EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3588
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On April 12 2016 03:58 KwarK wrote: 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. This also where you're wrong. I am not arguing that socialism is inherently bad. I'm saying that pretending it is inherently good is blinding of the fact that there definitely reasons why people would be cautious of it. One of the big reasons why it doesn't happen in the US (And even the EU) was because of how much a panic the cold war was and so all explorations of socialist ideals were always tempered with the mentality of "so long as we don't go too far." Socialism, as a thing, is not scary so long as that self awareness is maintained--so when people start silencing others for voicing concerns, that is when it starts sounding scary to me. For the most part, I am scared of fundamentalists. Not just religious ones, but also economic and class ones. | ||
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
| ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On April 12 2016 04:09 Jormundr wrote: Please do inform me of my racial bias and its effects on my argument. You're using the fact that socialist movements worked in white countries (like Sweden) allow you to pretend that socialist movements in other countries don't count (China, Philippines, South America, etc...) So telling people of color that your white examples are more relevant than their non-white examples shows a lot about your bias. | ||
|
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
what the actual fuck? | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On April 12 2016 04:46 Kipsate wrote: Its more relevant because we are talking about America what the actual fuck? And you're saying there isn't a large population block in america with xenophobic tendencies paired with a strong interest in removing limits to gun control while limiting the size of government in all things except for police and military spending who are interested in creating a uniform state where their values are more important than the values of others. Are you saying there isn't a group like that in the US? | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17995 Posts
On April 12 2016 04:47 Naracs_Duc wrote: And you're saying there isn't a large population block in america with xenophobic tendencies paired with a strong interest in removing limits to gun control while limiting the size of government in all things except for police and military spending who are interested in creating a uniform state where their values are more important than the values of others. Are you saying there isn't a group like that in the US? Are you actually trying to argue that if the US tendency were to adopt more socialist patterns they are more likely to be like Venezuela than like Sweden? | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On April 12 2016 04:54 Acrofales wrote: Are you actually trying to argue that if the US tendency were to adopt more socialist patterns they are more likely to be like Venezuela than like Sweden? I'm saying that we shouldn't automatically assume things will be fine just because an idea sounds good. I'm saying being vigilant, questioning, and cautious is safer than assuming things will automatically end one way and not another. The US is not Venezuela--but the US is not Sweden either. And we shouldn't assume we will end up as one or the other--since we will most likely end up with something different altogether. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 12 2016 04:57 Naracs_Duc wrote: I'm saying that we shouldn't automatically assume things will be fine just because an idea sounds good. I'm saying being vigilant, questioning, and cautious is safer than assuming things will automatically end one way and not another. The US is not Venezuela--but the US is not Sweden either. And we shouldn't assume we will end up as one or the other--since we will most likely end up with something different altogether. I don’t think anyone in the thread is going to disagree with on that subject. But constantly dwelling on the slippery slope fallacy is not a productive way to talk about the subject of socialism. All systems can be abused and lead to repression. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On April 12 2016 04:54 Acrofales wrote: Are you actually trying to argue that if the US tendency were to adopt more socialist patterns they are more likely to be like Venezuela than like Sweden? Demographically we sit between the two. Closer to Sweden, but not by much. But also, Sweden itself isn't the Sweden people pretend it is. Swedes in America are richer (even though when the majority immigrated they came from the lower class). Before it implemented its "Democratic Socialism" it was the 4th richest country in the world per the OECD (1970s) by the 1990s it had dropped to 14th. Then it implemented several "pro-market" reforms, and many countries like the US went more socialist and started to climb again. America, while having a smaller welfare state than Sweden, has a very imposing regulatory state (look at any economic freedom index), so if we adopted the social welfare state our policies would not represent the Nordic countries at all, it would be more akin to a Greece/Argentina combination of socialism+corruption+underground economy. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23238 Posts
On April 12 2016 03:51 Kipsate wrote: Don't people protest in front of Capitol hill every day? According to police it's the most people arrested at the capital. It's supposed to go all week too. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
 | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On April 12 2016 05:03 Plansix wrote: I don’t think anyone in the thread is going to disagree with on that subject. But constantly dwelling on the slippery slope fallacy is not a productive way to talk about the subject of socialism. All systems can be abused and lead to repression. Not trying to dwell, I just don't like it when experiences are considered invalid just because they go against what the preconceived conclusions are supposed to be. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 12 2016 05:53 Naracs_Duc wrote: Not trying to dwell, I just don't like it when experiences are considered invalid just because they go against what the preconceived conclusions are supposed to be. No one is declaring your experience invalid, but simply pointing out that their experience provides with a different perspective on the subject. For reference, you are claiming that our experience with the US and its culture are invalid due to your own preconceived conclusions. | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On April 12 2016 05:58 Plansix wrote: No one is declaring your experience invalid, but simply pointing out that their experience provides with a different perspective on the subject. For reference, you are claiming that our experience with the US and its culture are invalid due to your own preconceived conclusions. What example would you have to use for the US testing a socialist system on the greater economy because I don't see it--for the most part a US experience would be exploration of increased and decreased governmental control on various aspects of finance and banking practices in combination with variations in specialized tax reforms. But please, talk about the time the US attempted a whole scale socialist system. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On April 11 2016 21:19 Liquid`Drone wrote: Firstly, I'm not arguing whether it was retrospectively justifiable, but whether it was contemporarily justifiable. Further, I'm not saying that this is an easy discussion. What I am saying is that in Europe, if your historical education stopped at a high school level, you are likely to have a position without nuance where dropping the bombs was a terrible war crime, but if you learn more about the issue, you will be more likely to adopt a more nuanced point of view. I think in the US, it's most likely the other way around - the rudimentary historical understanding points towards dropping the nukes ending the war, and that was that, while a more nuanced position from greater historical understanding might lead people towards thinking that at least Nagasaki was gratuitous and that other targets could have had the same effect with less civilian casualties. I also don't really accept your account of these events; there are many indicators pointing towards Japan not being willing to surrender (unless their regime was kept intact). This is basically like Germany surrendering under the condition that Hitler and the nazi-regime got to stay in power- completely unacceptable. Thus the options seemed more like, either nuke, or land invasion. And the numbers for Japanese civilian casualties lost in a land invasion, sure, the fact that they vary so greatly does point towards them being pulled out of thin air - but the low estimates were still higher than the casualties from dropping both atomic bombs, whereas the high estimates were around 10 million. There are other factors as well - for example indicators that Japan had ramped up the brutality towards civilians in Asian Japanese-occupied territories (which meant that not only American soldiers would continue to die the longer the war lasted, but also Korean, Chinese and Philipphino (whats the word for someone from the Philippines? ) civilians. Then the obvious factor, probably most crucial to the american decisionmaking, that tens of thousands of american soldiers would die. And there's not a single world leader whom at the end of world war 2 would prefer to sacrifice tens of thousands of their own soldiers over ~300k japanese civilians - and that is a comparison which would only be valid under the fantasy scenario where japanese civilians somehow would not die under a land invasion. However, I don't think Nagasaki was necessary, and I certainly believe that targets inflicting less civilians casualties could have been picked - but dropping the atomic bombs does not even top the list of allied atrocities committed during world war 2.. Filipino. The estimates regarding Downfall are just that, estimates (though based/extrapolated from previous operations in the Pacific theater). Military planners cannot possibly know the outcome of an operation until it happens in full, due to the fog of war. However, given the degree to which the Japanese government had mobilized essentially the entire civilian population as a militia and the equipment they had stored on the Home Islands (and the number that would later be confiscated), and coupled with the example of Okinawa (where a significant segment of the 300,000 pre-war residents died in the invasion due to conscription and the fanaticism of Japanese kamikaze attacks) any full-time invasion of Japan was necessarily going to be an incredibly bloody affair given the mindset of the Japanese government to commit to Ketsugo. We had actually produced 500,000 Purple Hearts in anticipation of the operation, and despite all the decades and wars we've fought since then, we still have ~120,000 in stock. We were not only prepared to take that option, but any familiarity with the Pacific theater would inform you to the brutality that a battle for the Home Islands would entail. Arguing over the necessity of Nagasaki is more reasonable, though from what I've read it was just as necessary due to the unwillingness of the Japanese upper echelons to acknowledge that the US had both produced an atomic bomb and to have multiples of them. In any case, both Nagasaki and HIroshima were targets of high military/strategic and industrial importance, so the decision to utilize them on those cities were predicated on the possibility that the Japanese government would not capitulate despite their use (which Japan almost didn't: elements of the military conducted a coup to prevent the surrender announcement by the Emperor and probably could've succeeded if events panned out differently) and thus necessitate an invasion anyways. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On April 12 2016 05:51 farvacola wrote: You will all be pleased to hear that one of those people being arrested in front of Congress is Samizdat's mother that's a name i haven't heard in awhile but i don't get the joke | ||
|
Jaaaaasper
United States10225 Posts
On April 12 2016 05:51 farvacola wrote: You will all be pleased to hear that one of those people being arrested in front of Congress is Samizdat's mother This explains a lot. I'm really not liking the overflow from memes into actual claims of trump being a fascist. Yeah hes a moron and a terrible candidate, but hes not a fascist. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 12 2016 06:01 Naracs_Duc wrote: What example would you have to use for the US testing a socialist system on the greater economy because I don't see it--for the most part a US experience would be exploration of increased and decreased governmental control on various aspects of finance and banking practices in combination with variations in specialized tax reforms. But please, talk about the time the US attempted a whole scale socialist system. The great depression and the creation of social security? The creation of HUD and section 8 housing? The creation of the ACA? All of the socialist countries you know in the EU did not become that way in one massive, socialist movement. It was a slow process of creating and refining systems. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17995 Posts
On April 12 2016 06:03 Jaaaaasper wrote: This explains a lot. I'm really not liking the overflow from memes into actual claims of trump being a fascist. Yeah hes a moron and a terrible candidate, but hes not a fascist. Of course not. He's a demagogue, though, and I particularly like this characterization: Griffin, who is a professor of history and political theory at Oxford Brookes University, puts it best: "You can be a total xenophobic racist male chauvinist bastard and still not be a fascist." - source | ||
| ||
