• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Dglgmut last won the day on December 23 2021

Dglgmut had the most liked content!

About Dglgmut

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Dglgmut's Achievements


Enthusiast (6/14)

  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges



  1. This will backfire, imo. Joe has said several times he invites opposing views to come defend their position on his show. He is being transparent. This is just going to show people even more-so just how corrupt the government is.
  2. Whatever he does, you know it will be bad because it's him.
  3. For those who don't know, there is a convoy protesting the vaccine mandates in Canada, particularly for truckers, heading to Ottawa. I have heard it will be around 50,000 trucks and 500,000 people, though I can't find those numbers anywhere now, so who knows. Canadian truckers against government’s vaccine mandates join ‘Freedom Convoy 2022’ heading to Ottawa WWW.DIGITALJOURNAL.COM Semi trucks drive along Interstate 70 near Booneville, Missouri on Nov. 1, 2011. KOMUnews/Anna Burkart. CC SA 2.0.Hundreds of B.C...
  4. I only pray Nancy Pelosi got out in time!
  5. I've wondered how they would backpedal out of the authoritarian COVID measures all over the world. Easing out is most probable, hoping that everyone forgets all the hard stances taken. I also think changes in policy mean they have been faced with good evidence that the policies were bad, and they cannot keep doubling down... even the people of today could not be fooled for much longer. So I think this will happen all over the world... a gradual easing up on the restrictions, without any acknowledgement of failure. I hope people do not let it go, because I think a lot of people are on the edge of waking up. If they are allowed to forget what has happened, they will.
  6. This isn't a discussion on ethics, but on human nature. Particularly human nature qua groups. Being separated from the herd is a real worry that people naturally have. You can try to explain it in terms of Rand's epistemology, but that doesn't lead anywhere useful or give you any real understanding of how people function on a social level.
  7. Being separated from the herd is not the same as freedom. You can have freedom and still be part of a group. You can have freedom and still have a social safety net (loved ones who will take care of you when you are weak). They don't even consider the option that they need leadership. They have been convinced that people do not need leadership and that democracy can actually produce good, effective, moral policies.
  8. No. Constraining power is a myth. You can't block power by some clever system design. If you block power in one area, you leak it into others. That is what happened and that is why areas of society that the Founding Fathers never imagined to have power now do. And the part about evolving... You are the one arguing for a system over (a) human being(s).
  9. And an individual can live by this code as a subject of North Korea if they want. I am talking about a culture that can become either more healthy or less healthy. They don't fear freedom. They fear losing power. If they knew for certain they had no power and couldn't get any, now individual ethics would become far more important to them. Leftists don't fear freedom... they fear being disconnected from the group that they believe is going to save the world. They think that we, as a society, can save the world. They imagine themselves as the abolitionists during slavery times, or like Freedom Riders during the Civil Rights Movement. They don't fear freedom. They fear losing their chance to matter/be part of something that matters.
  10. What The Constitution says and how things actually work are, obviously, two different things. We can see that the rules are being made by the universities and the media, not the elected officials. Power exists outside of the government, and it has not been sliced up... and it can't be. It will always exist. If you get rid of it in one place, it will pop up somewhere else. That's what happened. And the people can't do anything about it because conservatives continue to spread the myth that you just expressed. People think they can replace leadership with an objective system. It won't happen until we evolve into something else.
  11. Any rationale is irrelevant, because what comes first is structure. If you do not even have a structure that can facilitate the process of exploring ethics on a large scale, then that is what should happen first. You cannot have a discussion of ethics with the lowest common denominator of 100s of millions of people. The objective may be dominance, but the purpose of the ideology is not that, and that is not what makes it successful. The individuals may think the way you imagine, but leftism is a social phenomenon. Before you can deal with individuals you have to detatch them from power -- they have to see that the system will never work for them. The ideal of equality is what keeps leftism so healthy in so many societies. When a citizenry has any say in their own system of governance, equality will naturally be extremely popular. The system is actually an illusion, because really we just have people doing things. It's hard to say who has power and how much... but if we were more open about it, and accepted the reality that there is power and there always will be, people could at least make decisions with their brains instead of the emotions that tell them things should be another way. We could actually think about who we want in power instead of trying to figure out a way to make it go away, when that is just not an option.
  12. Why the window must always move left is that it is essentially moving towards equality. How do you get the public to push back on equality? Well, I think the first thing that has to happen is the right has to stop pretending they are actually pro-equality, just in a different way. You will be familiar with the distinction between equality and 'equity'. Or equality of opportunity vs equality of outcomes. The problem is that if there isn't an unequivocal alternative offered, people don't really know why they shouldn't be pro-equality. After all, the difference is apparently semantical. The modern right wants unequal outcomes, but a fair system for achieving those outcomes. The fair system is what they argue for, which is still a form of equality. A real alternative would be to focus on the unequal outcomes and why they are essential. Why is it better for human beings to have a hierarchy? A fair system would be nice, but that should be secondary. When people try to achieve equality, as we can see they naturally do by the continual shifting of the Overton Window to the left, they create power vacuums that get filled by the worst types of people. This is why we should forget about equality of outcomes, equality of opportunity, all of it. The alternative to equality is leadership. When people actually think about who they want to lead, and not who they want to help achieve equality (the Justin Trudeau types), we can move the window in the other direction...
  13. You're right. It does sting... Thank you for showing me the light. I was taken in by her beauty... I am ashamed.
  14. From her point of view, which is the view she thinks the public holds, is that getting vaccinated is good for people and good for society. Here's an example of the negative enforcement that this lady is against: Column: Mocking anti-vaxxers' COVID deaths is ghoulish, yes — but may be necessary SPORTS.YAHOO.COM How should we think about anti-vaccine activists who die from COVID? Not fear, in this case, but I'm sure the lady in the video clip we're talking about is as against this as she is against fear mongering. Yes, she is trying to manipulate people. She's like those women who talk about "training your man." She thinks she's found a way to make both sides happy... Gently convince people to do what you want, and they'll be as happy as you. So my point is not that I trust her, but that she has half of the picture correct. She at least feels coercion isn't right (though she is arguing for efficacy in the video), even if she doesn't really respect people's autonomy/self-ownership. As you can see from the example above, some people have convinced themselves they are being righteous when they are completely off the spectrum.
  15. I think what she meant is that fear is not a good way to help people make positive changes. She was being honest, she just isn't good with words. That's what I got from it. She's obviously not the brightest, but she's better than a lot of the other doctor's they've had on (some of them smart, but deeply intellectually/emotionally programmed). Kinda like one of the comments. I liked this one: