Why are socialists so mean? I could ask them a foreign policy question in good faith nicely...

Why are socialists so mean? I could ask them a foreign policy question in good faith nicely, and they'll call me an incel, say I'm a coward and that I'm a waste of space, or that I'm a neckbeard. I don't understand their combativeness

Attached: 307553-1357948271.jpg (211x239, 9K)

GURR GURR RUSSIA STRONG

Attached: 1.jpg (533x474, 40K)

They are bad people, if one could consider them human at all.
The democratic ones usually at least have a heart if not a brain, but the non democratic ones are usually so poisoned by ideology that they lose all that makes man good. Including the capacity for love, fellowship, and humanity.
It is a common mistake for the good man to give mercy onto the communists and socialists, the good man believes that he is sparing their lives when in reality all he is doing is prolonging their suffering. It is like if you saw a deer with a large hole through its chest just lying on the ground breathing and making noises of agony. What is the real merciful option? To leave it to wallow or to end its cursed existence and allow it to move on to whatever lies beyond our realm in peace? It is the duty of all good men to treat socialists as such.

The desire to oppress others is inherent in every type of collectivism.

*The desire to get something good, despite the bad you'd cause others is inherent in every type of individualism.

They're used to hearing these questions asked in bad faith so it puts them on edge

Deciding not to sacrifice or give to others is not the same thing as actively doing harm to them. You have every right to demand that others not actively harm you, you have no right to demand that they do anything to help you.

That why individualists sucks, individualists always have a very limited definition of "harm" so they can be terrible persons and yet be "moral"

Collectivists define "terrible person" as "anyone who won't give me what I want, and what I think I deserve". In my opinion this makes you the terrible people.

It's a shame, you should have a straw man definition of others ideologies.

But I cannot think of a single individualist that's a good person. Maybe I'm unlucky, but they are either the "I don't care for others, I'm edge" fedora, or "I only think about money and anything that's not the market is bad" libertarian, or "I"m a smart different guy, that don't like society, and is above it" prick

Since you are the king of guy that don't care enough for what others think to have a clear vision of their ideology, I think you're the 3rd kind of individualistic trash.

why should people be under any particular ethical or moral obligation to do anything for others beyond not actively endeavoring to hurt them?

>Why I have to follow rules
Because we all live in a society, and any societies need rule.

All individualists want to remove the rules they don't like and keep the rules they like.
Some want to keep only basic property laws, so they can exploit others without consequences (libertarians and ancaps)
Some want to fuck in public, be sluts and huge faggot on the middle of a shopping (left liberals)
In the end, it's all daddy issues with laws you'd like to break

Refusing to give you things is not exploiting you.

Refuse to pay taxes for services that benefits everyone (like justice, defense, police, infrastructure), so you can have bigger profits is a very shit mentality.
The "Other can starve so I can buy caviar", is very damaging to most people and rationalizing greed and arrogance don't make it any better.

I repeat, refusing to give you things is neither greed nor arrogance. Even if you really want those things and think everyone should have them.

>MUH GIBS

If you reap the benefits for something, you should pay for it, even if you think you don't own anything to anyone.
Libertarians are basically pricks that have protection (police, defense, justice), infrastructure (roads, airplanes, railroads), safety (food safety, customers laws, healthy standards), healthy (public vaccination, epidemics control), education (public education, public standards for education), knowledge (public funded research (like internet and antibiotics)), and many more things... but thing he shouldn't pay taxes because he don't own anything to society and should keep all for himself.
While at the same time, you want others working for you, and you paying as little and taking as much you can for their work

>>If you reap the benefits for something, you should pay for it,
If you don't want people reaping benefits from something that you're paying for and they aren't, either find a way to exclude them from the benefits, or stop paying for it.

>police, defense, justice
We are incredibly over-policed already, we could do with rather less in the way of public-safety services anyway.
>infrastructure
oh dear, muh roads! No, we absolutely must have coercion for this. People could not possibly ever build a long, flat strip of asphalt as a voluntary thing. We can't possibly do without it and we'd never ever get along without it. Dear god, we'd all die if we don't beat money out of people and take their property to build these things!
>safety
Well food safety is a very overgrown and over-complicated form of laws against fraud and misrepresenting your product, something most libertarians readily accept. I don't know what you mean by "healthy standards", but I see no problem with someone buying unhealthy processed food so long as it isn't misrepresented as something its not. People can make their own choices, and if some people make bad ones, well, thats their problem.
>public vaccination
I agree that herd immunity is a good thing. Why not persuade people to agree to it voluntarily by explaining the merits of it, instead of just ordering them to comply under penalty of law? You ought not to have much trouble, given its scientifically-proven effectiveness.
>education
we already have private-sector charter schools doing a better job educating kids than state schools do, and at lower cost. Best way to improve education is to get government out of it.
>knowledge and publicly-funded research
because private-sector R&D and research grants don't exist. Surely we'd never have any scientific progress if it weren't for government spending.

>but thing he shouldn't pay taxes because he don't own anything to society and should keep all for himself.
This again. It's a pernicious form of trying to control others. Do something that they gain a benefit from, even indirectly, and then claim that they owe you something because of it.

>While at the same time, you want others working for you, and you paying as little and taking as much you can for their work
You say that as if its somehow evil to want to not spend more money than you have to for something. Have you ever gone to buy socks and thought "Gee, five bucks for these is just too little, I'll buy the same socks for seven bucks instead"? No, why would you?

Employment, unpleasant though it may be for both sides, is not slavery or exploitation. If I told you that you'd better work for me or I'd kill you, then that would definitely be an outrage. But that's not whats going on. Its a matter of one side offering money for the other side's labor. If you think you're not making out as well as you could be from the arrangement, quit. See if there's someone else that'll give you a better price.

Well, actually, that'd be trying to pay as little labor to take as much money as possible, so I suppose that's against your moral code or something.

Whatever dude, enjoy indenture slavery and being exploited

Because most socialists are really angry people who are frustrated by lising arguments constantly

how lugi get fate