|
On November 01 2018 00:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2018 00:03 Plansix wrote:
Reporters absolutely care about the accuracy of their stories and the only people who claim otherwise often have something to hide. There are plenty of reporters doing great work across the country, you just don’t read their work. They care about the stories they write about Democrats. When it comes to Republicans, it’s Haley that blew money in curtains, Kavanaugh’s a gang rapist, and 2014 migrant children were put in cages by Trump. The national media has taken sides and are helped by the fact that people like you don’t care. Trumps radicalized more people than ISIS don’t you know. But they’re so brave. Gotta have their defenders to keep up the pretense I suppose.
And there we have - like clockwork - the actual reason that Trump's still a force.
It doesn't matter what quality of reporting, you'll dismiss it unless it licks Trump's balls. Any criticism of Republicans - especially if it's legitimate - is going to be dismissed by you out of hand. Trump isn't doing anything clever, it works because you and people like you are eagerly lapping it up because you hate journalists anyway.
|
On November 01 2018 04:12 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2018 00:17 Danglars wrote:On November 01 2018 00:03 Plansix wrote:
Reporters absolutely care about the accuracy of their stories and the only people who claim otherwise often have something to hide. There are plenty of reporters doing great work across the country, you just don’t read their work. They care about the stories they write about Democrats. When it comes to Republicans, it’s Haley that blew money in curtains, Kavanaugh’s a gang rapist, and 2014 migrant children were put in cages by Trump. The national media has taken sides and are helped by the fact that people like you don’t care. Trumps radicalized more people than ISIS don’t you know. But they’re so brave. Gotta have their defenders to keep up the pretense I suppose. And there we have - like clockwork - the actual reason that Trump's still a force.
Yep, the inaccuracy in reporting is absolutely a big reason. Just treat him like a politician, not the boogeyman.
It doesn't matter what quality of reporting, you'll dismiss it unless it licks Trump's balls. Any criticism of Republicans - especially if it's legitimate - is going to be dismissed by you out of hand. Trump isn't doing anything clever, it works because you and people like you are eagerly lapping it up because you hate journalists anyway.
That’s just the state of the media right now. Only lefties still hold to the illusion that the national news media is still quality and accuracy. Americans will continue to reject it (media approval rating below Congress these days rofl), and people like you will wonder why nobody believes the narratives anymore.
Rewind the tape a couple weeks and everyone was on top of how right Swetnick, Ford, and Ramirez all were. The media would stay with the story as they continued their allegations and eventually impeachment. Now, nothing. On to the next issue that will topple Trump, never mind all the proclamations that it was about the truth and not Trump, yet kicking the ladies to the curb after the political prize wasn’t in their sights.
|
On November 01 2018 04:22 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2018 04:12 iamthedave wrote:On November 01 2018 00:17 Danglars wrote:On November 01 2018 00:03 Plansix wrote:
Reporters absolutely care about the accuracy of their stories and the only people who claim otherwise often have something to hide. There are plenty of reporters doing great work across the country, you just don’t read their work. They care about the stories they write about Democrats. When it comes to Republicans, it’s Haley that blew money in curtains, Kavanaugh’s a gang rapist, and 2014 migrant children were put in cages by Trump. The national media has taken sides and are helped by the fact that people like you don’t care. Trumps radicalized more people than ISIS don’t you know. But they’re so brave. Gotta have their defenders to keep up the pretense I suppose. And there we have - like clockwork - the actual reason that Trump's still a force. Yep, the inaccuracy in reporting is absolutely a big reason. Just treat him like a politician, not the boogeyman. Show nested quote +It doesn't matter what quality of reporting, you'll dismiss it unless it licks Trump's balls. Any criticism of Republicans - especially if it's legitimate - is going to be dismissed by you out of hand. Trump isn't doing anything clever, it works because you and people like you are eagerly lapping it up because you hate journalists anyway. That’s just the state of the media right now. Only lefties still hold to the illusion that the national news media is still quality and accuracy. Americans will continue to reject it (media approval rating below Congress these days rofl), and people like you will wonder why nobody believes the narratives anymore. Rewind the tape a couple weeks and everyone was on top of how right Swetnick, Ford, and Ramirez all were. The media would stay with the story as they continued their allegations and eventually impeachment. Now, nothing. On to the next issue that will topple Trump, never mind all the proclamations that it was about the truth and not Trump, yet kicking the ladies to the curb after the political prize wasn’t in their sights.
It's just lazy to dismiss media stories with blanket statements. But it does serve to obliquely justify your support for Donald Trump, I suppose.
|
On November 01 2018 04:22 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2018 04:12 iamthedave wrote:On November 01 2018 00:17 Danglars wrote:On November 01 2018 00:03 Plansix wrote:
Reporters absolutely care about the accuracy of their stories and the only people who claim otherwise often have something to hide. There are plenty of reporters doing great work across the country, you just don’t read their work. They care about the stories they write about Democrats. When it comes to Republicans, it’s Haley that blew money in curtains, Kavanaugh’s a gang rapist, and 2014 migrant children were put in cages by Trump. The national media has taken sides and are helped by the fact that people like you don’t care. Trumps radicalized more people than ISIS don’t you know. But they’re so brave. Gotta have their defenders to keep up the pretense I suppose. And there we have - like clockwork - the actual reason that Trump's still a force. Yep, the inaccuracy in reporting is absolutely a big reason. Just treat him like a politician, not the boogeyman. Show nested quote +It doesn't matter what quality of reporting, you'll dismiss it unless it licks Trump's balls. Any criticism of Republicans - especially if it's legitimate - is going to be dismissed by you out of hand. Trump isn't doing anything clever, it works because you and people like you are eagerly lapping it up because you hate journalists anyway. That’s just the state of the media right now. Only lefties still hold to the illusion that the national news media is still quality and accuracy. Americans will continue to reject it (media approval rating below Congress these days rofl), and people like you will wonder why nobody believes the narratives anymore. Rewind the tape a couple weeks and everyone was on top of how right Swetnick, Ford, and Ramirez all were. The media would stay with the story as they continued their allegations and eventually impeachment. Now, nothing. On to the next issue that will topple Trump, never mind all the proclamations that it was about the truth and not Trump, yet kicking the ladies to the curb after the political prize wasn’t in their sights.
The problem with your narrative is that it simply isn't true. When you talk about 'the left' and their biased reporting, you inevitably sound like you were reading articles from an alternate dimension.
Articles about Ford focused on the information that was available, and that she was a credible witness. They didn't say Kavanaugh was guilty, not that I saw, they called for investigations.
The investigation has happened, it found nothing. So why would they keep talking about it? It's a settled issue.
But if they WERE still talking about it, you'd be on them for hounding a man after he'd already been investigated. You reveal your own biases just by bringing it up. No matter what they do you'll twist it to dismiss them. I'm not blanketly saying that it's all quality journalism, but you blanket dismiss it as trash. Because you're biased and you believe Trump, and by the sound of it you didn't actually read the articles at the time.
It has nothing to do with Trump being right, it's to do with Trump speaking to your deeply held biases.
Stewart is right as well, but the lesson you took away from what he said completely misses the boat. If you and people like you weren't eagerly waiting for someone to speak to what you believed anyway, all of those negative articles - many of which are accurate not that you'll ever admit it - would have a lot of effect.
But I hear your country destroyed its own media by getting rid of some regulation or other.
@GH (and on a far more interesting topic): Do you see a difference between the capitalism/fascism and capitalism/white supremacy relationship? I'm not convinced you're right on that front, but I am interested in exploring how you got to your conclusions and where you see the distinctions being.
I should point out that the way I see it, Capitalism is ---- Supremacy. It is inherently about supremacy because it puts one dude at the top with all the money and everyone else with less, and inherently portrays having more as a positive. I think if we were in the darkest timeline (ho ho ho, you'll get the joke in a second) and the USA had happened in Africa, I believe capitalism would have led to black Trump fearmongering about the boats of starving white people coming to Africa to steal their women and rape their jobs. I don't see it as a fundamentally racist system, more that it drives people on those lines and people are shitheads so they go along with it. Capitalism doesn't care what colour your skin is, it cares if you've got money, if you're spending money, and most importantly, if you've got money you're not spending, making you spend it. When your economic system promotes having as a good, people potentially taking what you have must necessarily be a bad thing. It's all about money. In that regard Capitalism is incredibly flexible. Maybe a rich black guy doesn't live quite as well as a rich white guy, but it's pretty indistinguishable. And that's the way Capitalism likes it. Money has no bias. You have it or you don't.
But that focus on concentrating wealth seems to allow for a lot of nasty philosophies to live side-by-side with Capitalism without any conflict whatsoever.
|
On November 01 2018 04:45 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2018 04:22 Danglars wrote:On November 01 2018 04:12 iamthedave wrote:On November 01 2018 00:17 Danglars wrote:On November 01 2018 00:03 Plansix wrote:
Reporters absolutely care about the accuracy of their stories and the only people who claim otherwise often have something to hide. There are plenty of reporters doing great work across the country, you just don’t read their work. They care about the stories they write about Democrats. When it comes to Republicans, it’s Haley that blew money in curtains, Kavanaugh’s a gang rapist, and 2014 migrant children were put in cages by Trump. The national media has taken sides and are helped by the fact that people like you don’t care. Trumps radicalized more people than ISIS don’t you know. But they’re so brave. Gotta have their defenders to keep up the pretense I suppose. And there we have - like clockwork - the actual reason that Trump's still a force. Yep, the inaccuracy in reporting is absolutely a big reason. Just treat him like a politician, not the boogeyman. It doesn't matter what quality of reporting, you'll dismiss it unless it licks Trump's balls. Any criticism of Republicans - especially if it's legitimate - is going to be dismissed by you out of hand. Trump isn't doing anything clever, it works because you and people like you are eagerly lapping it up because you hate journalists anyway. That’s just the state of the media right now. Only lefties still hold to the illusion that the national news media is still quality and accuracy. Americans will continue to reject it (media approval rating below Congress these days rofl), and people like you will wonder why nobody believes the narratives anymore. Rewind the tape a couple weeks and everyone was on top of how right Swetnick, Ford, and Ramirez all were. The media would stay with the story as they continued their allegations and eventually impeachment. Now, nothing. On to the next issue that will topple Trump, never mind all the proclamations that it was about the truth and not Trump, yet kicking the ladies to the curb after the political prize wasn’t in their sights. The problem with your narrative is that it simply isn't true. When you talk about 'the left' and their biased reporting, you inevitably sound like you were reading articles from an alternate dimension. Articles about Ford focused on the information that was available, and that she was a credible witness. They didn't say Kavanaugh was guilty, not that I saw, they called for investigations. The investigation has happened, it found nothing. So why would they keep talking about it? It's a settled issue. But if they WERE still talking about it, you'd be on them for hounding a man after he'd already been investigated. You reveal your own biases just by bringing it up. No matter what they do you'll twist it to dismiss them. I'm not blanketly saying that it's all quality journalism, but you blanket dismiss it as trash. Because you're biased and you believe Trump, and by the sound of it you didn't actually read the articles at the time. It has nothing to do with Trump being right, it's to do with Trump speaking to your deeply held biases. Stewart is right as well, but the lesson you took away from what he said completely misses the boat. If you and people like you weren't eagerly waiting for someone to speak to what you believed anyway, all of those negative articles - many of which are accurate not that you'll ever admit it - would have a lot of effect. But I hear your country destroyed its own media by getting rid of some regulation or other. @GH (and on a far more interesting topic): Do you see a difference between the capitalism/fascism and capitalism/white supremacy relationship? I'm not convinced you're right on that front, but I am interested in exploring how you got to your conclusions and where you see the distinctions being. I should point out that the way I see it, Capitalism is ---- Supremacy. It is inherently about supremacy because it puts one dude at the top with all the money and everyone else with less, and inherently portrays having more as a positive. I think if we were in the darkest timeline (ho ho ho, you'll get the joke in a second) and the USA had happened in Africa, I believe capitalism would have led to black Trump fearmongering about the boats of starving white people coming to Africa to steal their women and rape their jobs. I don't see it as a fundamentally racist system, more that it drives people on those lines and people are shitheads so they go along with it. Capitalism doesn't care what colour your skin is, it cares if you've got money, if you're spending money, and most importantly, if you've got money you're not spending, making you spend it. When your economic system promotes having as a good, people potentially taking what you have must necessarily be a bad thing. It's all about money. In that regard Capitalism is incredibly flexible. Maybe a rich black guy doesn't live quite as well as a rich white guy, but it's pretty indistinguishable. And that's the way Capitalism likes it. Money has no bias. You have it or you don't. But that focus on concentrating wealth seems to allow for a lot of nasty philosophies to live side-by-side with Capitalism without any conflict whatsoever.
The same with me. When you hold up their record, it sounds like you’re hailing from a different dimension. But since this is the same point from you, I’m going to stop repeating the response.
|
On November 01 2018 05:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2018 04:45 iamthedave wrote:On November 01 2018 04:22 Danglars wrote:On November 01 2018 04:12 iamthedave wrote:On November 01 2018 00:17 Danglars wrote:On November 01 2018 00:03 Plansix wrote:
Reporters absolutely care about the accuracy of their stories and the only people who claim otherwise often have something to hide. There are plenty of reporters doing great work across the country, you just don’t read their work. They care about the stories they write about Democrats. When it comes to Republicans, it’s Haley that blew money in curtains, Kavanaugh’s a gang rapist, and 2014 migrant children were put in cages by Trump. The national media has taken sides and are helped by the fact that people like you don’t care. Trumps radicalized more people than ISIS don’t you know. But they’re so brave. Gotta have their defenders to keep up the pretense I suppose. And there we have - like clockwork - the actual reason that Trump's still a force. Yep, the inaccuracy in reporting is absolutely a big reason. Just treat him like a politician, not the boogeyman. It doesn't matter what quality of reporting, you'll dismiss it unless it licks Trump's balls. Any criticism of Republicans - especially if it's legitimate - is going to be dismissed by you out of hand. Trump isn't doing anything clever, it works because you and people like you are eagerly lapping it up because you hate journalists anyway. That’s just the state of the media right now. Only lefties still hold to the illusion that the national news media is still quality and accuracy. Americans will continue to reject it (media approval rating below Congress these days rofl), and people like you will wonder why nobody believes the narratives anymore. Rewind the tape a couple weeks and everyone was on top of how right Swetnick, Ford, and Ramirez all were. The media would stay with the story as they continued their allegations and eventually impeachment. Now, nothing. On to the next issue that will topple Trump, never mind all the proclamations that it was about the truth and not Trump, yet kicking the ladies to the curb after the political prize wasn’t in their sights. The problem with your narrative is that it simply isn't true. When you talk about 'the left' and their biased reporting, you inevitably sound like you were reading articles from an alternate dimension. Articles about Ford focused on the information that was available, and that she was a credible witness. They didn't say Kavanaugh was guilty, not that I saw, they called for investigations. The investigation has happened, it found nothing. So why would they keep talking about it? It's a settled issue. But if they WERE still talking about it, you'd be on them for hounding a man after he'd already been investigated. You reveal your own biases just by bringing it up. No matter what they do you'll twist it to dismiss them. I'm not blanketly saying that it's all quality journalism, but you blanket dismiss it as trash. Because you're biased and you believe Trump, and by the sound of it you didn't actually read the articles at the time. It has nothing to do with Trump being right, it's to do with Trump speaking to your deeply held biases. Stewart is right as well, but the lesson you took away from what he said completely misses the boat. If you and people like you weren't eagerly waiting for someone to speak to what you believed anyway, all of those negative articles - many of which are accurate not that you'll ever admit it - would have a lot of effect. But I hear your country destroyed its own media by getting rid of some regulation or other. @GH (and on a far more interesting topic): Do you see a difference between the capitalism/fascism and capitalism/white supremacy relationship? I'm not convinced you're right on that front, but I am interested in exploring how you got to your conclusions and where you see the distinctions being. I should point out that the way I see it, Capitalism is ---- Supremacy. It is inherently about supremacy because it puts one dude at the top with all the money and everyone else with less, and inherently portrays having more as a positive. I think if we were in the darkest timeline (ho ho ho, you'll get the joke in a second) and the USA had happened in Africa, I believe capitalism would have led to black Trump fearmongering about the boats of starving white people coming to Africa to steal their women and rape their jobs. I don't see it as a fundamentally racist system, more that it drives people on those lines and people are shitheads so they go along with it. Capitalism doesn't care what colour your skin is, it cares if you've got money, if you're spending money, and most importantly, if you've got money you're not spending, making you spend it. When your economic system promotes having as a good, people potentially taking what you have must necessarily be a bad thing. It's all about money. In that regard Capitalism is incredibly flexible. Maybe a rich black guy doesn't live quite as well as a rich white guy, but it's pretty indistinguishable. And that's the way Capitalism likes it. Money has no bias. You have it or you don't. But that focus on concentrating wealth seems to allow for a lot of nasty philosophies to live side-by-side with Capitalism without any conflict whatsoever. The same with me. When you hold up their record, it sounds like you’re hailing from a different dimension. But since this is the same point from you, I’m going to stop repeating the response.
To the media discussion I think it's clear the media has returned to yellow journalism to a degree only seen on Fox News prior to Trump. Sensationalized stories are the standard, clickbait headlines, and a few notable failures of due diligence have been plaguing the industry. Anonymous sources have been running wild and many publications abandoned the most basic journalistic standards for citing anonymous sources.
To pair the journalism with the fascism/capitalism question journalism isn't seen as a social responsibility, it's viewed as a role in the capitalist machine. As such it's responsibility isn't to inform, it's to secure the capitalist machine. In that light one sees that the "problems" danglars is focused on are actually features (he knows this when consuming conservative news about Democrats).
Capitalism requires mass exploitation and unaccounted externalities to "keep working", white supremacy is how they keep that wheel turning. Sure we could theoretically not make it non-white people that suffer the brunt of those consequences, but capitalism doesn't work without the massive exploitation and the massive exploitation doesn't work without a supremacist (they might call it meritocratic) underpinning.
|
why not pair communism with capitalism? the same people who say communism has failed everywhere its been tried also say that china is a threat to US global dominance. the communism/capitalism seems to be pretty effectivr at driving growth
|
On November 01 2018 06:24 IgnE wrote:
why not pair communism with capitalism? the same people who say communism has failed everywhere its been tried also say that china is a threat to US global dominance. the communism/capitalism seems to be pretty effectivr at driving growth
Is China actually Communist at this point though? They have a suspicious number of billionaires if they are.
|
was any country actually communist? what’s the name of their ruling party?
|
China is the worst example for mixing communism and capatslism. They get the best of both worlds on the state level and the worst of both worlds on the person level. Wild robber baron like coruption and families while having not even the pretense of freedoms or justice. Add in incredible acts of both ecological destruction and ecological attempts to help said problems.
|
yeah but look at their growth and rising standard of living. justice is too vague a term here, and perhaps they prefer growth to “freedom” (to be poor and starving)
so what would be the best example?
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37114 Posts
Thread will be locked until GH does what he knows that he needs to do. PM me when you've stopped being stubborn.
|
Germany25658 Posts
RESUME NORMAL ACTIVITIES!
|
The capitalism/communism conversation that was going before the interruption was good so I won't interrupt it if you all want to pick up where you left off
+ Show Spoiler +The opioid situation is only getting worse. I think we have to do more about the marketing and distribution of the "gateway" drugs that are quite often pushed by their doctors for personal benefits but there's a human element as well. We are letting sick people die because their sickness doesn't fit the "deserves to be helped" checklist for a lot of people. Not one overdose death
America’s opioid crisis has worsened in recent years due to the influx of fentanyl into the drug supply. In many cities, fentanyl has replaced heroin because it’s cheaper, easier to import, and offers the chance for enormous profits. There is no reason to think that this is temporary, that law enforcement alone will stop it, or that it will fix itself.
The traditional response to drug addiction has leaned on three pillars: prevention, treatment and law enforcement. We advocate for an additional pillar — harm reduction. This means working to save lives and to see the humanity behind each person and family impacted by the tragedy of addiction.
If you talk to police in cities hit hard by the drug crisis, they will quickly admit that arresting drug users will never slow down demand or reduce supply.
In Seattle, Philadelphia, Vermont and San Francisco, elected prosecutors are taking new approaches, despite threats of retaliation from the Trump administration. They know deaths will continue to mount until people have low-barrier access to a full spectrum of treatment and harm-reduction measures, including methadone and Suboxone, clean needles and overdose prevention sites (also called supervised consumption facilities and safe injection sites). Elected officials have, among other things, vowed to stop prosecuting users who have Suboxone without a prescription. Prosecutors have also come out in support of injection facilities.
Studies of more than 100 sites worldwide have shown that these facilities save lives. In fact, not a single overdose death has occurred in one since they began operating about three decades ago.
Facilities make financial sense, too
Canada offers a real-life example of the fiscal impact sites can have.
Studies of Vancouver’s first overdose prevention facility, Insite, found annual cost savings of $2.85 million to $8.55 million from HIV prevention alone. Compare that with the $3 million annual operating budget of Insite, and the fiscal benefits are clear.
We led a delegation of prosecutors to Vancouver this month. What we saw on the city streets was disheartening, but overdose prevention sites offered a glimmer of hope.
Large areas downtown exemplify the extreme poverty and misery of fentanyl. We saw individuals struggling with homelessness (and in some instances facing physical and mental illness). Vancouver is working to address its homeless problem. But Insite's medical professionals are trained to recognize and reverse overdoses, which they do, they said, 40 times a week. Cost-effective, tested solutions also minimize the spread of illnesses associated with needle sharing.
Despite this proven track record, they remain illegal in the US. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein recently vowed in a New York Times op-ed that the federal government would “meet the opening of any consumption site with swift and aggressive action.” www.usatoday.com
|
On October 31 2018 14:23 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 13:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 12:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 12:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 12:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 09:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 07:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 07:39 iamthedave wrote:On October 31 2018 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 06:56 iamthedave wrote:
[quote]
Are you sure it's a known white supremacist group? Or is that just your opinion of the FBI? I can't remember it ever appearing on anyone else's list. Well I think we agree they were clearly a white supremacist group in the 60's, so I'd have to be shown when they stopped being one. I do recognize it's likely a point of disagreement for most though. Yeah I think that's fair. The pretty obvious steps taken to prevent black emancipation is a BIT OF A TIP OFF on that front. I guess it depends on how much you think the FBI has an individual identity above and beyond serving the government. If the government has such leanings, the FBI will have them too. For example, if the US ever became a truly fascist state, the FBI literally is the apparatus of a new secret police. It has most of the traits such an organisation needs to function out of the gate. It may be personal idealism but I tend to think the majority of the people in such an organisation are going to lean towards being hard working, patriotic, and professional. But Patriotism is very dangerous, especially when you're in an environment like that where you see things you or I never will. I mean, literature's been dealing with the idea of how far you might have to go in order to best serve/protect your country, and how many moral boundaries you might have to cross in the process, for centuries. From a certain perspective, attempting to suppress the civil rights movement in the 60s can absolutely be seen as the act of Patriots. You know? So I tend to think the FBI is only as good or bad as the government it serves. But I don't know how much of a personal identity the organisation actually has. Under Hoover it was Hoover's (J. Edgar), since then I think your describing more or less what it is. So I guess that takes us to the question of whether the government operates under a branch of white supremacy. My answer is obviously yes, and I think while Trump's in charge most liberals are having a hard time disagreeing. Before there's any confusion, I'm not calling Trump a nazi, I'm simply saying that white supremacy has a wide and powerful international network with resources compared to none in my view, even if like "Muslim Terrorism" there are many, sometimes competing, factions. If you're going to take this kind of global view of white supremacy, then you're inevitably going to find yourself in the territory set forth in Clash of Civilizations, at which you point you better be rooting for white supremacy to win out. I do take it and no I'm not rooting for white supremacy, though under the scenario you're imagining I can understand why you would be. So if you're not rooting for the white/Western block, which one are you rooting for? My "clash of civilizations" is what you would probably know better as "class warfare" so white supremacy has no place on the side I'm pulling for. You know, I was reading something the other day that had a rather interesting observation. The point that was made was that traditional economic/class-based Marxism has been so thoroughly discredited by experience (everything from the USSR to Venezuela) that Marxists have been compelled to turn to new oppressor/oppressed dichotomies (e.g. the patriarchy as the oppressor to feminists) to stay relevant. Hell, class warfare always has historically degenerated into "clash of civilizations" - type identity politics anyway, so I don't see how you would ultimately be able to duck making a choice in the long run. Yeah, I've been reading that as well. It's a shockingly ahistorical take: when those "marxists" "turned" to those new oppressor/oppressed dichotomies, there was nothing to "discredit" marxism yet: the first postmodern thinkers, people like Derrida and Foucault, start writing in 1967 and 1961 respectively. The french communist party is the third largest party at this time with 21% (1969), the italian communist party is the second largest with 26% (1972)... The notion that marxism was so discredited that postmodern authors had to hide their marxism so that they could continue to spread it is observably untrue: it just wasn't. It also ignores that marxists and postmodernists tend to criticize each other a lot, even to this day (Zizek). But that's secondary. The main point is the complete revision of history and the blending of clearly distinct school of thoughts into one another so that you get to have a single enemy. It's convenient, but wrong.
Yeah, my terminology was a little sloppy. I was referring to the political application of Marxism more than the educational application. I'm well aware that "cultural Marxism" very much predates the fall of the USSR.
|
On November 01 2018 06:24 IgnE wrote:
why not pair communism with capitalism? the same people who say communism has failed everywhere its been tried also say that china is a threat to US global dominance. the communism/capitalism seems to be pretty effectivr at driving growth
China is only communist in name. It's an authoritarian (trending towards totalitarian) system that employs a quasi-market based economy. In this way, it's not really capitalist, either.
And as an aside, it is becoming increasingly clear that China is going to have put its plans for global dominance on hold. It is about to pay a very heavy price for not being capitalist enough, having accumulated unsustainable levels of debt from misallocations of capital investment (providing yet another example of the ills of unbridled Keynsian public spending).Throw in China's looming demographic crisis from its one-child policy, rising interest rates, and Trump's successful prosecution of the trade war, and it's quite clear that China is taking it in the shorts. The Chinese stock markets certainly think so. And it's only going to get worse. Trump's tariffs are just now going into effect, and companies are now aggressively beginning to relocate their supply chains to other countries.
|
On November 03 2018 03:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 14:23 Nebuchad wrote:On October 31 2018 13:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 12:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 12:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 12:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 09:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 07:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 07:39 iamthedave wrote:On October 31 2018 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Well I think we agree they were clearly a white supremacist group in the 60's, so I'd have to be shown when they stopped being one. I do recognize it's likely a point of disagreement for most though. Yeah I think that's fair. The pretty obvious steps taken to prevent black emancipation is a BIT OF A TIP OFF on that front. I guess it depends on how much you think the FBI has an individual identity above and beyond serving the government. If the government has such leanings, the FBI will have them too. For example, if the US ever became a truly fascist state, the FBI literally is the apparatus of a new secret police. It has most of the traits such an organisation needs to function out of the gate. It may be personal idealism but I tend to think the majority of the people in such an organisation are going to lean towards being hard working, patriotic, and professional. But Patriotism is very dangerous, especially when you're in an environment like that where you see things you or I never will. I mean, literature's been dealing with the idea of how far you might have to go in order to best serve/protect your country, and how many moral boundaries you might have to cross in the process, for centuries. From a certain perspective, attempting to suppress the civil rights movement in the 60s can absolutely be seen as the act of Patriots. You know? So I tend to think the FBI is only as good or bad as the government it serves. But I don't know how much of a personal identity the organisation actually has. Under Hoover it was Hoover's (J. Edgar), since then I think your describing more or less what it is. So I guess that takes us to the question of whether the government operates under a branch of white supremacy. My answer is obviously yes, and I think while Trump's in charge most liberals are having a hard time disagreeing. Before there's any confusion, I'm not calling Trump a nazi, I'm simply saying that white supremacy has a wide and powerful international network with resources compared to none in my view, even if like "Muslim Terrorism" there are many, sometimes competing, factions. If you're going to take this kind of global view of white supremacy, then you're inevitably going to find yourself in the territory set forth in Clash of Civilizations, at which you point you better be rooting for white supremacy to win out. I do take it and no I'm not rooting for white supremacy, though under the scenario you're imagining I can understand why you would be. So if you're not rooting for the white/Western block, which one are you rooting for? My "clash of civilizations" is what you would probably know better as "class warfare" so white supremacy has no place on the side I'm pulling for. You know, I was reading something the other day that had a rather interesting observation. The point that was made was that traditional economic/class-based Marxism has been so thoroughly discredited by experience (everything from the USSR to Venezuela) that Marxists have been compelled to turn to new oppressor/oppressed dichotomies (e.g. the patriarchy as the oppressor to feminists) to stay relevant. Hell, class warfare always has historically degenerated into "clash of civilizations" - type identity politics anyway, so I don't see how you would ultimately be able to duck making a choice in the long run. Yeah, I've been reading that as well. It's a shockingly ahistorical take: when those "marxists" "turned" to those new oppressor/oppressed dichotomies, there was nothing to "discredit" marxism yet: the first postmodern thinkers, people like Derrida and Foucault, start writing in 1967 and 1961 respectively. The french communist party is the third largest party at this time with 21% (1969), the italian communist party is the second largest with 26% (1972)... The notion that marxism was so discredited that postmodern authors had to hide their marxism so that they could continue to spread it is observably untrue: it just wasn't. It also ignores that marxists and postmodernists tend to criticize each other a lot, even to this day (Zizek). But that's secondary. The main point is the complete revision of history and the blending of clearly distinct school of thoughts into one another so that you get to have a single enemy. It's convenient, but wrong. Yeah, my terminology was a little sloppy. I was referring to the political application of Marxism more than the educational application. I'm well aware that "cultural Marxism" very much predates the fall of the USSR.
I mean I don't know exactly what you were refering to so I may be wrong but it sounded like the general theory of postmodernism that Peterson espouses, so that's what I was attacking. If we're talking full cultural marxism we have to go way further back to Marcuse and the Frankfurt School, but you pointed that out yourself.
If we're just talking leftwing parties adapting to USSR falling down by adjusting their rhetoric and positions to the center and only talking about internationalism and solidarity and equality and all that shit instead of breaking the system and seizing the means of production, then sure, that's an unfortunate thing that happened. But it wasn't a conspiracy and it's definitely not marxism in disguise, it's just a political move - one that caused a lot of damage to the general political discourse by the way, as it helped the acceptance of neoliberalism - and it barely touched the United States cause that realignment had already happened there long before.
|
On November 03 2018 03:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2018 06:24 IgnE wrote:
why not pair communism with capitalism? the same people who say communism has failed everywhere its been tried also say that china is a threat to US global dominance. the communism/capitalism seems to be pretty effectivr at driving growth China is only communist in name. It's an authoritarian (trending towards totalitarian) system that employs a quasi-market based economy. In this way, it's not really capitalist, either. And as an aside, it is becoming increasingly clear that China is going to have put its plans for global dominance on hold. It is about to pay a very heavy price for not being capitalist enough, having accumulated unsustainable levels of debt from misallocations of capital investment (providing yet another example of the ills of unbridled Keynsian public spending).Throw in China's looming demographic crisis from its one-child policy, rising interest rates, and Trump's successful prosecution of the trade war, and it's quite clear that China is taking it in the shorts. The Chinese stock markets certainly think so. And it's only going to get worse. Trump's tariffs are just now going into effect, and companies are now aggressively beginning to relocate their supply chains to other countries.
was the USSR communist in name only or not? arent we dealing with platonic objects here?
www.theatlantic.com
The stakes are not nearly as high for conservative thinkers as they were for the inhabitants of Middle Earth, but the basic idea is worth pondering. Some of them wish to walk back their condemnation of Trump, the animosities that he magnifies and upon which he feeds, the prejudices upon which he plays and the norms he delightedly subverts. They do so not because their original judgments have been proved unjust—far from it—but because, weary of unyielding opposition, they would like to shape things, or at least to hold communion with those who are in the room where the deals are done. But as Gandalf and Galadriel could teach them, the height of wisdom is to fear their own drive for power, to fight the fight in a darkening world even if it looks likely to end in failure, and, above all, to choose to remain their better selves.
|
On November 03 2018 03:42 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2018 03:29 xDaunt wrote:On November 01 2018 06:24 IgnE wrote:
why not pair communism with capitalism? the same people who say communism has failed everywhere its been tried also say that china is a threat to US global dominance. the communism/capitalism seems to be pretty effectivr at driving growth China is only communist in name. It's an authoritarian (trending towards totalitarian) system that employs a quasi-market based economy. In this way, it's not really capitalist, either. And as an aside, it is becoming increasingly clear that China is going to have put its plans for global dominance on hold. It is about to pay a very heavy price for not being capitalist enough, having accumulated unsustainable levels of debt from misallocations of capital investment (providing yet another example of the ills of unbridled Keynsian public spending).Throw in China's looming demographic crisis from its one-child policy, rising interest rates, and Trump's successful prosecution of the trade war, and it's quite clear that China is taking it in the shorts. The Chinese stock markets certainly think so. And it's only going to get worse. Trump's tariffs are just now going into effect, and companies are now aggressively beginning to relocate their supply chains to other countries. was the USSR communist in name only or not? arent we dealing with platonic objects here?
The USSR had a far more centralized economy than present-day China does. Very little in the USSR was market-oriented at all. China has some functioning markets, but the Communist Party interferes with many of them quite liberally.
www.theatlantic.comShow nested quote + The stakes are not nearly as high for conservative thinkers as they were for the inhabitants of Middle Earth, but the basic idea is worth pondering. Some of them wish to walk back their condemnation of Trump, the animosities that he magnifies and upon which he feeds, the prejudices upon which he plays and the norms he delightedly subverts. They do so not because their original judgments have been proved unjust—far from it—but because, weary of unyielding opposition, they would like to shape things, or at least to hold communion with those who are in the room where the deals are done. But as Gandalf and Galadriel could teach them, the height of wisdom is to fear their own drive for power, to fight the fight in a darkening world even if it looks likely to end in failure, and, above all, to choose to remain their better selves.
The Lord of the Rings analogy works. However, Trump isn't Sauron. He's Aragorn.
EDIT: And the Never-Trumpers are all a bunch of Denethors.
|
lol aragorn youve got to be kidding me
isnt there a bit of a contradiction here between “china is more capitalist than communist at this point,” and “but its communist party interferes quite liberally [a double entendre??] with many of their markets”
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
