|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 01 2019 08:29 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 07:46 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 07:35 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 07:04 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 06:37 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 06:14 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 06:06 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 05:59 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 03:05 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 02:45 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Keeping in mind that I don't think the system I want really matters cause I want to work with you all to figure out what works best, my main idea right now looks something like this:
- Workers own the means of production (no capitalist class and not the state, the workers).
- There is a state.
- Because centralized states are more vulnerable to authoritarianism, a lot of federalism.
- A lot more direct democracy.
- No second class citizens (including migrants).
- Very little interventionism.
- Might add more stuff here when I think of it What country is the closest to your ideal? Just trying to see if it works in practice. My personal experience since working in government is we lack the ability to move quickly or make process improvements. We mean well but often grow almost for the sake of growth. We have an advantage of being able to pay people more and have it cost the same because we have no need for profit. We often lose this advantage do to a lack of productivity as people seem to lose motivation when there is no reward/fear of firing. In spite of this we do a way better job of keeping costs down on necessities such as health care, education, garbage, waste water, insurance, electricity so on. Because when the private gets onto those the profit creep over paces the gains in efficiency. So my ideal system is more of a hybrid where the government controls all the "musts" (and cell phones are no falling in the category) and then the private sector controls the "wants" with government regulation to make sure the environment and so on is protected. Lots of businesses are happy with regulation when it allows them to still compete and do it well, and the regulation can keep the "bad" ones for beating them for unscrupulous reasons, creates a level playing field. In my dream scenario these regulations would be global so for example the clothing industry couldn't just move all their production to some country where they could do everything they are not allowed to and is expensive. I would outlaw planned obsolescence and single use items like coffee cups. Costs would obviously go up but so would quality and waste would go way down. In my ideal system their would still be a floor and ceiling but they would be MUCH MUCH closer than they are now. Ideally no poor class and no rich class but everyone would fall in that middle class bubble. What's the role of the capitalist class here? Motivation for the most part. The private sector seems to be much better able to innovate. One of my main thoughts is that Prohibition leads to a black market, in almost all cases it has whether booze, prostitution, pot so on. So if you are prohibiting advancement people create their own black market on that, or they find a way to feel slighted "that guy does nothing and gets the same as me so I will do nothing". I don't believe that most people are motivated by the betterment of all men. I think most need some incentive to perform. What we have now is completely out of wack, and the ceiling is way to high and floor too low. Why would workers be less motivated if they owned the means of production of their labor? I don't know a lot of people who get up in the morning and think "Can't wait to make my boss a ton of money today!" So in your system do the workers get the profits from just where they work or is all the money pooled from all the factories and given to run society as a whole? The first one, as specified in my first post So when " - Workers own the means of production (no capitalist class and not the state, the workers)." That means that for example all google employees own an equal share of google and the profits? And if you work in a road construction crew same thing? So if you wish to get ahead you pick the best companies to work for because they make the most money? How does the taxation work? And how do all the jobs that don't turn profits but are needed funded? And to what level are those people paid? Like Doctors compared to teachers compared to garbage men? And Are doctors nurses and caretakers all equally compensated? Is it per hour or if for example the doctor has to work longer hours because of emergency is he compensated more for the extra hours? Straight scale or paid more for overtime? Who decides who gets how much overtime? Edit: I'm not trying to be a dick, the devil is just in the details, "workers controlling the means of production sounds great but what exactly does it mean" The devil isn't actually in the details at all cause most of the details are decided through direct democracy, and people aren't the devil. As far as I can tell almost none of the questions you asked are related to who owns the means of production, so, I don't care? I find it almost intensely uninteresting. This is why I asked what country most resembles your system. I said motivation and you said people don't get up in the morning to make their boss money. They don't they get up to make themselves money and given they are not the businesses owner the business owner pays them. Often based on the amount they produce or how valued the skill they do is seen. But if they own then they are motivated to make themselves money. But do they make more or less if they do more or less?
I don't care. Let the workers decide, they know better. Some cooperatives have equal pay and some don't (with the exception of equal pay for equal work obviously). But since we're cutting the middle men who are exploiting them and in a lot of cases the middle men are making an obscene amount of money off of it, I'm going to venture a guess that they stand to make more money than they do now.
|
|
|
On May 01 2019 08:32 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 08:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Can someone summarize the last 5 pages? I can't follow the conversation. Just two or three highlights will suffice. GH's usual response to any issue is to make it a thousand times worse on purpose in order to somehow get to a place where its better than where we are now. Accelerants are an ideology, apparently, hardcore communists who believe the best path to communism in America is to vote Republican. The rest was predictable response and counter-response to this. Muhamad noor was convicted of second degree murder and third degree manslaughter, The first police officer to be convicted of murder in Minnesota.
Thank you sir. I feel like we briefly touched the accelerant thing and have been trying to get GH to explain himself for 3-4 pages. So I just wanted to make sure.
We have not made progress at all.
|
On May 01 2019 08:44 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 08:39 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 08:29 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 07:46 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 07:35 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 07:04 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 06:37 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 06:14 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 06:06 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 05:59 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
What's the role of the capitalist class here? Motivation for the most part. The private sector seems to be much better able to innovate. One of my main thoughts is that Prohibition leads to a black market, in almost all cases it has whether booze, prostitution, pot so on. So if you are prohibiting advancement people create their own black market on that, or they find a way to feel slighted "that guy does nothing and gets the same as me so I will do nothing". I don't believe that most people are motivated by the betterment of all men. I think most need some incentive to perform. What we have now is completely out of wack, and the ceiling is way to high and floor too low. Why would workers be less motivated if they owned the means of production of their labor? I don't know a lot of people who get up in the morning and think "Can't wait to make my boss a ton of money today!" So in your system do the workers get the profits from just where they work or is all the money pooled from all the factories and given to run society as a whole? The first one, as specified in my first post So when " - Workers own the means of production (no capitalist class and not the state, the workers)." That means that for example all google employees own an equal share of google and the profits? And if you work in a road construction crew same thing? So if you wish to get ahead you pick the best companies to work for because they make the most money? How does the taxation work? And how do all the jobs that don't turn profits but are needed funded? And to what level are those people paid? Like Doctors compared to teachers compared to garbage men? And Are doctors nurses and caretakers all equally compensated? Is it per hour or if for example the doctor has to work longer hours because of emergency is he compensated more for the extra hours? Straight scale or paid more for overtime? Who decides who gets how much overtime? Edit: I'm not trying to be a dick, the devil is just in the details, "workers controlling the means of production sounds great but what exactly does it mean" The devil isn't actually in the details at all cause most of the details are decided through direct democracy, and people aren't the devil. As far as I can tell almost none of the questions you asked are related to who owns the means of production, so, I don't care? I find it almost intensely uninteresting. This is why I asked what country most resembles your system. I said motivation and you said people don't get up in the morning to make their boss money. They don't they get up to make themselves money and given they are not the businesses owner the business owner pays them. Often based on the amount they produce or how valued the skill they do is seen. But if they own then they are motivated to make themselves money. But do they make more or less if they do more or less? I don't care. Let the workers decide, they know better. Some cooperatives have equal pay and some don't (with the exception of equal pay for equal work obviously). But since we're cutting the middle men who are exploiting them and in a lot of cases the middle men are making an obscene amount of money off of it, I'm going to venture a guess that they stand to make more money than they do now. So each individual business (not everything is a factory) would own and run itself then decide pay by democratic vote?
Everything is democratic, not just the pay. But we're close enough, let's go with that.
|
Remember that fun discussion we had about Barr's letter and whether it was an accurate depiction of Mueller's report? Well, apparently Mueller himself called bullshit. Apparently he told Barr he was undermining the report as a whole (like many of us here said). They both need to testify.
Here is a particularly poignant part of his letter.
Is there anyone around Trump not a hack? FFS. Everything and everyone he touches turns to shit.
|
On May 01 2019 08:49 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 08:44 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 08:39 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 08:29 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 07:46 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 07:35 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 07:04 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 06:37 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 06:14 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 06:06 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
Motivation for the most part. The private sector seems to be much better able to innovate.
One of my main thoughts is that Prohibition leads to a black market, in almost all cases it has whether booze, prostitution, pot so on.
So if you are prohibiting advancement people create their own black market on that, or they find a way to feel slighted "that guy does nothing and gets the same as me so I will do nothing".
I don't believe that most people are motivated by the betterment of all men. I think most need some incentive to perform.
What we have now is completely out of wack, and the ceiling is way to high and floor too low.
Why would workers be less motivated if they owned the means of production of their labor? I don't know a lot of people who get up in the morning and think "Can't wait to make my boss a ton of money today!" So in your system do the workers get the profits from just where they work or is all the money pooled from all the factories and given to run society as a whole? The first one, as specified in my first post So when " - Workers own the means of production (no capitalist class and not the state, the workers)." That means that for example all google employees own an equal share of google and the profits? And if you work in a road construction crew same thing? So if you wish to get ahead you pick the best companies to work for because they make the most money? How does the taxation work? And how do all the jobs that don't turn profits but are needed funded? And to what level are those people paid? Like Doctors compared to teachers compared to garbage men? And Are doctors nurses and caretakers all equally compensated? Is it per hour or if for example the doctor has to work longer hours because of emergency is he compensated more for the extra hours? Straight scale or paid more for overtime? Who decides who gets how much overtime? Edit: I'm not trying to be a dick, the devil is just in the details, "workers controlling the means of production sounds great but what exactly does it mean" The devil isn't actually in the details at all cause most of the details are decided through direct democracy, and people aren't the devil. As far as I can tell almost none of the questions you asked are related to who owns the means of production, so, I don't care? I find it almost intensely uninteresting. This is why I asked what country most resembles your system. I said motivation and you said people don't get up in the morning to make their boss money. They don't they get up to make themselves money and given they are not the businesses owner the business owner pays them. Often based on the amount they produce or how valued the skill they do is seen. But if they own then they are motivated to make themselves money. But do they make more or less if they do more or less? I don't care. Let the workers decide, they know better. Some cooperatives have equal pay and some don't (with the exception of equal pay for equal work obviously). But since we're cutting the middle men who are exploiting them and in a lot of cases the middle men are making an obscene amount of money off of it, I'm going to venture a guess that they stand to make more money than they do now. So each individual business (not everything is a factory) would own and run itself then decide pay by democratic vote? Everything is democratic, not just the pay. But we're close enough, let's go with that.
So like...a board of directors?
|
On May 01 2019 08:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 08:49 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 08:44 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 08:39 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 08:29 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 07:46 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 07:35 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 07:04 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 06:37 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 06:14 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Why would workers be less motivated if they owned the means of production of their labor?
I don't know a lot of people who get up in the morning and think "Can't wait to make my boss a ton of money today!" So in your system do the workers get the profits from just where they work or is all the money pooled from all the factories and given to run society as a whole? The first one, as specified in my first post So when " - Workers own the means of production (no capitalist class and not the state, the workers)." That means that for example all google employees own an equal share of google and the profits? And if you work in a road construction crew same thing? So if you wish to get ahead you pick the best companies to work for because they make the most money? How does the taxation work? And how do all the jobs that don't turn profits but are needed funded? And to what level are those people paid? Like Doctors compared to teachers compared to garbage men? And Are doctors nurses and caretakers all equally compensated? Is it per hour or if for example the doctor has to work longer hours because of emergency is he compensated more for the extra hours? Straight scale or paid more for overtime? Who decides who gets how much overtime? Edit: I'm not trying to be a dick, the devil is just in the details, "workers controlling the means of production sounds great but what exactly does it mean" The devil isn't actually in the details at all cause most of the details are decided through direct democracy, and people aren't the devil. As far as I can tell almost none of the questions you asked are related to who owns the means of production, so, I don't care? I find it almost intensely uninteresting. This is why I asked what country most resembles your system. I said motivation and you said people don't get up in the morning to make their boss money. They don't they get up to make themselves money and given they are not the businesses owner the business owner pays them. Often based on the amount they produce or how valued the skill they do is seen. But if they own then they are motivated to make themselves money. But do they make more or less if they do more or less? I don't care. Let the workers decide, they know better. Some cooperatives have equal pay and some don't (with the exception of equal pay for equal work obviously). But since we're cutting the middle men who are exploiting them and in a lot of cases the middle men are making an obscene amount of money off of it, I'm going to venture a guess that they stand to make more money than they do now. So each individual business (not everything is a factory) would own and run itself then decide pay by democratic vote? Everything is democratic, not just the pay. But we're close enough, let's go with that. So like...a board of directors?
Who are they directing?
|
On May 01 2019 08:54 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 08:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 01 2019 08:49 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 08:44 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 08:39 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 08:29 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 07:46 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 07:35 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 07:04 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 06:37 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
So in your system do the workers get the profits from just where they work or is all the money pooled from all the factories and given to run society as a whole? The first one, as specified in my first post So when " - Workers own the means of production (no capitalist class and not the state, the workers)." That means that for example all google employees own an equal share of google and the profits? And if you work in a road construction crew same thing? So if you wish to get ahead you pick the best companies to work for because they make the most money? How does the taxation work? And how do all the jobs that don't turn profits but are needed funded? And to what level are those people paid? Like Doctors compared to teachers compared to garbage men? And Are doctors nurses and caretakers all equally compensated? Is it per hour or if for example the doctor has to work longer hours because of emergency is he compensated more for the extra hours? Straight scale or paid more for overtime? Who decides who gets how much overtime? Edit: I'm not trying to be a dick, the devil is just in the details, "workers controlling the means of production sounds great but what exactly does it mean" The devil isn't actually in the details at all cause most of the details are decided through direct democracy, and people aren't the devil. As far as I can tell almost none of the questions you asked are related to who owns the means of production, so, I don't care? I find it almost intensely uninteresting. This is why I asked what country most resembles your system. I said motivation and you said people don't get up in the morning to make their boss money. They don't they get up to make themselves money and given they are not the businesses owner the business owner pays them. Often based on the amount they produce or how valued the skill they do is seen. But if they own then they are motivated to make themselves money. But do they make more or less if they do more or less? I don't care. Let the workers decide, they know better. Some cooperatives have equal pay and some don't (with the exception of equal pay for equal work obviously). But since we're cutting the middle men who are exploiting them and in a lot of cases the middle men are making an obscene amount of money off of it, I'm going to venture a guess that they stand to make more money than they do now. So each individual business (not everything is a factory) would own and run itself then decide pay by democratic vote? Everything is democratic, not just the pay. But we're close enough, let's go with that. So like...a board of directors? Who are they directing?
Themselves and the rate of pay and benefits.
|
On May 01 2019 08:48 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 08:32 Sermokala wrote:On May 01 2019 08:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Can someone summarize the last 5 pages? I can't follow the conversation. Just two or three highlights will suffice. GH's usual response to any issue is to make it a thousand times worse on purpose in order to somehow get to a place where its better than where we are now. Accelerants are an ideology, apparently, hardcore communists who believe the best path to communism in America is to vote Republican. The rest was predictable response and counter-response to this. Muhamad noor was convicted of second degree murder and third degree manslaughter, The first police officer to be convicted of murder in Minnesota. Thank you sir. I feel like we briefly touched the accelerant thing and have been trying to get GH to explain himself for 3-4 pages. So I just wanted to make sure. We have not made progress at all.
Not really. The threads really silly right now. Discussions about how to avoid an authoritarian government to take over is to install an authoritarian government with an economic system straight out of Holodomor.
|
On May 01 2019 08:48 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 08:32 Sermokala wrote:On May 01 2019 08:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Can someone summarize the last 5 pages? I can't follow the conversation. Just two or three highlights will suffice. GH's usual response to any issue is to make it a thousand times worse on purpose in order to somehow get to a place where its better than where we are now. Accelerants are an ideology, apparently, hardcore communists who believe the best path to communism in America is to vote Republican. The rest was predictable response and counter-response to this. Muhamad noor was convicted of second degree murder and third degree manslaughter, The first police officer to be convicted of murder in Minnesota. Thank you sir. I feel like we briefly touched the accelerant thing and have been trying to get GH to explain himself for 3-4 pages. So I just wanted to make sure. We have not made progress at all.
If you have a specific question I don't mind answering?
accelerationism is the idea that capitalism, or particular processes that historically characterised capitalism, should be accelerated instead of overcome in order to generate radical social change. "Accelerationism" may also refer more broadly, and usually pejoratively, to support for the intensification of capitalism in the belief that this will hasten its self-destructive tendencies and ultimately lead to its collapse
Neb mentioned he talked to people that supported accelerationism, Gorsameth errantly attributed that belief to me, a bunch of people agreed, Velr pointed out that they were wrong/ignorant of my position, Gorsameth apologized for which I showed appreciation.
There's other stuff but that part was explained, corrected, and resolved relating to accelerationism.
|
To briefly take us back to the wonderful world of Muellers investigation.
Turn out Mueller actually did complain to Barr that his letter summerizing the report was no good. Both with a letter and a followup phone call.
www.washingtonpost.com
Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III wrote a letter in late March complaining to Attorney General William P. Barr that a four-page memo to Congress describing the principal conclusions of the investigation into President Trump “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of Mueller’s work, according to a copy of the letter reviewed Tuesday by The Washington Post. And because someone will mention it, he was more nuanced in the phone call apparently.
In that call, Mueller said he was concerned that news coverage of the obstruction investigation was misguided and creating public misunderstandings about the office’s work, according to Justice Department officials. When Barr pressed him whether he thought Barr’s letter was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not, but felt that the media coverage of the letter was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said.
Guess Mueller might have some issues with criticising his boss in a direct conversation.
Going to be a fun time in front of the Judiciary committee's for Barr.
Edit: Damn got sniped :p
|
On May 01 2019 08:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 08:48 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 01 2019 08:32 Sermokala wrote:On May 01 2019 08:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Can someone summarize the last 5 pages? I can't follow the conversation. Just two or three highlights will suffice. GH's usual response to any issue is to make it a thousand times worse on purpose in order to somehow get to a place where its better than where we are now. Accelerants are an ideology, apparently, hardcore communists who believe the best path to communism in America is to vote Republican. The rest was predictable response and counter-response to this. Muhamad noor was convicted of second degree murder and third degree manslaughter, The first police officer to be convicted of murder in Minnesota. Thank you sir. I feel like we briefly touched the accelerant thing and have been trying to get GH to explain himself for 3-4 pages. So I just wanted to make sure. We have not made progress at all. If you have a specific question I don't mind answering? Show nested quote +accelerationism is the idea that capitalism, or particular processes that historically characterised capitalism, should be accelerated instead of overcome in order to generate radical social change. "Accelerationism" may also refer more broadly, and usually pejoratively, to support for the intensification of capitalism in the belief that this will hasten its self-destructive tendencies and ultimately lead to its collapse Neb mentioned he talked to people that supported accelerationism, Gorsameth errantly attributed that belief to me, a bunch of people agreed, Velr pointed out that they were wrong/ignorant of my position, Gorsameth apologized for which I showed appreciation. There's other stuff but that part was explained, corrected, and resolved relating to accelerationism.
I don't understand how this movement will create anything other than anarchy and be pretty much a ripe fruit for an authoritarian government to seize control. Out of chaos comes order and not the hippy kind. More like V for Vendetta.
|
Mueller also apparently admitted that nothing was inaccurate or misleading. So they are arguing over obstruction, hardly an open or shut case. At least we can put collusion to bed (again), though I appreciate how the NYT drops it out there and then says "but as far as we know the letter didn't mention it." lol. They didnt even read it. Who is summarizing it to them?
And of course as Barr pointed out, his letter was a letter of conclusions, not a summary. A conclusion he had to make because Mueller declined.
edit: reading it again is even funnier. Mueller is complaining more about media reporting and therefore asking for a speedy release. It's not even primarily about Barr.
|
On May 01 2019 08:53 On_Slaught wrote:Remember that fun discussion we had about Barr's letter and whether it was an accurate depiction of Mueller's report? Well, apparently Mueller himself called bullshit. Apparently he told Barr he was undermining the report as a whole (like many of us here said). They both need to testify. https://twitter.com/mattzap/status/1123364208937185280Here is a particularly poignant part of his letter. https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1123370475013529601Is there anyone around Trump not a hack? FFS. Everything and everyone he touches turns to shit.
Of course Mueller is not happy with what Barr did. Barr gave the accurate, bottom line assessment of Mueller's report that Mueller tried oh-so-hard to obfuscate with his 400-page monstrosity. Barr deliberately (and properly, I might add) sabotaged the whole goal of Mueller's report: to inflict maximum political damage upon Trump. This leak of Mueller's letter is yet another example of Mueller pursuing this goal, and Barr's testimony tomorrow will continue to impede it. If Mueller had any dignity, he would have simply said in his report that he found probable cause of a crime yet declined to indict due to whatever reason. But he didn't. This is all just sour grapes at getting out-maneuvered politically.
|
On May 01 2019 09:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 08:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 01 2019 08:48 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 01 2019 08:32 Sermokala wrote:On May 01 2019 08:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Can someone summarize the last 5 pages? I can't follow the conversation. Just two or three highlights will suffice. GH's usual response to any issue is to make it a thousand times worse on purpose in order to somehow get to a place where its better than where we are now. Accelerants are an ideology, apparently, hardcore communists who believe the best path to communism in America is to vote Republican. The rest was predictable response and counter-response to this. Muhamad noor was convicted of second degree murder and third degree manslaughter, The first police officer to be convicted of murder in Minnesota. Thank you sir. I feel like we briefly touched the accelerant thing and have been trying to get GH to explain himself for 3-4 pages. So I just wanted to make sure. We have not made progress at all. If you have a specific question I don't mind answering? accelerationism is the idea that capitalism, or particular processes that historically characterised capitalism, should be accelerated instead of overcome in order to generate radical social change. "Accelerationism" may also refer more broadly, and usually pejoratively, to support for the intensification of capitalism in the belief that this will hasten its self-destructive tendencies and ultimately lead to its collapse Neb mentioned he talked to people that supported accelerationism, Gorsameth errantly attributed that belief to me, a bunch of people agreed, Velr pointed out that they were wrong/ignorant of my position, Gorsameth apologized for which I showed appreciation. There's other stuff but that part was explained, corrected, and resolved relating to accelerationism. I don't understand how this movement will create anything other than anarchy and be pretty much a ripe fruit for an authoritarian government to seize control. Out of chaos comes order and not the hippy kind. More like V for Vendetta.
Okay?
No one does, that's why no one here subscribes to it and we all agree it's not a viable path forward? It's also why I thought it was important that people stop misattributing it to me. This is like a daily thing and as Velr pointed out (in this particular case) it's not that I don't say it, it's that people don't read carefully or sometimes at all it seems.
|
|
|
I got all of that. I'm just adding my commentary to it. I think you use words in such a way that leaves room for interpretation and people do what they do.
|
Special reminder that Barr has a much longer history of being a political hack than Mueller does, all the way to Bush one and the Iran contra pardons. His career in the justice department was just long enough to get appointed as AG.
|
On May 01 2019 09:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I got all of that. I'm just adding my commentary to it. I think you use words in such a way that leaves room for interpretation and people do what they do.
I don't think this is quite accurate, the recent example that comes to mind was people just outright turning "disproportionate representation" into "all" and then "a majority" and blamed me for their misinterpreting the literal meaning of the words I used.
I think I'm being unfairly blamed for people's careless engagement.
|
On May 01 2019 09:13 xDaunt wrote:Of course Mueller is not happy with what Barr did. Barr gave the accurate, bottom line assessment of Mueller's report that Mueller tried oh-so-hard to obfuscate with his 400-page monstrosity. Barr deliberately (and properly, I might add) sabotaged the whole goal of Mueller's report: to inflict maximum political damage upon Trump. This leak of Mueller's letter is yet another example of Mueller pursuing this goal, and Barr's testimony tomorrow will continue to impede it. If Mueller had any dignity, he would have simply said in his report that he found probable cause of a crime yet declined to indict due to whatever reason. But he didn't. This is all just sour grapes at getting out-maneuvered politically.
You realize that "monstrosity" pretty clearly outlines coordination with Russians and obstruction right? Not at all what Barr was parroting with his "no collusion! no collusion! no obstruction! no obstruction" Trump mantra. Also, if this were a Democrat in office, you would be foaming at the mouth right now. I know 100% that you're a hypocrite. Every single person on the right is a hypocrite. You're all just a bunch of Lindsey Grahams.
Rules for thee, but not for me!
TRUMP ALLY LINDSEY GRAHAM ONCE SAID PRESIDENT COULD BE IMPEACHED FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT
https://www.newsweek.com/lindsey-graham-once-said-failing-comply-subpoenas-impeachable-1407455
Sen. Lindsey Graham Lambasted for Giving ‘Every Obstruction Defendant a New Defense’
"I don’t care what they talked about. He didn’t do anything. The point is the president did not impede Mueller from doing his investigation,” Graham Face the Nation‘s Margaret Brennan.
“I don’t care what happened between him and Don McGahn,” Graham added. “Here’s what I care about: Was Mueller allowed to do his job? And the answer is yes.”
This is a far cry from Graham’s 1999 comments regarding then-president Bill Clinton and the purpose of impeachment.
“[Y]ou don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic,” Graham said at the time. “If this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role because […] Impeachment is not about punishment, impeachment is about cleansing the office.”
“Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office,” he continued."
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/sen-lindsey-graham-lambasted-for-giving-every-obstruction-defendant-a-new-defense/
Scummy. As. Fuck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
