*Note: the title is kinda misleading, but I view "rogressives" ironically regressive. Also, I don't usually use the Left-Right spectrum bs. I use the Authoritarian-Libertarian chart most of the time.
What do guys thing of so-called "rogressives" (AKA SJWs)? For me, I view them as a threat. I saw people losing their jobs and getting socially castrated due to just disagreeing with them. Also, the mainstream media champions them as heroes/heroines. Why treat them as such?! They are bullies for crying out loud! Anyway, what do you think about them?
You seem to be under the impression that I was describing all liberals. But that's not the case. I stated numerous times that I'm only referring to a portion of liberals.
I would like you to demonstrate the existence in reality of even one such person.
And I'm surprised you denied this point because it's quite common for liberals to respond with, "Sure, taxes might raise for the lower and middle classes as well, but we'll still be better off. Just look at Sweden!"
How, in your interpretation, does optimism translate to spite?
So, I have to say, people are okay with raising taxes on the middle and lower classes as long as it means the rich have to pay more in taxes too.
Well, no, they aren't. Law abiding citizens with income will pay taxes regardless of who is paying more. When the government needs more funding, it will increase taxes regardless of who is paying more. People tolerate tax increases because it is required of them as citizens, not because somebody else is paying more than they are.
All I'm saying is that in some people's efforts to increase taxes for the rich, they also accept tax increases for the middle and lower classes as well.
Yes, because a tax reform bill that seems to disproportionately favour the low-income individuals over the financial giants has little or no hope of ever passing.
But the road to hell is often paved in gold.
Nice thought-terminating cliché. Now, if you could show me how you arrived at your conclusion, that would be even better.
We have people who complain about how expensive it is just to live a comfortable life in America, but they're perfectly fine with the government increasing everyone's taxes by a large amount.
Although I would not completely discount the possibility of someone somewhere fitting that description, I have never heard of any such person. Are you sure such a thing exists?
This is a bit of a red herring since what you said isn't mutually exclusive from what I said.
It doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. It just has to fit the group's general mentality better than what you stated, and it almost certainly does in most, if not all, cases.
And as for the government providing needed services, that's laughable. In only a few cases is the government capable of providing everyone needed services where the free market can not. And when the free market provides similar services as the government, the private enterprises are always more efficient, better quality, or both.
1 Congradulations! You've completely missed the point.
2 What the free market can provide is irrelevant. Need is rarely ever proportional to wealth.
3 Your use of the word "always" here is most unusual. I can only assume that this is some colloquial expression with no connection to its actual meaning.
Although I personally find this line of thinking ultimately flawed, I ask that you read the rest of my post:
Hm, interesting. Please refer to everything else I stated in my last post, as you obviously cannot have read any of it if you are still disagreeing with me on this particular point.
I would like you to demonstrate the existence in reality of even one such person.
I don't go around collecting names of random people I disagree with online and archive them. The people I can name, I'd prefer to keep their names confidential since they are people I have friended online.
I concede that as long as I can't source my claims, then there's no reason for you to accept any of what I have to say. This is something I openly admit to and accept.
But honestly, there's no point addressing the rest of your post because it's so far removed from what I originally posted about. Instead of responding to my points as you read through my posts, read the entire thing first. You'll realize that my points refers to people who dislike the fact that there are incredibly wealthy people, and they want to redistribute the wealth because they feel that's more fair. The ways in which those people obtain their wealth are actually quite irrelevant to the people I referenced.
But if you have sincerely never talked to a person who's economic views were built upon their disdain for the wealthy (just for being wealthy), then what can I say? Personally I'm shocked, but you're completely justified to doubt what I had to say. Perhaps my post will only be relevant to other people who have ran into the type of people I described.
But here's where it's important to list where you're wrong.
*You assumed I was defending a flat tax, I wasn't.
*You ignored the fact that I was talking about people who care more about redistributing wealth than they do the actual consequences of their actions. They care so much about wealth redistribution they'll outright ignore anything that conflicts with their views. As I said before, you're welcome to dismiss my claim that such people exist.
* Lastly, you literally quote mined my statement. It wasn't intentional, but you missed the context entirely. I asked What would happen if we redistribute wealth to the point where elite classes are nonexistent. You immediately answered this question without reading the rest of my post, which went on to describe how taxing the rich so you can give money to the poor is similar to the criticisms we hear when people talk about trickle down economics.
Honestly, the only reason I talked about how inefficient the government is compared to the free market is because what you said literally made me laugh. That's the only time I actually attacked typical liberal ideology. It was a slip, I'll admit. And unfortunately, that did unfortunately enforce your idea that my original post was attacking liberalism in general.
Clearly there's been a miscommunication that we can't get past. It's probably in our best interest not to beat around this bush.
*You assumed I was defending a flat tax, I wasn't.
At no point did I even suggest any such thing.
*You ignored the fact that I was talking about people who care more about redistributing wealth than they do the actual consequences of their actions.
No, I challenged your assertion that such people exist in any appreciable quantity.
* Lastly, you literally quote mined my statement. It wasn't intentional, but you missed the context entirely.
No, I responded to a question exactly as it was stated. Even if we pretend for now that the additional context pertains directly to it, that does not in any way change the meaning of the question itself or invalidate my response to it.
You immediately answered this question without reading the rest of my post, which went on to describe how taxing the rich so you can give money to the poor is similar to the criticisms we hear when people talk about trickle down economics.
You don't seem to understand that I am not required to quote or respond to everything you choose to include in a single paragraph, regardless of its relation to the point that I'm interested in discussing. I don't care about trickle down economics, or the people who talk about it, nor is any of it relevant to any of my points. Insisting that I have not read your statement accomplishes nothing.
And unfortunately, that did unfortunately enforce your idea that my original post was attacking liberalism in general.
Um, no, not really. You are, however, corroborating my suspicion that many of your claims are purely derived from baseless assumptions about other people's thoughts, intentions, and general character, but I'm not about to jump to that conclusion quite yet.
*You assumed I was defending a flat tax, I wasn't.
F:
At no point did I even suggest any such thing.
F:
Comparatively more significant, which is exactly why flat tax rates are ineffective.
~~~
F:
Um, no, not really. You are, however, corroborating my suspicion that many of your claims are purely derived from baseless assumptions about other people's thoughts, intentions, and general character, but I'm not about to jump to that conclusion quite yet.
N:
I concede that as long as I can't source my claims, then there's no reason for you to accept any of what I have to say. This is something I openly admit to and accept.
~~~
F:
You don't seem to understand that I am not required to quote or respond to everything you choose to include in a single paragraph, regardless of its relation to the point that I'm interested in discussing. I don't care about trickle down economics, or the people who talk about it, nor is any of it relevant to any of my points. Insisting that I have not read your statement accomplishes nothing.
N:
I asked What would happen if we redistribute wealth to the point where elite classes are nonexistent ... which went on to describe how taxing the rich so you can give money to the poor is similar to the criticisms we hear when people talk about trickle down economics.
N: *You assumed I was defending a flat tax, I wasn't.
F: At no point did I even suggest any such thing.
F: Comparatively more significant, which is exactly why flat tax rates are ineffective.
~~~
Exactly, so you can plainly see that I am right in both instances.
F:
You don't seem to understand that I am not required to quote or respond to everything you choose to include in a single paragraph, regardless of its relation to the point that I'm interested in discussing. I don't care about trickle down economics, or the people who talk about it, nor is any of it relevant to any of my points. Insisting that I have not read your statement accomplishes nothing.
N:
I asked What would happen if we redistribute wealth to the point where elite classes are nonexistent ... which went on to describe how taxing the rich so you can give money to the poor is similar to the criticisms we hear when people talk about trickle down economics.
Exactly, so even you can't relate your tangential point to the question.
