|
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. |
United States43513 Posts
On April 12 2016 03:24 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 03:10 Jormundr wrote:On April 12 2016 02:58 Ghanburighan wrote:
Frankly, I've had it with this thread. In the last few weeks I've been insulted by pretty much everyone I've had a prolonged exchange with (except a few pleasant individuals, who know who they are). This includes mods, the OP preaching a "no bashing policy" and many others. I just don't need this.
One shouldn't need to write full length essays covering all of one's bases every time they post in this thread to avoid patronizing, being called stupid, ignorant and worse. And, in fact, people don't seem to read prior posts anyway so even if you have covered a particular base, that doesn't seem to matter much. So I'm done. I blame myself for thinking I could enjoy a conversation on politics on the internet, but this little experiment only demonstrates that it's a waste of time and energy that only creates pointless arguments.
I'm sure many of you will be happy to see me go (greetings to GH - I do actually wish Sanders the best of luck, he almost made this primary cycle a nail-biter) but I'll remind you that self-reflection is a virtue. I haven't been following too much lately (yay romance) but every single time I come in here you're starting a new strawman about how literally any type of socialism is going to eventually equate to life behind the iron curtain. I understand your frustration. I didn't have to grow up in it, but my father and grandparents did. Unfortunately that doesn't make your argument correct, it just makes it understandable. This is because a lot of regimes starts with promises of socialism and end with assault rifles knocking on your front door asking if you're part of the revolution or not. It might be easy for people in the west to think this is an academic argument, but for those of us whose parents had to bribe both rebels and police to stay out of the fighting before moving to the west--it comes as a slap in the face for people to think it doesn't happen.
And how often were those armed questions a direct consequence of socialism? Because it seems to me that the countries which were already strong functioning democracies had no issues with socialism whereas the countries which one would expect to become more totalitarian, regardless of socialism, did.
That's the disconnect here. It's not that I don't think things were shitty behind the Iron Curtain, it's that I don't think electing Bernie is step 1 to getting there in the US. A long history of totalitarian rule, no history of civic involvement and democracy and a military and police force loyal to the regime, rather than the people, would probably be step 1.
|
We have to make some amazing mental leaps down the slippery slope fallacy to go from Bernie being elected to totalitarian rule.
|
On April 12 2016 03:24 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 03:10 Jormundr wrote:On April 12 2016 02:58 Ghanburighan wrote:
Frankly, I've had it with this thread. In the last few weeks I've been insulted by pretty much everyone I've had a prolonged exchange with (except a few pleasant individuals, who know who they are). This includes mods, the OP preaching a "no bashing policy" and many others. I just don't need this.
One shouldn't need to write full length essays covering all of one's bases every time they post in this thread to avoid patronizing, being called stupid, ignorant and worse. And, in fact, people don't seem to read prior posts anyway so even if you have covered a particular base, that doesn't seem to matter much. So I'm done. I blame myself for thinking I could enjoy a conversation on politics on the internet, but this little experiment only demonstrates that it's a waste of time and energy that only creates pointless arguments.
I'm sure many of you will be happy to see me go (greetings to GH - I do actually wish Sanders the best of luck, he almost made this primary cycle a nail-biter) but I'll remind you that self-reflection is a virtue. I haven't been following too much lately (yay romance) but every single time I come in here you're starting a new strawman about how literally any type of socialism is going to eventually equate to life behind the iron curtain. I understand your frustration. I didn't have to grow up in it, but my father and grandparents did. Unfortunately that doesn't make your argument correct, it just makes it understandable. This is because a lot of regimes starts with promises of socialism and end with assault rifles knocking on your front door asking if you're part of the revolution or not. It might be easy for people in the west to think this is an academic argument, but for those of us whose parents had to bribe both rebels and police to stay out of the fighting before moving to the west--it comes as a slap in the face for people to think it doesn't happen.
Again, emotional argument that's completely useless in the context of the US. Secret police in the US? That's a fucking joke. Our government isn't stupid enough to be that open and heavy handed with its laundry. They already have so much power that instituting what you fear would essentially be tantamount to relinquishing control, not gaining it.
|
On April 12 2016 03:33 Plansix wrote:
We have to make some amazing mental leaps down the slippery slope fallacy to go from Bernie being elected to totalitarian rule.
You're pretty unabashed about a Trump administration leading to fascism, though.
|
On April 12 2016 03:30 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 03:19 LegalLord wrote:On April 12 2016 03:10 Jormundr wrote:On April 12 2016 02:58 Ghanburighan wrote:
Frankly, I've had it with this thread. In the last few weeks I've been insulted by pretty much everyone I've had a prolonged exchange with (except a few pleasant individuals, who know who they are). This includes mods, the OP preaching a "no bashing policy" and many others. I just don't need this.
One shouldn't need to write full length essays covering all of one's bases every time they post in this thread to avoid patronizing, being called stupid, ignorant and worse. And, in fact, people don't seem to read prior posts anyway so even if you have covered a particular base, that doesn't seem to matter much. So I'm done. I blame myself for thinking I could enjoy a conversation on politics on the internet, but this little experiment only demonstrates that it's a waste of time and energy that only creates pointless arguments.
I'm sure many of you will be happy to see me go (greetings to GH - I do actually wish Sanders the best of luck, he almost made this primary cycle a nail-biter) but I'll remind you that self-reflection is a virtue. I haven't been following too much lately (yay romance) but every single time I come in here you're starting a new strawman about how literally any type of socialism is going to eventually equate to life behind the iron curtain. I understand your frustration. I didn't have to grow up in it, but my father and grandparents did. Unfortunately that doesn't make your argument correct, it just makes it understandable. Generally those who live in and/or are educated in the West who come from the East tend to be a skewed sample that is strongly against the socialist economy of the USSR. So is English-speaking ex-USSR for that matter. You would get a much different interpretation of events if you talked to Russians who chose to live in Russia - such is the case with the majority of the people I know who didn't choose to leave after the collapse of the USSR. Among fellow immigrants I know who left the USSR, the majority are to a very large extent anti-socialist and tend to lean Republican. Ghan's positions are very similar to that group. I am very aware of that fact, hence explaining why I sympathize. The point is that it makes his arguments more emotional than logical.
Unfortunately it makes it very difficult to have a genuine discussion on the merits and demerits of the Soviet economy when Westerners have their opinions heavily informed by propaganda, and immigrants tend to be biased or smart enough to pretend they were oppressed (something you have to do to get on the refugee quotas to get into the US).
It was an economy that was flawed, but better than what came before and came after, and was very progressive in a lot of key developments (e.g. education and healthcare). It could and should have incorporated more free market elements, and it was shifting towards that direction in its later years. However, the general discussion tends towards saying that the Soviet economy was every example of everything that doesn't work. It's sort of like another Godwin's Law, except for economics (socialism is similar to the USSR which is basically Hitler).
|
On April 12 2016 03:44 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 03:33 Plansix wrote:
We have to make some amazing mental leaps down the slippery slope fallacy to go from Bernie being elected to totalitarian rule. You're pretty unabashed about a Trump administration leading to fascism, though.
I am pretty sure my argument was that Trump has zero respect for the political process, law or systems in place to check power and would abuse his office. And it would take years for the congress to limit him if that was the case. But I know my references to fascism’s roots in populous pandering were all you took from that.
|
On April 12 2016 02:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 02:09 Acrofales wrote:Now all we need is someone to come in and say that National Socialism was also socialism, because it had it in its name, and that all socialism therefore leads to holocausts or gulags. That is probably the only thing that could make this discussion more stupid than it currently is. If you two want to debate the exact meaning of socialism, it would really be great if you could take it to PMs while we go back to making fun of Drumpf. On that theme: http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/trump-erupts-as-cruz-sweeps-colorado-without-votes/ If the delegates were offered trips and other benefits by Cruz in exchange for votes then that simply shows that Trump was unwilling to properly value the economic utility offered by those delegates and compensate them appropriately for their economically rational behaviour. The true crime here would have been if Cruz had been willing to appropriately compensate them for their labour but been unable to do so due to the artificial constraints, no, let's call it what it is, slavery, imposed by a system which forces delegates to act against their own inclination. There is no greater virtue than the right to freely negotiate and enter into contracts of ones own will. Would Trump wish Cruz barred from entering into free and fair contracts? There is no greater evil imaginable.
On April 12 2016 03:06 KwarK wrote:
Well done Ghanburighan. In the face of the collectivist masses seeking to undermine and pervert the free exchange of ideas the truly moral man, for whom freedom is not just an idea but an identity, must go on strike. By denying this topic the fruit of your intellectual labours, in response to our failure to accord you the respect which you demand for them, you will force us to realize the consequences of the slavery we have subjected you to and reevaluate the value we place upon you. The weak may call your refusal to make further posts selfish but the truly awake will understand that selfish behaviour is the only true virtue, without valuing yourself how can there be value. The smallest minority is truly the individual.
Wow. Kwark maxed out this thread's snark quota for the day. Well done! :D
That said, I think Trump just basically fucked it up in Colorado. Sure, I completely disagree with the way the Republican party decided to run their "primary" there, and believe it is yet another example of them shooting themselves in the foot, the fact remains that they did indeed decide to run the primary in this form, and all the candidates were informed at the same time and able to do the same groundwork.
As ticklish aptly pointed out: for someone who is so proud of making the best deals it is quite funny to see how, when the primary is actually just chucked out the window in favor of dealmaking, he outright lost to someone with the charisma of a rotten potato.
|
The NY Daily News just released the transcript of the interview they did with Hillary Clinton. Regardless of whether or not you agree with her views, I don't think anyone can dispute that she's incredibly more knowledgeable on the issues (and on what should be done) than Sanders. Compare it to his interview - the difference in detail is breathtaking.
Source
|
United States43513 Posts
On April 12 2016 03:33 Plansix wrote:
We have to make some amazing mental leaps down the slippery slope fallacy to go from Bernie being elected to totalitarian rule.
I like the example of Churchill's Britain. He seized control of the country in a national emergency without being elected through political maneuvering within Parliament. Using the unrestricted powers of the sovereign, wielded by an emergency government, he instituted conscription, nationalized most of the economy, seized private property and created a totalitarian state. Elections were suspended indefinitely, there was mass propaganda and the people were made subordinate to the national struggle. And then, in 1945 with the war still being fought, elections were held and we voted him out. A country with a long history of democracy, liberalism and rights has nothing to fear from its politicians.
It's the same with constitutions. The kind of country which really needs a liberal constitution cannot simply write one and expect it to endure. The countries in which constitutions endure and the countries in which it isn't needed at all.
|
On April 12 2016 03:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
Corporate media isn't paying a whole lot of attention, but hundreds of people are being arrested in front of the DC capitol.
The problem is that theres nothing going on. People are being arrested so that they can be arrested and waste the budget of an already underfunded police force making the crime situation worse in the city.
There is literally nothing positive coming out of their protest. I even think its a union protesting for some inane reason when they already collect dues and organize votes to influences elections to actually accomplice things.
But hey wasteing the tax payers money is fun.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
Don't people protest in front of Capitol hill every day?
|
On April 12 2016 03:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 03:24 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 12 2016 03:10 Jormundr wrote:On April 12 2016 02:58 Ghanburighan wrote:
Frankly, I've had it with this thread. In the last few weeks I've been insulted by pretty much everyone I've had a prolonged exchange with (except a few pleasant individuals, who know who they are). This includes mods, the OP preaching a "no bashing policy" and many others. I just don't need this.
One shouldn't need to write full length essays covering all of one's bases every time they post in this thread to avoid patronizing, being called stupid, ignorant and worse. And, in fact, people don't seem to read prior posts anyway so even if you have covered a particular base, that doesn't seem to matter much. So I'm done. I blame myself for thinking I could enjoy a conversation on politics on the internet, but this little experiment only demonstrates that it's a waste of time and energy that only creates pointless arguments.
I'm sure many of you will be happy to see me go (greetings to GH - I do actually wish Sanders the best of luck, he almost made this primary cycle a nail-biter) but I'll remind you that self-reflection is a virtue. I haven't been following too much lately (yay romance) but every single time I come in here you're starting a new strawman about how literally any type of socialism is going to eventually equate to life behind the iron curtain. I understand your frustration. I didn't have to grow up in it, but my father and grandparents did. Unfortunately that doesn't make your argument correct, it just makes it understandable. This is because a lot of regimes starts with promises of socialism and end with assault rifles knocking on your front door asking if you're part of the revolution or not. It might be easy for people in the west to think this is an academic argument, but for those of us whose parents had to bribe both rebels and police to stay out of the fighting before moving to the west--it comes as a slap in the face for people to think it doesn't happen. And how often were those armed questions a direct consequence of socialism? Because it seems to me that the countries which were already strong functioning democracies had no issues with socialism whereas the countries which one would expect to become more totalitarian, regardless of socialism, did. That's the disconnect here. It's not that I don't think things were shitty behind the Iron Curtain, it's that I don't think electing Bernie is step 1 to getting there in the US. A long history of totalitarian rule, no history of civic involvement and democracy and a military and police force loyal to the regime, rather than the people, would probably be step 1.
Actually yes.
Outside of first world economies, the primary forms of employment are farms and home run businesses. As such, socialist reforms in those states is the acquisition and redistribution of businesses (farms) and giving it to the workers (laborers) resulting in people having their homes taken and given to the workers. This shift causes revolutionaries to crop up on both sides with one group wanting to take back the homes that they lost, and the others wanting to fight against the people resisting the social revolution.
Go to first world countries where most of the labor is an office of some kind, heavier controls on those means of production translates to heavier regulations, but people are not kicked out of their homes. So yes, it is a direct result of the socialist policies. And no, my family was in neither the iron curtain or china. Socialist movements always start out promising, always. And so long as you're in first world countries, it is usually okay. But pretending that one country's experience counts less than another country's experience because of selective bias is the opposite of being logical.
|
On April 12 2016 03:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 03:44 oBlade wrote:On April 12 2016 03:33 Plansix wrote:
We have to make some amazing mental leaps down the slippery slope fallacy to go from Bernie being elected to totalitarian rule. You're pretty unabashed about a Trump administration leading to fascism, though. I am pretty sure my argument was that Trump has zero respect for the political process, law or systems in place to check power and would abuse his office. And it would take years for the congress to limit him if that was the case. But I know my references to fascism’s roots in populous pandering were all you took from that.
Your fears aren't grounded in reality. There's no Gestaptrump for him to use to work outside the law.
|
United States43513 Posts
On April 12 2016 03:54 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 03:31 KwarK wrote:On April 12 2016 03:24 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 12 2016 03:10 Jormundr wrote:On April 12 2016 02:58 Ghanburighan wrote:
Frankly, I've had it with this thread. In the last few weeks I've been insulted by pretty much everyone I've had a prolonged exchange with (except a few pleasant individuals, who know who they are). This includes mods, the OP preaching a "no bashing policy" and many others. I just don't need this.
One shouldn't need to write full length essays covering all of one's bases every time they post in this thread to avoid patronizing, being called stupid, ignorant and worse. And, in fact, people don't seem to read prior posts anyway so even if you have covered a particular base, that doesn't seem to matter much. So I'm done. I blame myself for thinking I could enjoy a conversation on politics on the internet, but this little experiment only demonstrates that it's a waste of time and energy that only creates pointless arguments.
I'm sure many of you will be happy to see me go (greetings to GH - I do actually wish Sanders the best of luck, he almost made this primary cycle a nail-biter) but I'll remind you that self-reflection is a virtue. I haven't been following too much lately (yay romance) but every single time I come in here you're starting a new strawman about how literally any type of socialism is going to eventually equate to life behind the iron curtain. I understand your frustration. I didn't have to grow up in it, but my father and grandparents did. Unfortunately that doesn't make your argument correct, it just makes it understandable. This is because a lot of regimes starts with promises of socialism and end with assault rifles knocking on your front door asking if you're part of the revolution or not. It might be easy for people in the west to think this is an academic argument, but for those of us whose parents had to bribe both rebels and police to stay out of the fighting before moving to the west--it comes as a slap in the face for people to think it doesn't happen. And how often were those armed questions a direct consequence of socialism? Because it seems to me that the countries which were already strong functioning democracies had no issues with socialism whereas the countries which one would expect to become more totalitarian, regardless of socialism, did. That's the disconnect here. It's not that I don't think things were shitty behind the Iron Curtain, it's that I don't think electing Bernie is step 1 to getting there in the US. A long history of totalitarian rule, no history of civic involvement and democracy and a military and police force loyal to the regime, rather than the people, would probably be step 1. Actually yes. Outside of first world economies, the primary forms of employment are farms and home run businesses. As such, socialist reforms in those states is the acquisition and redistribution of businesses (farms) and giving it to the workers (laborers) resulting in people having their homes taken and given to the workers. This shift causes revolutionaries to crop up on both sides with one group wanting to take back the homes that they lost, and the others wanting to fight against the people resisting the social revolution. Go to first world countries where most of the labor is an office of some kind, heavier controls on those means of production translates to heavier regulations, but people are not kicked out of their homes. So yes, it is a direct result of the socialist policies. And no, my family was in neither the iron curtain or china. Socialist movements always start out promising, always. And so long as you're in first world countries, it is usually okay. But pretending that one country's experience counts less than another country's experience because of selective bias is the opposite of being logical.
Is Bernie running for President in your home country too? Because if not we seem to be agreed that he's no threat in America. You're taking your experience and trying to create a general rule which will apply to America and therefore socialism in America while simultaneously arguing that "outside of first world economies", of which America is one, it works the way you describe.
|
On April 12 2016 03:36 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 03:24 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 12 2016 03:10 Jormundr wrote:On April 12 2016 02:58 Ghanburighan wrote:
Frankly, I've had it with this thread. In the last few weeks I've been insulted by pretty much everyone I've had a prolonged exchange with (except a few pleasant individuals, who know who they are). This includes mods, the OP preaching a "no bashing policy" and many others. I just don't need this.
One shouldn't need to write full length essays covering all of one's bases every time they post in this thread to avoid patronizing, being called stupid, ignorant and worse. And, in fact, people don't seem to read prior posts anyway so even if you have covered a particular base, that doesn't seem to matter much. So I'm done. I blame myself for thinking I could enjoy a conversation on politics on the internet, but this little experiment only demonstrates that it's a waste of time and energy that only creates pointless arguments.
I'm sure many of you will be happy to see me go (greetings to GH - I do actually wish Sanders the best of luck, he almost made this primary cycle a nail-biter) but I'll remind you that self-reflection is a virtue. I haven't been following too much lately (yay romance) but every single time I come in here you're starting a new strawman about how literally any type of socialism is going to eventually equate to life behind the iron curtain. I understand your frustration. I didn't have to grow up in it, but my father and grandparents did. Unfortunately that doesn't make your argument correct, it just makes it understandable. This is because a lot of regimes starts with promises of socialism and end with assault rifles knocking on your front door asking if you're part of the revolution or not. It might be easy for people in the west to think this is an academic argument, but for those of us whose parents had to bribe both rebels and police to stay out of the fighting before moving to the west--it comes as a slap in the face for people to think it doesn't happen. Again, emotional argument that's completely useless in the context of the US. Secret police in the US? That's a fucking joke. Our government isn't stupid enough to be that open and heavy handed with its laundry. They already have so much power that instituting what you fear would essentially be tantamount to relinquishing control, not gaining it.
Being selective of some countries over other countries as your anecdote does not make you less emotional. It simple shows your racial bias.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
He is being selective and biased because America is what we are talking about, hence given that we try to implement socialism in America and not Rwanda it shouldn't lead to Stalinism
I don't get the point.
|
On April 12 2016 03:58 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 03:47 Plansix wrote:On April 12 2016 03:44 oBlade wrote:On April 12 2016 03:33 Plansix wrote:
We have to make some amazing mental leaps down the slippery slope fallacy to go from Bernie being elected to totalitarian rule. You're pretty unabashed about a Trump administration leading to fascism, though. I am pretty sure my argument was that Trump has zero respect for the political process, law or systems in place to check power and would abuse his office. And it would take years for the congress to limit him if that was the case. But I know my references to fascism’s roots in populous pandering were all you took from that. Your fears aren't grounded in reality. There's no Gestaptrump for him to use to work outside the law.
Well with that rousing argument, I feel so much better and see no problem at all with Trump. Thanks so much for removing those fears, they were a huge burden on me.
On April 12 2016 04:00 Kipsate wrote:
He is being selective and biased because America is what we are talking about, hence given that we try to implement socialism in America and not Rwanda it shouldn't lead to Stalinism
I don't get the point.
Yeah, I really don't get these arguments. The US is not going to go full Stalinism at time soon. It is always a threat, but we would need to be in another great depression first.
|
On April 12 2016 03:58 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 03:36 Jormundr wrote:On April 12 2016 03:24 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 12 2016 03:10 Jormundr wrote:On April 12 2016 02:58 Ghanburighan wrote:
Frankly, I've had it with this thread. In the last few weeks I've been insulted by pretty much everyone I've had a prolonged exchange with (except a few pleasant individuals, who know who they are). This includes mods, the OP preaching a "no bashing policy" and many others. I just don't need this.
One shouldn't need to write full length essays covering all of one's bases every time they post in this thread to avoid patronizing, being called stupid, ignorant and worse. And, in fact, people don't seem to read prior posts anyway so even if you have covered a particular base, that doesn't seem to matter much. So I'm done. I blame myself for thinking I could enjoy a conversation on politics on the internet, but this little experiment only demonstrates that it's a waste of time and energy that only creates pointless arguments.
I'm sure many of you will be happy to see me go (greetings to GH - I do actually wish Sanders the best of luck, he almost made this primary cycle a nail-biter) but I'll remind you that self-reflection is a virtue. I haven't been following too much lately (yay romance) but every single time I come in here you're starting a new strawman about how literally any type of socialism is going to eventually equate to life behind the iron curtain. I understand your frustration. I didn't have to grow up in it, but my father and grandparents did. Unfortunately that doesn't make your argument correct, it just makes it understandable. This is because a lot of regimes starts with promises of socialism and end with assault rifles knocking on your front door asking if you're part of the revolution or not. It might be easy for people in the west to think this is an academic argument, but for those of us whose parents had to bribe both rebels and police to stay out of the fighting before moving to the west--it comes as a slap in the face for people to think it doesn't happen. Again, emotional argument that's completely useless in the context of the US. Secret police in the US? That's a fucking joke. Our government isn't stupid enough to be that open and heavy handed with its laundry. They already have so much power that instituting what you fear would essentially be tantamount to relinquishing control, not gaining it. Being selective of some countries over other countries as your anecdote does not make you less emotional. It simple shows your racial bias.
Please do inform me of my racial bias and its effects on my argument.
|
Keep in mind that you're addressing someone who believes the following syllogism to be true: Trump is to Sanders as Malcolm X is to Martin Luther King.
Yeah....
|
I don't care if you support Trump or not, I just don't want you to lose sleep ruminating over the possibility he's the 1 in a billion evil genius in the history of Americans who can undo liberal democracy. You're giving him credit you normally wouldn't. People who disrespect the law get impeached. He can't dissolve Congress like Palpatine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
