|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 26 2015 07:56 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Ohhh boy the Freddy Grey protests are starting to trash cars. Because rioting is a great way to make sure that your message that the police are paranoid to the point of causing unnecessary deaths is accepted by all. They're only one serious injury or death to a police officer away from getting out their message that black lives matter!
On April 26 2015 06:13 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 06:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 05:20 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 03:47 WhiteDog wrote:
You can argue that collectively owned firms are less efficient in some regards, if you will, I'll not discuss it. But that was not the point. I'm not saying it's less efficient, I'm saying it isn't workable on a large scale. Maybe, but again that's not the point. It's too hypothetical to be discussed : with us, mankind as it is being raised and taught today, it is not possible indeed. Yeah yeah, someday blizz will patch humanity and your awesome theorycrafted strats will be totally viable. someday ... You think our current society was possible in the XVth century ? It's a question of education, even democracy was a completly impossible idea at first. And you're always arguing against things that are not discussed. I responded a claim that said that socialism is only state ownership. That's false, and the history of socialism proved it. The discussion is not : does collective societies are possible ? And I don't want to discuss that with a mind wrapped in "economism". So what? Just because some ideas develop successfully over time does not mean that all ideas will successfully develop over time. Some will just turn out to be bad ideas. Like Marxism. Just look at where these discussions always go - straight to the dumpster of theoretical bullshitting. Practical issues? Who gives a fuck about that? Native Americans and stuff! Whoooo! The only practical issue I see is that the world is full of Jonnys lol.
On April 26 2015 06:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
That's the history of communism in a nutshell right there.
This thread delivers on laughs time and time again. I read the bit about Jonny's mind being too brainwashed by economism and missed sam!zdat just a little. Just remember, there are no bad ideas marred by misunderstanding human nature ... just good ideas that need more development.
|
On April 26 2015 13:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 07:56 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Ohhh boy the Freddy Grey protests are starting to trash cars. Because rioting is a great way to make sure that your message that the police are paranoid to the point of causing unnecessary deaths is accepted by all. They're only one serious injury or death to a police officer away from getting out their message that black lives matter! Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 06:13 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 06:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 05:20 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 03:47 WhiteDog wrote:
You can argue that collectively owned firms are less efficient in some regards, if you will, I'll not discuss it. But that was not the point. I'm not saying it's less efficient, I'm saying it isn't workable on a large scale. Maybe, but again that's not the point. It's too hypothetical to be discussed : with us, mankind as it is being raised and taught today, it is not possible indeed. Yeah yeah, someday blizz will patch humanity and your awesome theorycrafted strats will be totally viable. someday ... You think our current society was possible in the XVth century ? It's a question of education, even democracy was a completly impossible idea at first. And you're always arguing against things that are not discussed. I responded a claim that said that socialism is only state ownership. That's false, and the history of socialism proved it. The discussion is not : does collective societies are possible ? And I don't want to discuss that with a mind wrapped in "economism". So what? Just because some ideas develop successfully over time does not mean that all ideas will successfully develop over time. Some will just turn out to be bad ideas. Like Marxism. Just look at where these discussions always go - straight to the dumpster of theoretical bullshitting. Practical issues? Who gives a fuck about that? Native Americans and stuff! Whoooo! The only practical issue I see is that the world is full of Jonnys lol. Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 06:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
That's the history of communism in a nutshell right there. This thread delivers on laughs time and time again. I read the bit about Jonny's mind being too brainwashed by economism and missed sam!zdat just a little. Just remember, there are no bad ideas marred by misunderstanding human nature ... just good ideas that need more development.
Your post disgusts me on a level I can't put into words.
|
On April 26 2015 13:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 12:43 zlefin wrote:
When aiming for a moral victory, restraint is essential. It's just absurd to me that a couple dozen out of 1000's of people throwing shit and breaking stuff so easily distracts people from the paralyzed man the police practically let die in the back of a police van. If restraint is essential when aiming for a moral victory, it's clear the police certainly aren't trying to win a moral victory. So it's hard to see how anyone could be on their side and claim it's the protesters who need to behave better. It makes sense for people on the side of the protesters to hope for better behavior, but anyone who doesn't think BPD fucked up royal and continues to, they have no ground to stand on to call out others behavior.
So you're okay with a small percentage of the protesters being horrible people but not a small percentage of police officers being horrible people? Let me play devils advocate at you again and rephrase your quote.
It makes sense for people on the side of the BPD to hope for better behavior, but anyone who doesn't think that the protesters fucked up royally and continue to, they have no ground to stand on to call out others behavior.
It makes just as much sense that way.
+ Show Spoiler +fyi I'm playing devils advocate here in case you missed it.
On April 26 2015 13:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 13:06 Danglars wrote:On April 26 2015 07:56 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Ohhh boy the Freddy Grey protests are starting to trash cars. Because rioting is a great way to make sure that your message that the police are paranoid to the point of causing unnecessary deaths is accepted by all. They're only one serious injury or death to a police officer away from getting out their message that black lives matter! On April 26 2015 06:13 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 06:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 05:20 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 03:47 WhiteDog wrote:
You can argue that collectively owned firms are less efficient in some regards, if you will, I'll not discuss it. But that was not the point. I'm not saying it's less efficient, I'm saying it isn't workable on a large scale. Maybe, but again that's not the point. It's too hypothetical to be discussed : with us, mankind as it is being raised and taught today, it is not possible indeed. Yeah yeah, someday blizz will patch humanity and your awesome theorycrafted strats will be totally viable. someday ... You think our current society was possible in the XVth century ? It's a question of education, even democracy was a completly impossible idea at first. And you're always arguing against things that are not discussed. I responded a claim that said that socialism is only state ownership. That's false, and the history of socialism proved it. The discussion is not : does collective societies are possible ? And I don't want to discuss that with a mind wrapped in "economism". So what? Just because some ideas develop successfully over time does not mean that all ideas will successfully develop over time. Some will just turn out to be bad ideas. Like Marxism. Just look at where these discussions always go - straight to the dumpster of theoretical bullshitting. Practical issues? Who gives a fuck about that? Native Americans and stuff! Whoooo! The only practical issue I see is that the world is full of Jonnys lol. On April 26 2015 06:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
That's the history of communism in a nutshell right there. This thread delivers on laughs time and time again. I read the bit about Jonny's mind being too brainwashed by economism and missed sam!zdat just a little. Just remember, there are no bad ideas marred by misunderstanding human nature ... just good ideas that need more development. Your post disgusts me on a level I can't put into words.
I mean thats what happened in New York and Ferguson that took a lot of the wind out of their sails, rioting and injured or dead police officers. His phrasing is crude, but rioting and attempts at taking violent revenge at someone who wears the same uniform as the scumbag dealt a massive blow to the message. If you want to reform institutional corruption, you don't have to hold yourself to the same standard as the authority, you have to hold yourself to a higher standard. Right now these protesters need to follow the words of MLK more and Malcolm X less.
|
On April 26 2015 13:14 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 13:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2015 12:43 zlefin wrote:
When aiming for a moral victory, restraint is essential. It's just absurd to me that a couple dozen out of 1000's of people throwing shit and breaking stuff so easily distracts people from the paralyzed man the police practically let die in the back of a police van. If restraint is essential when aiming for a moral victory, it's clear the police certainly aren't trying to win a moral victory. So it's hard to see how anyone could be on their side and claim it's the protesters who need to behave better. It makes sense for people on the side of the protesters to hope for better behavior, but anyone who doesn't think BPD fucked up royal and continues to, they have no ground to stand on to call out others behavior. So you're okay with a small percentage of the protesters being horrible people but not a small percentage of police officers being horrible people? Let me play devils advocate at you again and rephrase your quote. It makes sense for people on the side of the BPD to hope for better behavior, but anyone who doesn't think that the protesters fucked up royally and continue to, they have no ground to stand on to call out others behavior. It makes just as much sense that way. + Show Spoiler +fyi I'm playing devils advocate here in case you missed it.
The question is absurd but I'll entertain it. First, were not paying the protesters to protect and serve people. So we shouldn't be comparing the two.
Once we move past that, the acts aren't even close to parallel. It's not just the abuse that's being protested but the systematic covering that transpires after an event like this. If we're comparing random troublemakers in crowds of thousands throwing shit and breaking windows, to a corrupted criminal justice system (not a few bad apples) there really isn't any more to say.
|
On April 26 2015 13:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 12:43 zlefin wrote:
When aiming for a moral victory, restraint is essential. It's just absurd to me that a couple dozen out of 1000's of people throwing shit and breaking stuff so easily distracts people from the paralyzed man the police practically let die in the back of a police van. If restraint is essential when aiming for a moral victory, it's clear the police certainly aren't trying to win a moral victory. So it's hard to see how anyone could be on their side and claim it's the protesters who need to behave better. It makes sense for people on the side of the protesters to hope for better behavior, but anyone who doesn't think BPD fucked up royal and continues to, they have no ground to stand on to call out others behavior.
I don't think anyone has forgotten about that; it's quite possible to object to both things, and to varying degrees, while only mentioning/talking about one at a given time.
Certainly some police aren't trying to win a moral victory, some are, you just tend not to hear about them, because you never about things that go right, just things that go wrong.
|
On April 26 2015 13:25 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 13:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2015 12:43 zlefin wrote:
When aiming for a moral victory, restraint is essential. It's just absurd to me that a couple dozen out of 1000's of people throwing shit and breaking stuff so easily distracts people from the paralyzed man the police practically let die in the back of a police van. If restraint is essential when aiming for a moral victory, it's clear the police certainly aren't trying to win a moral victory. So it's hard to see how anyone could be on their side and claim it's the protesters who need to behave better. It makes sense for people on the side of the protesters to hope for better behavior, but anyone who doesn't think BPD fucked up royal and continues to, they have no ground to stand on to call out others behavior. I don't think anyone has forgotten about that; it's quite possible to object to both things, and to varying degrees, while only mentioning/talking about one at a given time. Certainly some police aren't trying to win a moral victory, some are, you just tend not to hear about them, because you never about things that go right, just things that go wrong.
Bullshit. I'll believe cops want a moral victory when they make a proactive move to punish the corrupt among them. Just doing their job without breaking the law is the bare minimum we should expect from them.
|
On April 26 2015 13:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 13:14 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 26 2015 13:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2015 12:43 zlefin wrote:
When aiming for a moral victory, restraint is essential. It's just absurd to me that a couple dozen out of 1000's of people throwing shit and breaking stuff so easily distracts people from the paralyzed man the police practically let die in the back of a police van. If restraint is essential when aiming for a moral victory, it's clear the police certainly aren't trying to win a moral victory. So it's hard to see how anyone could be on their side and claim it's the protesters who need to behave better. It makes sense for people on the side of the protesters to hope for better behavior, but anyone who doesn't think BPD fucked up royal and continues to, they have no ground to stand on to call out others behavior. So you're okay with a small percentage of the protesters being horrible people but not a small percentage of police officers being horrible people? Let me play devils advocate at you again and rephrase your quote. It makes sense for people on the side of the BPD to hope for better behavior, but anyone who doesn't think that the protesters fucked up royally and continue to, they have no ground to stand on to call out others behavior. It makes just as much sense that way. + Show Spoiler +fyi I'm playing devils advocate here in case you missed it. The question is absurd but I'll entertain it. First, were not paying the protesters to protect and serve people. So we shouldn't be comparing the two. Once we move past that, the acts aren't even close to parallel. It's not just the abuse that's being protested but the systematic covering that transpires after an event like this. If we're comparing random troublemakers in crowds of thousands throwing shit and breaking windows, to a corrupted criminal justice system (not a few bad apples) there really isn't any more to say.
So some shithead cops make the entire justice system corrupt, but some shit head protesters don't make the entire black lives matter movement corrupt? I bet the ratio of rioters to peaceful protesters is higher than the ratio of corrupt cops to non corrupt cops.
+ Show Spoiler +Devils advocate again, but its not a very rare sentiment
|
On April 26 2015 13:33 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 13:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2015 13:14 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 26 2015 13:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2015 12:43 zlefin wrote:
When aiming for a moral victory, restraint is essential. It's just absurd to me that a couple dozen out of 1000's of people throwing shit and breaking stuff so easily distracts people from the paralyzed man the police practically let die in the back of a police van. If restraint is essential when aiming for a moral victory, it's clear the police certainly aren't trying to win a moral victory. So it's hard to see how anyone could be on their side and claim it's the protesters who need to behave better. It makes sense for people on the side of the protesters to hope for better behavior, but anyone who doesn't think BPD fucked up royal and continues to, they have no ground to stand on to call out others behavior. So you're okay with a small percentage of the protesters being horrible people but not a small percentage of police officers being horrible people? Let me play devils advocate at you again and rephrase your quote. It makes sense for people on the side of the BPD to hope for better behavior, but anyone who doesn't think that the protesters fucked up royally and continue to, they have no ground to stand on to call out others behavior. It makes just as much sense that way. + Show Spoiler +fyi I'm playing devils advocate here in case you missed it. The question is absurd but I'll entertain it. First, were not paying the protesters to protect and serve people. So we shouldn't be comparing the two. Once we move past that, the acts aren't even close to parallel. It's not just the abuse that's being protested but the systematic covering that transpires after an event like this. If we're comparing random troublemakers in crowds of thousands throwing shit and breaking windows, to a corrupted criminal justice system (not a few bad apples) there really isn't any more to say. So some shithead cops make the entire justice system corrupt, but some shit head protesters don't make the entire black lives matter movement corrupt? I bet the ratio of rioters to peaceful protesters is higher than the ratio of corrupt cops to non corrupt cops. + Show Spoiler +Devils advocate again, but its not a very rare sentiment
Which again is bullshit. It's not 'some shithead cops'. It's cops, police chiefs, judges, prosecutors, politicians, etc... I don't give a shit if cops, lawyers, etc... don't want to or don't think they should have to snitch on their corrupt friends, but in my view if they don't, they are just as corrupt or worse.
Sure protesters should behave better, and hold each other responsible, but they shouldn't be out there in the first place, it's because the entire criminal justice system isn't holding itself accountable (let alone to the standards of those they punish) that they are even out there providing a scene that destructive people can take advantage of at all.
There wouldn't be any protesters let alone rioters if they had just handled the situation like they had half a brain in their heads in the first place.
|
On April 26 2015 13:14 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 13:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2015 13:06 Danglars wrote:On April 26 2015 07:56 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Ohhh boy the Freddy Grey protests are starting to trash cars. Because rioting is a great way to make sure that your message that the police are paranoid to the point of causing unnecessary deaths is accepted by all. They're only one serious injury or death to a police officer away from getting out their message that black lives matter! On April 26 2015 06:13 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 06:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 05:20 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 03:47 WhiteDog wrote:
You can argue that collectively owned firms are less efficient in some regards, if you will, I'll not discuss it. But that was not the point. I'm not saying it's less efficient, I'm saying it isn't workable on a large scale. Maybe, but again that's not the point. It's too hypothetical to be discussed : with us, mankind as it is being raised and taught today, it is not possible indeed. Yeah yeah, someday blizz will patch humanity and your awesome theorycrafted strats will be totally viable. someday ... You think our current society was possible in the XVth century ? It's a question of education, even democracy was a completly impossible idea at first. And you're always arguing against things that are not discussed. I responded a claim that said that socialism is only state ownership. That's false, and the history of socialism proved it. The discussion is not : does collective societies are possible ? And I don't want to discuss that with a mind wrapped in "economism". So what? Just because some ideas develop successfully over time does not mean that all ideas will successfully develop over time. Some will just turn out to be bad ideas. Like Marxism. Just look at where these discussions always go - straight to the dumpster of theoretical bullshitting. Practical issues? Who gives a fuck about that? Native Americans and stuff! Whoooo! The only practical issue I see is that the world is full of Jonnys lol. On April 26 2015 06:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
That's the history of communism in a nutshell right there. This thread delivers on laughs time and time again. I read the bit about Jonny's mind being too brainwashed by economism and missed sam!zdat just a little. Just remember, there are no bad ideas marred by misunderstanding human nature ... just good ideas that need more development. Your post disgusts me on a level I can't put into words. I mean thats what happened in New York and Ferguson that took a lot of the wind out of their sails, rioting and injured or dead police officers. His phrasing is crude, but rioting and attempts at taking violent revenge at someone who wears the same uniform as the scumbag dealt a massive blow to the message. If you want to reform institutional corruption, you don't have to hold yourself to the same standard as the authority, you have to hold yourself to a higher standard. Right now these protesters need to follow the words of MLK more and Malcolm X less. All I'm hearing at the moment are Malcolm X wannabees with their stuttering career excusers following quickly behind. Nothing says injustice endemic in the system like smashed windows on police cars and storefronts. Yet again details are hard to come by, but emotions have fillled in the missing details. Arresting cops might've been white, but the deceased was african american.
+ Show Spoiler +
Maybe this time a couple scumbag cops were criminally negligent with medical care or beat up the victim leading directly to his death. This is ensuring that justice is delayed and many innocent folks suffer financially and cause concern for their safety.
|
People, families, groups, cultures, tribes, they often have troubles policing themselves. People of all kinds have the issue of not reporting on the misdeeds of their friends and allies.
|
I just can't with posts like danglers. I'll let all the other black posters handle this shit...
|
Maybe people are nit picking you GreenHorizons because you have always justified, excused, and/or glossed over any bad actions by protestors in these situations because "they shouldn't be out there in the 1st place" as if cops being shit heads gives civilians a free pass to also be shitheads. It doesn't and you should be pretty harsh on those that take advantage of these situations to do this shit because it detracts from what the protestors are trying to accomplish in the first place. This gives the tone of your posts "openings" for others to just call you biased in the other direction. Because it is not hard to believe from some of your posts that you have a really bad bias against police and others involved in the criminal justice process and views like that from "your side" don't help the problem either.
|
On April 26 2015 14:45 Slaughter wrote:
Maybe people are nit picking you GreenHorizons because you have always justified, excused, and/or glossed over any bad actions by protestors in these situations because "they shouldn't be out there in the 1st place" as if cops being shit heads gives civilians a free pass to also be shitheads. It doesn't and you should be pretty harsh on those that take advantage of these situations to do this shit because it detracts from what the protestors are trying to accomplish in the first place. This gives the tone of your posts "openings" for others to just call you biased in the other direction. Because it is not hard to believe from some of your posts that you have a really bad bias against police and others involved in the criminal justice process and views like that from "your side" don't help the problem either.
Just do what jaaasper did and flip protesters with police. I've been more vocal than most about what the problems the hooligans have caused mixing themselves among legitimate protesters.
Went ahead and did the thing jaasper did.
Maybe people are nit picking you (generic poster) because you have always justified, excused, and/or glossed over any bad actions by police in these situations because "they shouldn't be committing crimes in the first place" as if citizens being shit heads gives police a free pass to also be shitheads. It doesn't, and you should be pretty harsh on those that take advantage of these situations to do this shit because it detracts from what the police are trying to accomplish in the first place. This gives the tone of most posts "openings" for others to just call you biased in the other direction. Because it is not hard to believe from some of your posts that you have a really bad bias against people who are abused by the police (typically people of color) and others involved in the defending constitutional rights and views like that from "your side" don't help the problem either.
|
On April 26 2015 09:12 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 08:54 phil.ipp wrote:
dont bring up animals in a human social or political discussion
what anmials do or did, even how humans "started out", can never be an argument how things should be.
you can NEVER justify any behavior of a human with an argument like: "but animals do it also"
or else i go and kill my next child, and afterwards i argue that animals do it sometimes as well.
also google: naturalistic fallacy I didn't say things were moral because animals did it. I said it must be simple because animals did it.
There are plenty of dynamic systems with simple starting conditions that can become overwhelmingly complex. A system, in which a person can own the equivalent of the life earnings of thousands of well situated persons cannot be simple or "natural" in any meaningful sense.
The right to property might well be a good feature for a society to have, as its basics seems to come somewhat naturally to humans and it offers an effective economic regulation on small scales that (as communist experiments have shown) cannot easily be achieved otherwise. That does not mean undesired large scale effects have to be tolerated. In fact, most modern societies try to find a balance, even the US has antitrust laws.
Property is a right that depends on the acceptance of others or "society", and more so than most other human rights. The German Grundgesetz states "Property entails obligations", which always made a lot of sense to me for that reason.
In short: Property is a useful concept in the context of human societies, but not some holy grail.
|
Corruption requires legitimate power. The protestors lack power, as they lack opportunity and as they lack a voice. These protestors, those who protested before them, and those who protested before them, have been born into circumstances you and I can hardly fathom. Desperation leads man down a terrible path, and like an animal in a corner he resorts to his most base instincts.
There is no excusing this behavior, nor does such behavior help the cause. Quite obviously it does the opposite. There is an explanation of such behavior, however, and if you'd like to have a discussion about disenfranchisement, then by all means have it. To simply draw parallels between these hopeless protestors, generations in the making, and the incessant trend of police brutality, is to hide behind the privilege which allows you to view these events through a jaded lens.
|
On April 26 2015 09:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 06:42 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 06:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 06:13 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 06:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 05:20 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 03:47 WhiteDog wrote:
You can argue that collectively owned firms are less efficient in some regards, if you will, I'll not discuss it. But that was not the point. I'm not saying it's less efficient, I'm saying it isn't workable on a large scale. Maybe, but again that's not the point. It's too hypothetical to be discussed : with us, mankind as it is being raised and taught today, it is not possible indeed. Yeah yeah, someday blizz will patch humanity and your awesome theorycrafted strats will be totally viable. someday ... You think our current society was possible in the XVth century ? It's a question of education, even democracy was a completly impossible idea at first. And you're always arguing against things that are not discussed. I responded a claim that said that socialism is only state ownership. That's false, and the history of socialism proved it. The discussion is not : does collective societies are possible ? And I don't want to discuss that with a mind wrapped in "economism". So what? Just because some ideas develop successfully over time does not mean that all ideas will successfully develop over time. Some will just turn out to be bad ideas. Like Marxism. Just look at where these discussions always go - straight to the dumpster of theoretical bullshitting. Practical issues? Who gives a fuck about that? Native Americans and stuff! Whoooo! The only practical issue I see is that the world is full of Jonnys lol. That's the history of communism in a nutshell right there. You just proved you don't know much about the history of communism some pages ago... Historically it wasn't uncommon for communists to try to solve real world problems by purging non-believers and scapegoating. So when you say things like the problem is that people who disagree with you exist, you're just following the dogma down the same failed path your predecessors went. That's pretty much the exact opposite of what a good student of history should be doing.
Lol you're post in wrong on many level.
First I don't believe history can really teach much, the society of today is not the society of yesterday.
Second, the Russian did purge "non-believers", but it was war. I know you never read anything about the period, but you should, they didn't create the tcheka out of their desire to purge those who belived differently (that's actually the discourse of the counter revolution), they did it because of the counter revolution and because of the war their neighbor countries declared against them. Sure, the tcheka evolved in the KGB afterwards but at this point I'm not sure it's the communist anymore. In this regard, the early years of 1917 are really close to 1789, the difference is we stopped after a few years, while the Russian kept doing it days in and days out for more than thirty years. But it's true that Leninism - armed communism, it's not Marx who never argued for anything of the sort - was a dangerous ideology.
Third, I did not say I wanted to kill the jonnys - I'm not a leninist, let alone a communist - I'm just implying our society create in mass dudes that are ignorants about history (and worst than that dudes who actually believe they "know"), who are individualists and who happens to be filled with a passionnate desire for money which I guess is your portrait. Considering that I'm a democrat and thus that I acknowledge your vote as equally valuable as mine, altho less informed, I agree that "communism" or "socialism" is impossible today.
We are biologically un-equal
Hobbes would disagree. Everybody can be killed by everybody in human society. Just wait until they sleep.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
observing the reaction to racial scandals is basically an empirical field observation on prejudice in action
|
On April 26 2015 18:29 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 09:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 06:42 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 06:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 06:13 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 06:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 05:20 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
I'm not saying it's less efficient, I'm saying it isn't workable on a large scale. Maybe, but again that's not the point. It's too hypothetical to be discussed : with us, mankind as it is being raised and taught today, it is not possible indeed. Yeah yeah, someday blizz will patch humanity and your awesome theorycrafted strats will be totally viable. someday ... You think our current society was possible in the XVth century ? It's a question of education, even democracy was a completly impossible idea at first. And you're always arguing against things that are not discussed. I responded a claim that said that socialism is only state ownership. That's false, and the history of socialism proved it. The discussion is not : does collective societies are possible ? And I don't want to discuss that with a mind wrapped in "economism". So what? Just because some ideas develop successfully over time does not mean that all ideas will successfully develop over time. Some will just turn out to be bad ideas. Like Marxism. Just look at where these discussions always go - straight to the dumpster of theoretical bullshitting. Practical issues? Who gives a fuck about that? Native Americans and stuff! Whoooo! The only practical issue I see is that the world is full of Jonnys lol. That's the history of communism in a nutshell right there. You just proved you don't know much about the history of communism some pages ago... Historically it wasn't uncommon for communists to try to solve real world problems by purging non-believers and scapegoating. So when you say things like the problem is that people who disagree with you exist, you're just following the dogma down the same failed path your predecessors went. That's pretty much the exact opposite of what a good student of history should be doing. Lol you're post in wrong on many level. First I don't believe history can really teach much, the society of today is not the society of yesterday. Second, the Russian did purge "non-believers", but it was war. I know you never read anything about the period, but you should, they didn't create the tcheka out of their desire to purge those who belived differently (that's actually the discourse of the counter revolution), they did it because of the counter revolution and because of the war their neighbor countries declared against them. Sure, the tcheka evolved in the KGB afterwards but at this point I'm not sure it's the communist anymore. In this regard, the early years of 1917 are really close to 1789, the difference is we stopped after a few years, while the Russian kept doing it days in and days out for more than thirty years. But it's true that Leninism - armed communism, it's not Marx who never argued for anything of the sort - was a dangerous ideology. Third, I did not say I wanted to kill the jonnys - I'm not a leninist, let alone a communist - I'm just implying our society create in mass dudes that are ignorants about history (and worst than that dudes who actually believe they "know"), who are individualists and who happens to be filled with a passionnate desire for money which I guess is your portrait. Considering that I'm a democrat and thus that I acknowledge your vote as equally valuable as mine, altho less informed, I agree that "communism" or "socialism" is impossible today. Hobbes would disagree. Everybody can be killed by everybody in human society. Just wait until they sleep.
There's nothing more hilarious than someone who is ignorant themselves calling others ignorant. Cherry-picking one Proudhon quote which is way out of context to paint him as some utopian socialist is laughable. Proudhon was an individualist, and his theory of mutualism is free-market anarchism for the most part. If you read for example a modern day example in Kevin Carson it's nothing like socialism/communism/etc. In fact, Proudhon was for individual ownership, and his theory of property isn't so much different than Locke's. Are you calling to call Benjamin Tucker next a Marx protégé? The Proudhon, Stirner, Tucker, Warren lineage is far removed from the collectivism which you advocate for. Anyways, the old saying goes - you can have communism in market anarchism, but you can't have market anarchism in communism. I actually have nothing against non-aggressive adherents (or let's say anarchists without adjectives), but something tells me these systems aren't going to be letting others contract and use their property as they wish. That's the thing with those -ism's is that they play on the worst parts of human nature - envy, covetness, suspicion, etc.
I think the huge problem though is the erroneous idea of the labor theory of value, which the marginal revolution proved beyond a doubt was farcical. Update that wrong and if Proudhon was around today, he'd be more reminiscent of people like Sheldon Richman and Wendy McElroy ('left' market anarchists), and definitely not disciple(s) of Kroptokin, Goldman, etc.
If we're going to talk about Marx, he did in fact argue to use the State for the proleteriate revolution and that is exactly what the revolution(s) sought to do. Because the outcome was not what was ordained, doesn't make it not communism. Marx wasn't even the first proponent of these ideas anyway. They've been around for a long long time from the Jewish Kibbutz to the Anabaptists, and the early Puritans. They mostly universally failed.
Please, the most passionate people about money are fascists (corporatists). Most individualists are motivated by justice, liberty, and ethics. You would know this if you ever read any individualist writings from Tucker, Spooner, Warren, Twain, Garret Garrett, on down to modern day equivalents like Hornberger, Roderick Long, and even more well known academics like Nozick. You act like you know our motivations but you couldn't be more ignorant. Guess who it was who founded the Anti-Imperialist League? Individualists. If we $$$$$ we'd be the merchants of death and cheering for global war.
|
You know, I think this pile-on on Green Horizons is a bit unjustified, but largely from the perspective that maybe a little rioting needs to happen from time to time.
I mean, it definitely draws attention to an issue that often gets sidelined. It forces people to pay attention, even if it is through violence. How many times do you hear about cops beating the shit out of black people (in recent times, actually just straight up killing them) but nothing happening? At least something did happen in Ferguson. I had not even thought it was possible for a police department to act in such a manner (the ticketing, percentage of the population with an arrest warrant, etc.). At least their rioting made it an issue. It definitely wouldn't have been exposed nationally if people just allowed it to be another death swept under the rug (which it definitely would have been if people didn't mobilize around it).
Christ, so many of you people justify gun ownership as "protection for your rights against the state". There's pretty decent evidence that there's systemic issues with policing black communities involving the denial of their fundamental rights (including that to life). At what point are people justified in taking a stand? How bad does it have to be?
|
On April 26 2015 20:29 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 18:29 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 09:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 06:42 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 06:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 06:13 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 06:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 05:20 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Maybe, but again that's not the point. It's too hypothetical to be discussed : with us, mankind as it is being raised and taught today, it is not possible indeed. Yeah yeah, someday blizz will patch humanity and your awesome theorycrafted strats will be totally viable. someday ... You think our current society was possible in the XVth century ? It's a question of education, even democracy was a completly impossible idea at first. And you're always arguing against things that are not discussed. I responded a claim that said that socialism is only state ownership. That's false, and the history of socialism proved it. The discussion is not : does collective societies are possible ? And I don't want to discuss that with a mind wrapped in "economism". So what? Just because some ideas develop successfully over time does not mean that all ideas will successfully develop over time. Some will just turn out to be bad ideas. Like Marxism. Just look at where these discussions always go - straight to the dumpster of theoretical bullshitting. Practical issues? Who gives a fuck about that? Native Americans and stuff! Whoooo! The only practical issue I see is that the world is full of Jonnys lol. That's the history of communism in a nutshell right there. You just proved you don't know much about the history of communism some pages ago... Historically it wasn't uncommon for communists to try to solve real world problems by purging non-believers and scapegoating. So when you say things like the problem is that people who disagree with you exist, you're just following the dogma down the same failed path your predecessors went. That's pretty much the exact opposite of what a good student of history should be doing. Lol you're post in wrong on many level. First I don't believe history can really teach much, the society of today is not the society of yesterday. Second, the Russian did purge "non-believers", but it was war. I know you never read anything about the period, but you should, they didn't create the tcheka out of their desire to purge those who belived differently (that's actually the discourse of the counter revolution), they did it because of the counter revolution and because of the war their neighbor countries declared against them. Sure, the tcheka evolved in the KGB afterwards but at this point I'm not sure it's the communist anymore. In this regard, the early years of 1917 are really close to 1789, the difference is we stopped after a few years, while the Russian kept doing it days in and days out for more than thirty years. But it's true that Leninism - armed communism, it's not Marx who never argued for anything of the sort - was a dangerous ideology. Third, I did not say I wanted to kill the jonnys - I'm not a leninist, let alone a communist - I'm just implying our society create in mass dudes that are ignorants about history (and worst than that dudes who actually believe they "know"), who are individualists and who happens to be filled with a passionnate desire for money which I guess is your portrait. Considering that I'm a democrat and thus that I acknowledge your vote as equally valuable as mine, altho less informed, I agree that "communism" or "socialism" is impossible today. We are biologically un-equal Hobbes would disagree. Everybody can be killed by everybody in human society. Just wait until they sleep. There's nothing more hilarious than someone who is ignorant themselves calling others ignorant. Cherry-picking one Proudhon quote which is way out of context to paint him as some utopian socialist is laughable. Proudhon was an individualist, and his theory of mutualism is free-market anarchism for the most part. If you read for example a modern day example in Kevin Carson it's nothing like socialism/communism/etc. In fact, Proudhon was for individual ownership, and his theory of property isn't so much different than Locke's. Are you calling to call Benjamin Tucker next a Marx protégé? The Proudhon, Stirner, Tucker, Warren lineage is far removed from the collectivism which you advocate for. Anyways, the old saying goes - you can have communism in market anarchism, but you can't have market anarchism in communism. I actually have nothing against non-aggressive adherents (or let's say anarchists without adjectives), but something tells me these systems aren't going to be letting others contract and use their property as they wish. That's the thing with those -ism's is that they play on the worst parts of human nature - envy, covetness, suspicion, etc. I think the huge problem though is the erroneous idea of the labor theory of value, which the marginal revolution proved beyond a doubt was farcical. Update that wrong and if Proudhon was around today, he'd be more reminiscent of people like Sheldon Richman and Wendy McElroy ('left' market anarchists), and definitely not disciple(s) of Kroptokin, Goldman, etc. If we're going to talk about Marx, he did in fact argue to use the State for the proleteriate revolution and that is exactly what the revolution(s) sought to do. Because the outcome was not what was ordained, doesn't make it not communism. Marx wasn't even the first proponent of these ideas anyway. They've been around for a long long time from the Jewish Kibbutz to the Anabaptists, and the early Puritans. They mostly universally failed. Please, the most passionate people about money are fascists (corporatists). Most individualists are motivated by justice, liberty, and ethics. You would know this if you ever read any individualist writings from Tucker, Spooner, Warren, Twain, Garret Garrett, on down to modern day equivalents like Hornberger, Roderick Long, and even more well known academics like Nozick. You act like you know our motivations but you couldn't be more ignorant. Guess who it was who founded the Anti-Imperialist League? Individualists. If we $$$$$ we'd be the merchants of death and cheering for global war.
Proudhon was this, proudhon was that, do you even know who are talking about ? He changed a lot in years, finished as a spiritualist. Arguing against things I didn't say again, I quoted Proudhon to point out that many people believe the property is not necessarily moral - "a theft" - I did not say that Proudhon was a Marxist... lolmao.
And yes, I'm ignorant in a lot of things, not in the history of revolutions, socialism and communism in europe.
Please, the most passionate people about money are fascists (corporatists). Most individualists are motivated by justice, liberty, and ethics. You would know this if you ever read any individualist writings from Tucker, Spooner, Warren, Twain, Garret Garrett, on down to modern day equivalents like Hornberger, Roderick Long, and even more well known academics like Nozick. You act like you know our motivations but you couldn't be more ignorant. Guess who it was who founded the Anti-Imperialist League? Individualists. If we $$$$$ we'd be the merchants of death and cheering for global war.
You really think I have time to read sub part intellectuals ? And how about you read what I said and not respond to thing I did not say ? I never said the entirety of humanity was motivated by a desire for money, I said young kids today are raised in this desire. You'd know if you worked with students as I do, they are way more interested in finance than history of economical thought, and there is a reason for that and it's the "master desire", the desire for money.
If we're going to talk about Marx, he did in fact argue to use the State for the proleteriate revolution and that is exactly what the revolution(s) sought to do. Because the outcome was not what was ordained, doesn't make it not communism. Marx wasn't even the first proponent of these ideas anyway. They've been around for a long long time from the Jewish Kibbutz to the Anabaptists, and the early Puritans. They mostly universally failed.
Jaurès also argued for the use of the State, what is your point ? Words have meaning, there is a huge difference between arguing for the creation of an army and arguing for the revolution and the control of the state to do so. The distinction between leninism and marxism that I made is well known...
Guess who it was who founded the Anti-Imperialist League? Individualists.
Why should I care ? The first popular anti colonialist movements were communists, is it relevant to our discussion ? Did I say that individualism as a philosophy is wrong ? No, I was not discussing philosophy, I was just saying that our society favor individual initiative, independancy and autonomy and not collective values (unlike Proudhon who believed wealth was created by the fact that labor is a collective activity... lol which is why property is, among other things, impossible to him, how is that cherry picking ? Do you even know Pourdhon's writtings ?). Read please, and understand words, don't argue against arguments that were not made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/dk6AjFYiLrVQVsnNgspoXg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTM3NztpbD1wbGFuZTtweG9mZj01MDtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz02NzA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/801666fd8700b712740f6a7067004e21.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/SMUlXjmMaeqltFlHjTymaw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTM3NztpbD1wbGFuZTtweG9mZj01MDtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz02NzA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/e7624966ab0eb812740f6a7067007f9d.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/rvjEBAxBLh8bNevOOfTDyw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTM3NztpbD1wbGFuZTtweG9mZj01MDtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz02NzA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/0d19973cab10b812740f6a706700398c.jpg)
Demonstrators making sure their voices are heard.
