|
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. |
Ok, I've had it with being called "ignorant", "propagandist", "biased" and all the other ad hominems. If you can't entertain a civil discussion, have at it. Every time you attack my character instead of my argument, in exchange I'll intentionally pour some shit on Sanders. Deal? Here's your first dose of shit:
So I suggested you were either ignorant that the tweet in question was propaganda which wasn't meant as an insult, but an explanation as to why you would post it with the caption you did. the propaganda charge from you iirc was related to if you knew what you were posting and did it anyway with that caption. Lastly you obviously took some pleasure in the idea of Bernie losing so I don't know why you would be mad about me pointing that out.
So now that we're past the ad hominem aspect it's not an either or. I merely added that commentary along with pointing out that you also happened to be wrong about your argument, most recently if you were suggesting I couldn't see any flaws in Bernie.
As for the "shit pouring" we've already been through that video here and recently. When you watch the whole thing it's pretty clear the point he was making. Though if the argument is about when the US should overthrow sovereign governments, that's a fair argument to have. I have my differences with Bernie on those subjects too. I'd probably be almost as hawkish as Hillary if we took care of our veterans and we didn't need so much work domestically.
|
I'm sorry GH, but you can't explain away insults. If I feel insulted, I'll pour more shit on Bernie. Sucks to be you.
|
On April 04 2016 19:53 Ghanburighan wrote:
I'm sorry GH, but you can't explain away insults. If I feel insulted, I'll pour more shit on Bernie. Sucks to be you.
If you go back and read them in context you'll see it's pretty clear that's what I was doing. You're right that I can't force you to accept it though. But pouring shit on Sanders, with the justification that I hurt your feelings, isn't going to do much for your credibility.
|
On April 04 2016 19:46 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 19:25 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 19:15 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 19:00 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 18:51 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 18:39 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 18:25 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 18:12 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 18:07 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 17:51 kwizach wrote:
There is a difference between criticizing a general system and attacking a single person by insinuating that there is something particularly wrong with that person in terms of corruption. Not when that person is described and has always been described as representing the system and being the system's candidate... An individual person is not a system. Bernie Sanders himself made the distinction, and he made sure to stick to it until earlier this year, when he switched gears and began trying to smear Hillary's character. I've provided you with evidence documenting this fact. It's impressive that you are still discarding the evidence in favor of the lie that you're pushing that there has been no notable change in his campaigning. This discussion is just surreal. We're stuck on your unwillingness to make a logical inference of the most basic kind. No, we're stuck on you pretending that criticizing a system is the same as singling out one individual and pretending that this individual is particularly different from others in the system. Sanders himself disagrees with you, Sanders' campaign disagrees with you, and analysts and commentators who've reported the change in Sanders' attacks disagree with you. You're wrong, simple as. Pretending that Clinton specifically is in the pockets of the oil & financial industries, and carefully avoiding any mention of Obama receiving even more money than her from those industries, is dishonest and false. A) I have negative things to say about a system. B) That person represents the system. Your inference: I am making no negative comment regarding that person in the context of the negative things I have to say about the system. When I start doing that later, that's a change in my position. That's what you're arguing. You're using Sanders' decision not to focus on Clinton from the start as evidence that there has been a switch in the content of his argument, when a quick analysis of the internal logic of the argument demonstrates that this isn't the case. This should not even be a discussion, and it blows my mind a little that it is. Except that as I have repeatedly explained to you and as is documented in the article, Sanders is not only painting Clinton as a simple representative of the system. He is actively portraying her as something who is distinctively suspicious and whose integrity can be particularly questioned. That is why he is not simply equating her to other people who have accepted just as much money from the same industries, like Barack Obama. That this simple fact is still flying over your head is pretty impressive. That's not singling out Clinton, that's giving a pass to Obama. See, when you're talking about changing the status quo and your last president was Obama, that's not a great endorsement of his practices, as they represent the situation that needs changing. Of course you're not going to say that about Obama in a democratic primary when he's the last democratic president, but it's okay to connect the dots from time to time. You're leaving out half of my post, and only responding to half of what you quoted. Let me copy/paste the first half of the quote you just cited: Sanders is not only painting Clinton as a simple representative of the system. He is actively portraying her as something who is distinctively suspicious and whose integrity can be particularly questioned. He is not portraying Clinton as a simple representative of the system. He's singling her out and portraying her as particularly untrustworthy. This is explicitly acknowledged in the NY times article I cited as a strategy his campaign wanted him to pursue earlier. Please stop pretending otherwise. You're responding to 0% of the post you quoted, so I guess I'm ahead on that front. What you're saying has already been adressed. This is a change in focus, not a change in content. Everything Sanders has ever said has been consistent with the notion that Clinton is untrustworthy, represents the system and won't bring the change that he wants to bring.
False. I answered your point repeatedly. You're either not reading my posts or deliberately ignoring what I'm saying. You are arguing that (1) Sanders is simply saying that Clinton represents the system, and that this therefore (2) does not represent a change of content. Both (1) and (2) are false.
(1) is false because Sanders is going beyond painting Clinton as a simple representative of the system, and singling her out as particularly untrustworthy compared to others in the system. Again, go read the NY Times article.
(2) is false because "the system is corrupt" is a statement that says nothing about individuals within the system. Unless you think Sanders is also arguing that he is himself corrupt, he believes that not everyone who's in the political system is necessarily corrupt. Attacking Clinton individually therefore brings new content to the table, namely that Clinton is corrupt herself and is not among those who are in the system but principled enough to resist the influence of money. This is not part of the "the system is corrupt" line of attack. It is a new line of attack, linked to the first one obviously but focused on Clinton specifically. Individual content has been added to the systemic content.
|
Different countries, different education, different healthcare.
There is no reason to defend authoritarian regimes. But if one wanted to talk about upsides the question would be what was their baseline and did they improve on it (faster than other countries).
For instance my country of birth the GDR had a gigantic negative impact from sovjet occupation, they took everything they could grab (in vindication for the war), industry, railroads, natural resources....
If you take the stripped down starting point as the baseline the country did (economically) decently well. It only falls extremely far behind if you compare it with the western part because they were not stripped to the bones, and got marshall plan funding on top.
The scarcity and despair was to the very largest part the fault of sovjet rule and exploitation, not of the economic system. I can not imagine that the baltics got treated better in any way and so from their baseline showed equally bad progression.
I know of nobody who was in any way positively involved in the regime, but even those who were organized against it (mostly in their churches, which led to the monday demonstration and peaceful revolution) saw 2 main aspects that were "better" than today: perspective and stability
The society felt like there was a place for everyone (although there wasn't, as every political opponent the stasi found something on was detained), as the education and path to finding work system was well accepted by the majority. Under the capitalist system it is nervewrecking, there is no job security, you can just fall through the cracks with no fault of your own, you can't prepare, you can't decide your faith, as it is determined by those hiring, or not.
|
On April 04 2016 20:05 puerk wrote:
Different countries, different education, different healthcare.
There is no reason to defend authoritarian regimes. But if one wanted to talk about upsides the question would be what was their baseline and did they improve on it (faster than other countries).
For instance my country of birth the GDR had a gigantic negative impact from sovjet occupation, they took everything they could grab (in vindication for the war), industry, railroads, natural resources....
If you take the stripped down starting point as the baseline the country did (economically) decently well. It only falls extremely far behind if you compare it with the western part because they were not stripped to the bones, and got marshall plan funding on top.
The scarcity and despair was to the very largest part the fault of sovjet rule and exploitation, not of the economic system. I can not imagine that the baltics got treated better in any way and so from their baseline showed equally bad progression.
I know of nobody who was in any way positively involved in the regime, but even those who were organized against it (mostly in their churches, which led to the monday demonstration and peaceful revolution) saw 2 main aspects that were "better" than today: perspective and stability
The society felt like there was a place for everyone (although there wasn't, as every political opponent the stasi found something on was detained), as the education and path to finding work system was well accepted by the majority. Under the capitalist system it is nervewrecking, there is no job security, you can just fall through the cracks with no fault of your own, you can't prepare, you can't decide your faith, as it is determined by those hiring, or not.
Yeah, reality is always more complicated, and maybe, in today's world, investigating this complexity is a good way to understand that there are other solution than all dominant capitalism. Pretty good post by the way.
|
Sorry for the semi-derailment of the thread, but I'm genuinely curious what the differences between the GDR and Baltics were. This wasn't public information. Getting to the GDR was as difficult as going to Western countries. And the GDR was considered the potjomkin village of the Soviet Union because of the Western spotlight on it. So I just don't know how it was set up:
a) Did you have compulsory job allocation? Once they graduated, my parents and grandparents were sent to random parts of Estonia to work on whatever they were deemed most suitable for them (for example, my parents as biologists were sent to several different rural villages to teach in schools, my grandmother was assigned to a military town as a secretary, etc).
b) How was it with housing? Did you get assigned an apartment based on the number of family members? I can't remember the details, but for Estonia you received a place where to live near-enough to your place of employment where you got square meters based on the number of children. You might need to share with other families.
c) You mentioned faith. Was religion banned? As in, no Christmas celebrations, etc?
|
On April 04 2016 19:45 Ghanburighan wrote:Hahaha. I already have several stories prepared about both universal healthcare in communist countries and the education stories are juiciest. Teaser, imagine learning about Gagarin in biology.
To be fair, having gone through the U.S. system, that's a lot more than you learn in some biology classes here. 
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the clinton family is probably the most scrutinized family around, with a level of self imposed transparency that goes above and beyond the law. plus you know what their income is, giving speeches. that's basically it.
same goes for their foundation which really goes out of the way to avoid corruption in two ways. first they rely on inhouse staff to develop intervention programs rather than relying on existing organizations. second they have the most strict disclosure and conflict of interest rules. it is through these rules that people are able to point fingers at some questionable transactions.
not having looked at it too deeply but i do think they should scrutinize former aides/confidants contributions more closely. if someone knows what kind of WORDS you want to hear and frame a position in those words, it would be cognitively difficult to resist a positive impression. but there has been no evidence of direct foul play or corruption. the fact that the clintons have been doing charity work instead of joining carlyle or whatever is relatively excellent for politicians. it's just the ignorant children complaining from outside of power.
|
On April 04 2016 20:04 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 19:46 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 19:25 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 19:15 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 19:00 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 18:51 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 18:39 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 18:25 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 18:12 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 18:07 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Not when that person is described and has always been described as representing the system and being the system's candidate... An individual person is not a system. Bernie Sanders himself made the distinction, and he made sure to stick to it until earlier this year, when he switched gears and began trying to smear Hillary's character. I've provided you with evidence documenting this fact. It's impressive that you are still discarding the evidence in favor of the lie that you're pushing that there has been no notable change in his campaigning. This discussion is just surreal. We're stuck on your unwillingness to make a logical inference of the most basic kind. No, we're stuck on you pretending that criticizing a system is the same as singling out one individual and pretending that this individual is particularly different from others in the system. Sanders himself disagrees with you, Sanders' campaign disagrees with you, and analysts and commentators who've reported the change in Sanders' attacks disagree with you. You're wrong, simple as. Pretending that Clinton specifically is in the pockets of the oil & financial industries, and carefully avoiding any mention of Obama receiving even more money than her from those industries, is dishonest and false. A) I have negative things to say about a system. B) That person represents the system. Your inference: I am making no negative comment regarding that person in the context of the negative things I have to say about the system. When I start doing that later, that's a change in my position. That's what you're arguing. You're using Sanders' decision not to focus on Clinton from the start as evidence that there has been a switch in the content of his argument, when a quick analysis of the internal logic of the argument demonstrates that this isn't the case. This should not even be a discussion, and it blows my mind a little that it is. Except that as I have repeatedly explained to you and as is documented in the article, Sanders is not only painting Clinton as a simple representative of the system. He is actively portraying her as something who is distinctively suspicious and whose integrity can be particularly questioned. That is why he is not simply equating her to other people who have accepted just as much money from the same industries, like Barack Obama. That this simple fact is still flying over your head is pretty impressive. That's not singling out Clinton, that's giving a pass to Obama. See, when you're talking about changing the status quo and your last president was Obama, that's not a great endorsement of his practices, as they represent the situation that needs changing. Of course you're not going to say that about Obama in a democratic primary when he's the last democratic president, but it's okay to connect the dots from time to time. You're leaving out half of my post, and only responding to half of what you quoted. Let me copy/paste the first half of the quote you just cited: Sanders is not only painting Clinton as a simple representative of the system. He is actively portraying her as something who is distinctively suspicious and whose integrity can be particularly questioned. He is not portraying Clinton as a simple representative of the system. He's singling her out and portraying her as particularly untrustworthy. This is explicitly acknowledged in the NY times article I cited as a strategy his campaign wanted him to pursue earlier. Please stop pretending otherwise. You're responding to 0% of the post you quoted, so I guess I'm ahead on that front. What you're saying has already been adressed. This is a change in focus, not a change in content. Everything Sanders has ever said has been consistent with the notion that Clinton is untrustworthy, represents the system and won't bring the change that he wants to bring. False. I answered your point repeatedly. You're either not reading my posts or deliberately ignoring what I'm saying. You are arguing that (1) Sanders is simply saying that Clinton represents the system, and that this therefore (2) does not represent a change of content. Both (1) and (2) are false. (1) is false because Sanders is going beyond painting Clinton as a simple representative of the system, and singling her out as particularly untrustworthy compared to others in the system. Again, go read the NY Times article. (2) is false because "the system is corrupt" is a statement that says nothing about individuals within the system. Unless you think Sanders is also arguing that he is himself corrupt, he believes that not everyone who's in the political system is necessarily corrupt. Attacking Clinton individually therefore brings new content to the table, namely that Clinton is corrupt herself and is not among those who are in the system but principled enough to resist the influence of money. This is not part of the "the system is corrupt" line of attack. It is a new line of attack, linked to the first one obviously but focused on Clinton specifically. Individual content has been added to the systemic content.
Who is she more untrustworthy than, specifically, apart from Obama who you've (smartly) chosen not to continue on? I'm just curious.
But the second part is the more infuriating part, because you're being intentionally dense and it's annoying. There is a difference between being part of a system and being the candidate that is chosen by and for the system. Sanders is not the establishment candidate. The establishment isn't siding with him. In this vision, Clinton isn't corrupt simply because she is in the system, as you're trying to pretend now in a way that is just blatant, she is corrupt because she has been chosen to represent the system, and because that's what she will do. Now you can disagree with that, and I'm sure you do. That's one thing. But that's not the same as saying there has been a change in content in Bernie's argument. That was always his argument: that Clinton will uphold the status quo, because that's what the establishment wants. I hope we still live in a world where when you argue something as ridiculous as "you're wrong because Bernie is also part of the system", as if Bernie was representative of the system in the context of his own vision where he is there to change the system, it does something to your credibility.
|
On April 04 2016 20:19 Ghanburighan wrote:
Sorry for the semi-derailment of the thread, but I'm genuinely curious what the differences between the GDR and Baltics were. This wasn't public information. Getting to the GDR was as difficult as going to Western countries. And the GDR was considered the potjomkin village of the Soviet Union because of the Western spotlight on it. So I just don't know how it was set up:
a) Did you have compulsory job allocation? Once they graduated, my parents and grandparents were sent to random parts of Estonia to work on whatever they were deemed most suitable for them (for example, my parents as biologists were sent to several different rural villages to teach in schools, my grandmother was assigned to a military town as a secretary, etc).
b) How was it with housing? Did you get assigned an apartment based on the number of family members? I can't remember the details, but for Estonia you received a place where to live near-enough to your place of employment where you got square meters based on the number of children. You might need to share with other families.
c) You mentioned faith. Was religion banned? As in, no Christmas celebrations, etc?
There was a disconnect between the "intended", "wanted by the sovjets" and "actual" state of things, in almost every category
@ a
i am not exactly sure on it, as the allocation happened at various stages in life. you could apply in school to be part of different tracks (participate in youth organisations to get a higher education track), you could then apply to a place to study, and those were granted or shifted (according to the "needs" of the country) so many got something close to what they wanted, and got a job after graduating. since all people i know that experienced it managed to live in their prefered city (my mother had to study in an other city for instance but then got a job in her city of birth again) application and admission of work seemed pretty lenient.
there was also choice in vocational education and the crafts were pretty popular as people not only got a guaranteed job but could do (illegal but never prosecuted because police just used those services aswell) work on the side
@ b
you applied for a flat according to your needs, and got one assigned. during my first 2 or 3 years of life we lived in a small flat without a bath room, so we showered in the kitchen, then the flat accross the floor got vacant and we were granted the "need", so we could move. Not sure on the exact size but the new one was like ~70m² 3 living rooms (2 around 20m², 1 like 15), kitchen, bathroom. so it was basically the same mechanism as you described, size according to number of children, but apparently more m² or better structure
@ c
faith was discouraged, many peoples faith declined, and church became just one more meeting of fellow commrades to talk and enjoy life.
the same goes for religious celebrations, they were allowed but the religion was taken out of it, a in jest saying was to put the "Jahresendflügelfigur" on top of a evergreen tree at around december 24th (it was an angel, but there is no religion so it was a "end of the year figurine with wings")
stasi surveillance of churchgoers and pastors was commonplace but there was very low amount of crackdown, poets, playwrights and alike got much more scrunity and harsher treatment
that is why the churches could act as the place for organisation of the demonstrations, they were not seen as religiously motivated
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
lol so we are defending the soviet system while bashing the democrat party system. what a time to be alive
|
On April 04 2016 21:02 oneofthem wrote:
lol so we are defending the soviet system while bashing the democrat party system. what a time to be alive
what? learn to read.
nobody defended anything sovjet
|
Cool, thanks for that. Sounds very much like a similar system, just a tad more lenient. I love the "Jahresendflügelfigur" detail.
On the last point. We didn't have stasi but instead the KGB (same thing in the end), and they also wanted to track church attendance. As all religion was strictly forbidden, people had little tricks. For example, my parents got married on the 24th of December so they could prove that they're having a wedding anniversary instead of a Christmas celebration (what tree? that tree? Just a gift from someone...)
The biggest mistake the KGB made was asking schoolteachers to go to church on Christmas eve to report any pupils and parents they recognize (teachers can connect a large number of community members by name and face). But obviously teachers pretty much never reported anyone. KGB was happy too, apparently no-one attended church on Christmas Eve 
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 04 2016 21:04 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 21:02 oneofthem wrote:
lol so we are defending the soviet system while bashing the democrat party system. what a time to be alive what? learn to read. nobody defended anything sovjet
i see whitedoge and sanders doing that.
|
pretty sure neither of those two said positive things about secret police, forced relocations, gulags and genocides..... which are some of the biggest downsides to the soviets
|
On April 04 2016 21:23 puerk wrote:
pretty sure neither of those two said positive things about secret police, forced relocations, gulags and genocides..... which are some of the biggest downsides to the soviets
Well, it's kind of like saying that "Hitler had some great ideas on how to run an economy". You're not talking about the worst part, nor is it strictly false, but it's completely unacceptable in civilized discussion.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 04 2016 21:23 puerk wrote:
pretty sure neither of those two said positive things about secret police, forced relocations, gulags and genocides..... which are some of the biggest downsides to the soviets
dude you said 'anything'
whitedoge even goes so far as to defend some aspects of maoism lol
|
On April 04 2016 21:12 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 21:04 puerk wrote:On April 04 2016 21:02 oneofthem wrote:
lol so we are defending the soviet system while bashing the democrat party system. what a time to be alive what? learn to read. nobody defended anything sovjet i see whitedoge and sanders doing that.
I want to quote someone you love (for the joke) : "The one who want to restore communism has no brain. The one that does not regret it has no heart" (yes, it's Vladimir Putin).
More specifically, I never defended the soviet system, I actually abhorre its productivism, the destruction of nature, the bureaucracy and, of course, the treatment reserved to those who disagreed. It doesn't mean that the communist "hypothesis" as a whole should be completly forgotten or pushed aside (note that I never argued for communism). But that kind of complex thinking is oftentime too reasonable for the oneofsanto of the world.
I did not defend maoism, I'm not Badiou, I just said that even in China, communism was not a complete failure in terms of education and health (it means that it was for everything else...), and I have someone like Amartya Sen to back me up. Compare China under mao to India at the same moment and then the situation is a lot more complex. But don't mind me, continue with your certainty : capitalism, america, hillary, youpi.
|
@oneofthem
And yet, as it seems, everyone besides you read and understood these comments how they were ment.
You on the other hand immediatly got the giant socialsm boogey man before your inner eye and therefore lost any ability to see what people were actually writing and talking about.
Btw: Cuba right after the communist revolution had gotten way better than it was before.
Sure, it went bad after again for various reasons (Castro for sure being one of them, but the US Embargo and the end of Sovjet support weren't exactly helping either).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
