will require the only solution to be a bureaucratic make-work scheme. A liberal has nothing to say about the color of a paper-clip.
Everything is political. Including all actions, choices, art, games, movies, etc, as they all serve to reproduce values and beliefs, which necessarily influences people/society.
That is the argument of a totalitarian. Which is why I suspect you consider pinkos to be "decent". You have no right to claim a needed distribution of power in all things, because most things should be denied the grasp of a political activist at the point of a gun.
Liberalism tries to construct rootless individuals, on which most of liberalism is based on, that is liberal rights, democracy, social contract, free speech, etc.
Nonsense. Liberalism does not construct anything rootless. It denies the state the right to make the individual subservient through coercion. The Individual has plenty of roots: family, religion, neighborhood, social group, clan-group, tribe, etc. An individual need not be forced to dragged into any group with the violence of the state. The individual chooses his loyalties for himself, whether those decisions or good or bad, they are his to reap the consequence of.
Liberal Rights, the Social Contract, Free Speech, and Republicanism exist to help hold back the power of the state as coercive mechanism to enslave the individual to the demands of the state.
"Conservatives" in US are liberal themselves, and are largely antithetical to conservatism predating it, conservatism abroad, and right in general.
You are correct that American Conservatives are Liberals. The US is a Liberal country founded by a Liberal revolution. However, the word "Conservative" in American parlance exists to co-opt Leftism's attack on the hold-outs of Liberalism in the US during the mid 20th century.
Outside of that "Conservativism" is a meaningless term that exists at the behest of the Leftists to describe a political opponent in the same way that "Rightist" does. Leftism exists purely as a philosophy of War as a principal. As such, it has no ideological basis outside of the quest for power. By definition, this means that anything outside of those immediate demands for power is an opposition movement that can be labeled "Conservative" or "Right".
All you have said in your statement is that non-Leftist movements predate the American Liberal movement. Yes.
The reason modern left can get as far as it has - beyond the fact that it's coming from the top - is also because of liberalism and its ideals and values being present in society. It's why most liberals sympathize or share beliefs with it as well; why blm ended up growing as fast as it did.
You're misconstruing things. The rhetoric of Liberalism is attractive to damn-near every individual. No one approves of enslavement (particularly if their enslavement is a possibility). Everyone likes some amount of liberty. Self-ownership is probably the philosophical foundation of Liberalism that is most arguable, and it is antithetical to Leftism. The Left bastardizes the rhetoric of liberty to suit their needs. This is what happened to the French with "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" Jefferson & Lafayette's definition of those words is nothing like Robespierre's. They're oppositional.
But this is always what the Left has done. Exploit a single tactic that is useful in a quest for power.
BLM is a National Socialist movement. There is nothing Liberal about it. It is anti-Liberal. It is the revolutionary socialization of a race into a homogeneous body politic. A Volksgemeinschaft. It's rhetoric is also anti-Liberal. It is explicitly Leftist. And it is explicitly a violent, revolutionary, collectivist, racialist, socialist, rhetoric. Even among Liberal Revolutionaries, you will not find this kind of rhetoric.
It's success comes at the expense of the Corporate Establishment Left weaponizing racialism to solidify Leftism behind their offers of power. It is a containment device.
US spent trillion in Afghanistan to create liberal democracy and failed spectacularly, because those people have different histories, beliefs, and traditions, and they aren't going to embrace it as easily, not without decades of social engineering and imperialism, or more force.
I've been there.
The issue is not really one of whether or not Liberalism means anything to the people, the issue is that it is a Tribal society. The government is effectively a tribe that is only beginning to become powerful enough to challenge other tribes. Liberalism, nice as it is, isn't really anywhere in the equation. In fact, the government identifies itself as an Islamic Republic. That's ... not even kind of Liberal. Liberalism is antithetical to Islam.
Securing Afghanistan relies mostly on creating loyalty and friendship between the government, villages, provincial leaders, and warlords. Other ideological arguments are simply irrelevant to the equation.
Words are malleable and general meaning is determined by its usage.
Then the communists won't mind me re-asserting the original definitions of the words they've raped.
I don't want a gaming forum where politics and social issues are disallowed. I want a gaming forum where radical leftist politics and social issues get shit on. The era of apolitical spaces is over. If you're not explicitly anti-leftist, you will become leftist.
I'm perfectly happy with an apolitical gaming space, the problem is that the Left is so aggressive and totalitarian that since everything is political, then everything is subject to their aggression.
In order to be both apolitical and not explicitly anti-Leftist, the Left would have to not attack.
This hasn't happened once in over 200 years. The only question is not if the Left will attack, but when.
I don't object to Leftist criticism or argumentation, hell: you need to know what your enemy is doing. Crushing dissent only breeds weakness in those who are protected. They, we, must fight for ourselves. However, something akin to an apolitical area must be carved out and defended from Leftist aggression, and the defensive system for that space must by dynamic and de-centralized.
I think it would be good to have both. While I love shitting on leftists, it would also be good to have a refuge from the whole conflict.
Almost every new video game is laced with leftist ideology. Not talking about the Marxist incursion into gaming is no different than not talking about gaming. There is no refuge from these people other than explicitly anti-marxist spaces.
There are classic games, and new games that get developed by sane people. Either way, there's plenty to talk about that isn't Marxist shit.
No such thing as a refuge from the pedoleft's one-sided war on humanity.
We have to make it for it to exist, but it absolutely needs to exist.
There is such a thing a apolitical systems within a society, and liberalism is not the problem. Leftism is.
What we have is the problem that Leftism has been unceasingly aggressive for 200 years and is in a massive push to seize total control. Politics is about the assignment of power & control, and the Left is attempting to seize power & control over all things, making all thing political because they are on the attack. The color of a paperclip should not be a political discussion. It is only a political discussion because Leftists are attempting to give power to a bureaucrat in order to make that bureaucrat an ally.
LIberalism would be a rejection of all of those things. The problem is that the term "Liberal" was co-opted by leftists. No Liberal should be arguing for a strong centralized government with unlimited jurisdiction at the expense of individual liberty. The Left has murdered language so hard that they are calling Liberals "Conservatives", and Leftists/Socialists "Liberals", and Communists "Democratic Socialists".
This is all wrong. Equality is only of value in how the state seeks to judge you via the law. Other than that, equality doesn't exist. Inequality is a natural state of being, the point of liberalism is to grant people liberty from tyranny so that they may advance themselves. Any sort of "Equality" outside of that is Leftist double speak for "outcomes the Jacobins determine to be just". Inclusion is a Leftist doctrine that means "give my slaves access to your privacy". Liberalism doesn't solve the cosmic injustices of life. It simply frees people from tyranny. Marxists and Commies are the modern Left, and there is nothing decent about them.
No, again, this is just a Leftist attempt to create a problem that will require the only solution to be a bureaucratic make-work scheme. A liberal has nothing to say about the color of a paper-clip.
That is the argument of a totalitarian. Which is why I suspect you consider pinkos to be "decent". You have no right to claim a needed distribution of power in all things, because most things should be denied the grasp of a political activist at the point of a gun.
Nonsense. Liberalism does not construct anything rootless. It denies the state the right to make the individual subservient through coercion. The Individual has plenty of roots: family, religion, neighborhood, social group, clan-group, tribe, etc. An individual need not be forced to dragged into any group with the violence of the state. The individual chooses his loyalties for himself, whether those decisions or good or bad, they are his to reap the consequence of.
Liberal Rights, the Social Contract, Free Speech, and Republicanism exist to help hold back the power of the state as coercive mechanism to enslave the individual to the demands of the state.
You are correct that American Conservatives are Liberals. The US is a Liberal country founded by a Liberal revolution. However, the word "Conservative" in American parlance exists to co-opt Leftism's attack on the hold-outs of Liberalism in the US during the mid 20th century.
Outside of that "Conservativism" is a meaningless term that exists at the behest of the Leftists to describe a political opponent in the same way that "Rightist" does. Leftism exists purely as a philosophy of War as a principal. As such, it has no ideological basis outside of the quest for power. By definition, this means that anything outside of those immediate demands for power is an opposition movement that can be labeled "Conservative" or "Right".
All you have said in your statement is that non-Leftist movements predate the American Liberal movement. Yes.
You're misconstruing things. The rhetoric of Liberalism is attractive to damn-near every individual. No one approves of enslavement (particularly if their enslavement is a possibility). Everyone likes some amount of liberty. Self-ownership is probably the philosophical foundation of Liberalism that is most arguable, and it is antithetical to Leftism. The Left bastardizes the rhetoric of liberty to suit their needs. This is what happened to the French with "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" Jefferson & Lafayette's definition of those words is nothing like Robespierre's. They're oppositional.
But this is always what the Left has done. Exploit a single tactic that is useful in a quest for power.
BLM is a National Socialist movement. There is nothing Liberal about it. It is anti-Liberal. It is the revolutionary socialization of a race into a homogeneous body politic. A Volksgemeinschaft. It's rhetoric is also anti-Liberal. It is explicitly Leftist. And it is explicitly a violent, revolutionary, collectivist, racialist, socialist, rhetoric. Even among Liberal Revolutionaries, you will not find this kind of rhetoric.
It's success comes at the expense of the Corporate Establishment Left weaponizing racialism to solidify Leftism behind their offers of power. It is a containment device.
I've been there.
The issue is not really one of whether or not Liberalism means anything to the people, the issue is that it is a Tribal society. The government is effectively a tribe that is only beginning to become powerful enough to challenge other tribes. Liberalism, nice as it is, isn't really anywhere in the equation. In fact, the government identifies itself as an Islamic Republic. That's ... not even kind of Liberal. Liberalism is antithetical to Islam.
Securing Afghanistan relies mostly on creating loyalty and friendship between the government, villages, provincial leaders, and warlords. Other ideological arguments are simply irrelevant to the equation.
Then the communists won't mind me re-asserting the original definitions of the words they've raped.