|
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 31 2019 11:43 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2019 01:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On the environment, what are you doing to save the world? I think this is silly but as an individual, I haven't made a child which makes my carbon footprint smaller than all but the most efficient people who make children. Having children is the most destructive thing a person can to do to the environment, according to a new study.
“A US family who chooses to have one fewer child would provide the same level of emissions reductions as 684 teenagers who choose to adopt comprehensive recycling for the rest of their lives,” it said. www.independent.co.ukI do plenty more (little-nothing is more important than joining folks in lifting class consciousness imo), but just that one thing puts me well ahead of your typical "green minded" liberal with with a kid. When talking about the individual level it's really not even close which is more impactful. having one fewer child per family can save “an average of 58.6 tonnes of CO2-equivalent emissions per year compared to dramatic lifestyle changes like never driving a car, obsessive recycling, and only using reusables “For example, living car-free saves about 2.4 tonnes of C02 equivalent per year, while eating a plant-based diet saves 0.8 tonnes of C02 equivalent a year.” There's no point in saving the planet if everyone stops having children. Not having children is at best a preference, not a moral good.
I covered that in a later post but they ended up getting a little jumbled with people carrying iterations of arguments all over the place.
Personally I don't see myself as my argument so I can argue positions I don't hold reasonably easily and maintain slight variations contemporaneously which is understandably confusing for anyone to watch (and keep track of myself when they get mixed together).
I agree not making a kid isn't a moral good, it's just an easy way to be far less detrimental to the environment than a typical US family on an individual level than obsessively recycling, riding a bike everywhere, or well pretty much anything according to that research (and my superficial engagement with it).
|
Proposition: normal people acting within the bounds of normal behavior are not morally responsible for their behavior towards the environment
Corollary: only the very rich, the uniquely situated (large corporate polluters), those who deliberately flout norms to harm the environment, and similarly situated people can be morally culpable for damaging the environment
|
I think he's aiming towards something different, IgnE. The quote alleges one fewer child per family is extremely rewarding in reducing the family's carbon emissions. The moral argument is that fewer children preserves the earth for their generation.
|
The carrying capacity of the planet is much higher than the number of people projected.
|
On May 31 2019 11:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2019 10:52 On_Slaught wrote:
Very Trumpian threat. No specifics = can claim victory without anything substantial actually changing.
Still, he is getting some very bad advice (Miller im guessing). Why continue to undermine just about the only argument Trump has with moderate voters: the economy doing well? I doubt that it's going to do much broad-based harm, if any. And the policy is going to be lauded in the rust belt states that Trump wants to be competitive in. Additionally, being tough on illegal immigration is a winning policy for Trump. The more he hammers on it, the better he'll do.
Immigration was THE issue in 2018 (remember the big, scary caravan?), and it contributed to his party getting slaughtered. Now you have him doing something which can end up hurting the issue that plays best with the public (the economy) in order to push an agenda that plays horribly with women, moderates, and the religious. Not a smart move from the stable genius.
|
On May 31 2019 11:31 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2019 11:23 xDaunt wrote:On May 31 2019 10:52 On_Slaught wrote:
Very Trumpian threat. No specifics = can claim victory without anything substantial actually changing.
Still, he is getting some very bad advice (Miller im guessing). Why continue to undermine just about the only argument Trump has with moderate voters: the economy doing well? I doubt that it's going to do much broad-based harm, if any. And the policy is going to be lauded in the rust belt states that Trump wants to be competitive in. Additionally, being tough on illegal immigration is a winning policy for Trump. The more he hammers on it, the better he'll do. Trump needs a fight and this will be the current one. He clearly prefers everyone talk about this because it is popular with some compared to his NK crap which is not popular with anyone. I would imagine Trump would doubly so want to shift away from the previous focus on North Korea given that word has come out that Kim Jong-un had the people who were in charge of the failed summit between him and Trump executed or put into forced labour camps because the results of the summit. This news makes Trump's glowing remarks about Kim on the weekend seem even more ridiculous.
Chuck Grassley has spoken out against Trump's proposed tariffs on Mexico, saying that "Trade policy and border security are separate issues. This is a misuse of presidential tariff authority and counter to congressional intent,". Grassley also pointed out that this tariff threatens the USMCA deal, which is in its final stages, and that deal failing would cause Trump to break an election promise. I also immediately thought of USMCA when I saw this tariff news because earlier today there was other news about it being nearly complete. Trump fucking up getting the USMCA deal completed would be yet another own goal. Stuff like this seriously makes one wonder who the hell is giving him this advice and telling him this type of policy is a good idea.
|
|
|
On May 31 2019 12:43 IgnE wrote:
The carrying capacity of the planet is much higher than the number of people projected.
I'm going a little far in being devil's advocate already, but I'll keep walking. I do think I understand the moral logic given a few suppositions. Let's say the interpretation of the extreme weather events from AGW theory is well enough established to be relied upon. Future generations will endure many more hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, famines. The impact is assumed to be nonlinear with tonnage emitted, and devastating enough to go beyond minor changes in quality of life (not subject to heavy mitigating technology). Can you see the moral case for one less child for families given that proposed impact?
|
|
|
On May 31 2019 12:07 IgnE wrote:
Proposition: normal people acting within the bounds of normal behavior are not morally responsible for their behavior towards the environment
Corollary: only the very rich, the uniquely situated (large corporate polluters), those who deliberately flout norms to harm the environment, and similarly situated people can be morally culpable for damaging the environment
This ignores groups though.
One normal person, acting within the bounds of normal behaviour is not morally reponsible for their behaviour towards the environment, but a group of these normal people may need to get together and alter their behaviour once they realize that as a group they are behaving in a way that damages their environment... If they knowingly fail to do so is that a moral issue?
I think it depends on how willing you are to attribute moral qualities to large groups of people, but I would say it is.
|
On May 31 2019 12:43 IgnE wrote:
The carrying capacity of the planet is much higher than the number of people projected.
Which protection are you talking about?
Could you cite the source of your statement?
|
On May 31 2019 09:54 micronesia wrote:
The criteria for what Mexico needs to do to avoid the tariffs described in that White House Press Statement above is not spelled out. The exact words are,
"If the illegal migration crisis is alleviated through effective actions taken by Mexico, to be determined in our sole discretion and judgment, the Tariffs will be removed. If the crisis persists, however,"
"...dramatically reduce or eliminate the number of illegal aliens crossing its territory into the United States..."
"...until Mexico substantially stops the illegal inflow of aliens coming through its territory..."
"...If Mexico fails to act..."
A threat with such unclear criteria for compliance is not effective. It may hurt Mexico, but only insofar as it also hurts the U.S. too. There are many ways Trump could show he has "balls," but this is not it. More likely, this is an attempt to show the administration is taking on two issues important to their base: illegal or undesirable immigration destroying out country (at least in their view), and jobs leaving the country. Trying to make this into a win-win for two separate issues is probably doomed to fail.
Could just be incompetence, seems a more likely answer.
|
@GreenHorizons - have you looked at the study?.
from a 'reply' to it" They cite a critique that our study ‘…obscures the single most salient fact about individual carbon emissions, namely that wealthy people produce way more’(Roberts 2017). We are very much aware of this, and it is why we focused our analysis on highly industrialized countries where the majority of the world’s wealthy high emitters live(as we note in the first paragraph of the introduction that these high-carbon individuals are responsible for nearly 50% of emissions (Gore 2015)).These individuals have the ability to maintain a very high quality of life while drastically decreasing personal emissions. While we focused on high-emitting,high-income, developed countries in our study, for completeness, we included all countries studied in the supplement, which indeed shows how consumption patterns determine per-capita emissions (e.g. 9441 tons total carbon legacy for a US child, vs. 56 in Bangladesh(Murtaugh and Schlax 2009)) the regular Joe should ignore that study because it's especially designed to guilt trip people into extinction.
westerners are wealthy, wealthy people have huge carbon footprints, westerners should limit having children -> the fuck.
also, they calculate it based on estimates on future offspring of that person ...
from the study:In this approach, half of a child's emissions are assigned to each parent, as well as one quarter of that child's offspring (the grandchildren) and so forth. This is consistent with our use of research employing the fullest possible life cycle approach in order to capture the magnitude of emissions decisions. jesus, that study doesn't even stand to basic logic.
Edit: ![[image loading]](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/4/46/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_IPCC_source_sector%2C_EU-28%2C_2016.png) 76% from burning fuel; seriously, people should fuck off with the guilt-trip as if breathing, exhaling CO2, kills the planet.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Climate_change_-_driving_forces#Total_emissions.2C_main_breakdowns_by_source_and_general_drivers
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/4/46/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_IPCC_source_sector,_EU-28,_2016.png
moreEdits: overpopulation is again, a stupid concept, especially from a food production standpoint.
These sound a bit niche. Don’t industrial farms produce most of the world’s food? No. There are more than 570m farms worldwide; more than 90% are run by an individual or family and rely primarily on family labour. They produce about 80% of the world’s food .
|
On May 31 2019 05:49 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2019 05:31 JimmiC wrote:On May 31 2019 05:26 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 05:02 JimmiC wrote:On May 31 2019 04:37 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 03:52 JimmiC wrote:On May 31 2019 02:20 Nebuchad wrote:On May 30 2019 20:13 JimmiC wrote:On May 30 2019 09:44 Nebuchad wrote:On May 30 2019 09:26 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
Of course it doesn't, I'm not sure why you are getting so upset, so I'm just going to shut this down. In the least condescending way possible let me ask you to take a civics course, I'm not interested or probably qualified to teach it, but it can explain to you how these systems work in attempts to stop corruption and why and when they have changed to try to do it better.
Capitalists are people, the same people who would be socialists and make decisions. If you think people are that callus and purely self interested then they are going to do the same things in the name of socialism but with none of the oversight, so good luck with that.
Why do you think it won the cold war?
There are ways to lift the bottom and compress the top. It is like you don't understand or are unwilling to talk about the regulation portion of governance in the current system. If anyone is high on propaganda here it is you, your ranting like everyone currently is a money grubbing sociopath and that is just not the case. I know a lot of business owners who do awesome things for their staff and care about the environment. So get off your soap box, get some life experience and go out and see how things are, and stop listening to youtube videos of "leftist" truthers who speak headcanon like fake from their dorm rooms. Nothing in my post shows any sign of being upset, lol? I'm going to assume this is just your way of asserting victory and I'll be over there, quite unimpressed. First, it's pretty clear that capitalists are doing that, it's not just "if you think that". They have an history of doing it, from lying about sugar causing obesity to lying about smoking causing cancer. Now that they know that they are causing climate change, they are lying about it as long as they can. There is a consistency there. If they were being short-sighted about this, then they were also short-sighted about smoking under the same logic: "we maximize profits now but once people discover that smoking actually does cause cancer, it's going to go badly". Okay... but it's going to go badly later, and for now we are making profits, that's what maximizing is. Second, no it won't be the same people. You have to be a certain type of person to be a good capitalist and rise to the top of that system. Not all people are like that, most people aren't. It is much harder for an entire set of workers to decide to screw people over than it is for a single individual that massively benefits from doing it. I don't really know why the US won the cold war to be honest. Probably a variety of reasons. USSR sucked at being leftist, convinced a bunch of Slavs that capitalism was preferable. But I wouldn't be comfortable defining what the main reason is, I haven't cared enough about the USSR to research that. The business owners that you know won't rise to the top of capitalism. They care about external things like the well-being of their workers or their own moral compass. That doesn't maximize profits. People reaching a sufficient level in capitalism and keeping those types of views are extreme outliers, most of the time we're talking Koch and Bezos and Soros. I think it's clear from our posts who is getting emotional and who isn't. Upset was probably the wrong word, but you are getting progressively more insulting and I should stop before I insult you and one or both of us get upset. Your second paragraph basically insinuated that anybody who is not a socialist doesn't care about the environment and as you put it brown people. That is super frustrating when there are tons of us out there actually doing something and we have to hear about how you have solution to all our problems, oh whats that, socialism, how does it solve the problems? Socialism. You are going to end up alienating all the people you hope to convince for your revolution. What I don't understand with you and especially GH is do you guys not understand that the people you consider evil centerist libs are the exact people that you would need to convince to have your revolution? Do you really think the right strategy in this is to allude that we are racists who don't care about the environment and are controlled by right-wing propoganda? You seem to think that changing the system from Capitalism to socialism will change all the people from your definition of capitalist to your definition of socialist. So far this has never happened. It might be valuable for you to do some actual research into why the countries that tried to go communist did not work, how it worked out for the average person and why in the end it failed. Not because your wrong, or I'm trying win, because then when people like me ask you these basic questions you will have the answers and it won't appear that you are a very young guy, very naive to how historically these revolutions turn out. Please consider that not every piece of news out there about the negatives of communism or socialism is right wing propaganda. And there is left-wing propaganda out there. If you just dismiss everything that you don't like as "right-wing propaganda" you are really no different then the right wing people who dismiss everything as "left-wing propaganda". I'm clearly not a trustworthy source to you but it is worth looking outside of what your looking at now to better understand why so few people want this revolution you are speaking about when to you it solves all the major problems. And also no I don't think I won, I think I lost, and there is no hope of any positive outcome. I was hoping to have a discussion about how you would implement a socialist system that would fall prey to all the same issues that the others one had, that perhaps you had done some thought and research into it. But instead of you attempting to pull me into your camp with actual ideas I got the same old surface stuff sprinkled with insults and condescension. + Show Spoiler +On the environment, what are you doing to save the world? GH has completely avoided this question. I really hope you are making some big lifestyle changes because it does make a difference. And if you are not and just hoping that this revolution you dream of that only a small % of people want will solve all those problems . And maybe even hoping that some terrible event killing or displacing millions will be what triggers them to join your side. It probably won't it will probably push more people right to protect what they have, more walls, more anti immigration, so on. So I really hope you are actually doing everything you can to stop the catastrophe from happening in the first place. So please let me know what you are actually doing? I think you shifted the meaning of capitalist from "member of the capitalist class" to "person who supports capitalism" and that's how you got that impression that I was attacking you. What I described was the thought process that would lead someone that owns the means of production in a coal or a petroleum company to fight climate change science without being irrational or short-sighted. I believe that it's totally rational for them to do this based on the framework of capitalism, and that's what I'm trying to show. I do think that when people talk about what they have to lose in a fight against capitalism, that certainly comes from a position of privilege, but that's something I can only attack from a moral standpoint, not a rational standpoint, so I won't be using this. This conversation is interesting because of the type of progress that we're making. For example, I gave you an answer on why socialism is an improvement on capitalism when it comes to climate change, and you've decided to completely ignore that and continue to pretend that I'm saying "socialism, how does it solve the problems? Socialism". So there's no progress there. On the other side, you're now clearly standing in support of capitalism and against socialism, so hopefully there's progress there, and next time we have this conversation we won't have to deal with the period where you pretend that you like socialism but you just need a clear picture of how it's going to be implemented. The way you are using moral character of humans is interesting and shows quite a bit of projection I believe. Nothing I've said demonstrates that I believe the character of humans changes between economic systems, that's something that you appear to have just made up. Oppositely, your reaction of "If you think people are that callous and self-interested" when defending capitalists is something that stands in stark contrast with your attacks on state ownership, that generally involve talking about human corruption and self-interest. If there is an inconsistency there, I think it's on your part of the argument. I... really don't care about the USSR? I'm not a tankie? They went for a state ownership system and I don't think that's a good idea? The idea of state ownership is justified as a transitory state before we give the means of production to the workers, and they... never did that in 70 years (I believe they actively fought against it)? People in the USSR made sure that people read Marx as seldom as possible so that they wouldn't notice that the party line looked nothing like what Marx was saying? Like, I could also look at Pol Pot, he thought that the good way to go about communism was to go full nazbol, so he went with state ownership (with peasantry as the vanguard, as it's the maoist system) plus a whole lot of nationalism! That's... the horseshoe theory, surprisingly, and guess what it didn't work either. But I don't want to do that shit, so what would it bring me to know how it failed? I gave you a bunch of answers to the questions that you purportedly have. It's up to you what you do with them. No, I'm personally not a great example when it comes to climate. I'm not the worst but I don't make particularly large efforts, I use a car when I need it which is about once or twice a week, I take a plane to Vegas every year... I can't even bring myself to become a vegan even though I have no rational argument to oppose veganism. But I do take solace in my ability to recognize that climate change is a systemic problem and it necessitates a systemic solution, that's at least something I've got over the most climate-conscious liberal.
But I do take solace in my ability to recognize that climate change is a systemic problem and it necessitates a systemic solution, that's at least something I've got over the most climate-conscious liberal.
Us people doing things about it would call this a cop out, "I can't solve it so I just won't do anything." Yes you not taking trans Atlantic flights every year will not save the planet, but it does make a difference especially if millions of people like you stop. Change is hard and uncomfortable, perhaps some reflection on why you knowingly don't make these changes you have stated that you know will help you to understand why I don't think you can simply drop knowledge to people and they will automatically become however you want them to be. And that is even if you can get them that knowledge. I... really don't care about the USSR? That is fine, but when you are a looking at system you need to look at the ones that came before and failed so you don't repeat the same mistakes. If you ever want to move past the philosophical stage to the practical one you are going to have to understand its past failings. On the other side, you're now clearly standing in support of capitalism and against socialism, The more I talk to you to some degree, and to a much bigger degree the more I talk to GH I move further and further into the socialist democracy camp with regulated capitalism as a must. Your and his version of the "capitalist class" gets way to close to the "deep state" for my liking. It appears to take all responsibility away from people and the individual choices they make, because socialism will save the day. While I'm glad the propaganda you are immersed in far less hateful than the far rights it does not seem any more grounded in reality. There are reasons there has been no successful communist/socialist country. It is not because of the capitalist class bogey man, actual tangible reasons, and they are out there in history books and so on. The answer is far from as simple as they do work its capitalist propaganda that they have not. Or they have not worked because of capitalists under mining it. I'll let you come to your own conclusions about why past attempted revolutions failed because you don't have any trust with me and it is more likely I'll push you basically opposite whatever I say. Be aware leftist propaganda also exists, the right does not have exclusive rights to it. If you look up literacy rates you will notice authoritarians who claim to be from both ends of the spectrum have high rates because teaching people to read is the perfect time to indoctrinate them. Propaganda works, on everybody me and you included. The best defense against it is to read news and information from as many sources as possible. If you only read leftist news, from leftist news sources chances are you will not get the entire picture. Also it seems like you live a pretty good lifestyle, not very many people from a % standpoint have the ability to take a transatlantic flight yearly for vacation purposes. It would suggest to me that you come from a family that is above what I would define as "working class". I'm not sure of your work history or even age for that matter, but if you expect to connect with these people, (who are people like my friends and family) you probably want to go find some work with them. Nothing a working class person likes less than is a starbucks communist with all the answers philosophically, none of the experience and fair bit of money. A lot of this answer is you refusing to engage with arguments that have been provided to you. On climate change, you think I want to do nothing because change is uncomfortable, when I'm actually proposing systemic change to fix a systemic problem, and it is you who is uncomfortable with that and instead want to limit yourself to individual change because that's a level of change you are comfortable with, regardless of the efficiency or realism of either of these ideas. On the USSR, you think I want a similar system and it's close to the deep state, when I repeatedly distinguished between state ownership of the means of production and worker ownership of the means of production. It is impossible to follow an argument that starts with "we should have an increased level of democracy" and conclude "That sounds too much like the Deep State for my liking", clearly there is some prejudice going on here. The notion that active and violent opposition from a powerful economic system is not a tangible reason for failure is ridiculous. We live in the First World my friend. All of our lifestyles are pretty good from a % standpoint. I make money from poker, so Vegas has been most of the time a source of income rather than a vacation. Not that it would change anything otherwise. Closing thoughts on propaganda. Here is a recent example of leftist propaganda that I fell for: there were polls on Biden and Sanders that showed Biden was in the lead with a large margin. But if you looked at the methodology of these polls, you saw that they had a bunch of "N/A" in the 19-45 demographics. Some leftist news source that I watch and generally trust argued that those polls were bullshit because, while N/A doesn't mean "nobody in the demographic was polled", the sample was so small that it can't be considered representative, and therefore the poll result is skewed. That made sense to me and I didn't doubt them, so I thought that was the truth. It turns out it's more complicated than that, because when pollsters don't have enough people representing a demographic, they extrapolate from the numbers they have and pretend that they got more than they did. It's still not a perfect representation, of course, because if you interrogate 50 25 years-old and 8 of them are for Biden, you can't logically conclude that if you had interrogated 500, then 80 of them would be for Biden. But it's still a better estimate than the picture I had because of the news source I watched. Do you know how I can tell that this is propaganda? Because there is a reality. Facts exist. So I can compare what I've been told with the facts, and see that this doesn't match. That's helpful that way. Hey, here's one for you: what's the last example of you falling for liberal propaganda that you remember? I have no idea what system you want. That is my big issue. Because I don't know I guessed that the USSR might be one of the closest to what you want. You have said you don't want central decision making, and some sort of democracy per factory thing, but I'm not sure how that works in regards to public services or on a global scale. And it is scary that you don't know why the USSR or other attempted socialist states failed. As you said facts exist it would be worth looking them up. My point was that your version of the capital class is a lot like the rights version of the deep state. I believed that plastic recycling was good and than when I put it in the proper bin the proper way it was good and good for the environment. I don't know if this is the thread to get into why that was so foolish and the many ways it is wrong but if there is interest I'm happy to. On a smaller and TL related thing I also believed an article that said that Hugo Chavez daughter was a billionaire, when it turns out no one has any idea what she is worth, just that shes leads a exceptional lifestyle, including living in palaces and so on, and no one really knows how much money she has, could be none and is just funded by Maduro's government to keep the good will of the Chavista's or she could be super rich. Well the USSR was a terrible guess based on the information you had. You could also have relied on this conversation we're in the middle of, where I regularly argue against the USSR system. I misunderstood you on the deep state, I apologize. If we go on wiki: "some analysts believe that there is "a hybrid association of elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process"". The problem with the deep state formulation is the "hybrid association" part. It fails in that it presents this as a conspiracy of people in shadowy rooms, often jewish because why not, rather than an extremely logical consequence of how the capitalist system is built. People who have more money have more power than people who have less money, so they are capable of influencing policy better than people who don't have money if they choose to do so. As a result, over time, policy is likely to reflect the will of the people with more money and influence. To counteract that, we have fought for this system called democracy, where we get to influence policy regardless of how much money or how much influence we have. This is sometimes effective and sometimes not: there is a tension there. In the US nowadays, it is almost always ineffective, which is exemplified in how rarely the will of the people has an influence on policy. The system you speak of sounds a lot more like Norway than it does the USSR. But given that you (and if I'm confusing you with GH here my bad some times I'm talking to both of you at the same time and you have different beliefs but when both interject I can mix it up) seem to think that a revolution is required from that form of government I'm left guessing. Even in the post above you say not USSR. Great what then? Why is this a difficult question? The system I speak of doesn't really sound like Norway either, no. Norway has a social democracy. But Norway is good. It's an excellent starting point to strive for, as it incorporates more socialist ideas within its economic system despite it still being capitalist. Getting the most leftwing candidate that you can find elected so that the Overton window shifts is, if you recall, the first thing that I put in the list of "stuff that we should do" that I was asked for the other day. In most cases that will be a social democrat.
Norway is good for what ? It is an oil-exporting country, and some of its policies are funded by proxy-polluting the world. I don't believe that's the target we should aim for, if the aim is sustainable policies and the environment.
|
On May 31 2019 12:49 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2019 11:23 xDaunt wrote:On May 31 2019 10:52 On_Slaught wrote:
Very Trumpian threat. No specifics = can claim victory without anything substantial actually changing.
Still, he is getting some very bad advice (Miller im guessing). Why continue to undermine just about the only argument Trump has with moderate voters: the economy doing well? I doubt that it's going to do much broad-based harm, if any. And the policy is going to be lauded in the rust belt states that Trump wants to be competitive in. Additionally, being tough on illegal immigration is a winning policy for Trump. The more he hammers on it, the better he'll do. Immigration was THE issue in 2018 (remember the big, scary caravan?), and it contributed to his party getting slaughtered. Now you have him doing something which can end up hurting the issue that plays best with the public (the economy) in order to push an agenda that plays horribly with women, moderates, and the religious. Not a smart move from the stable genius.
Does mid-term voting reflect Presidential voting, though? And are you sure that this issue contributed to his party getting slaughtered?
I seem to recall from the conversation at the time that pretty much all of the seats that shifted were the ones everyone expected to shift going in due to either weak Republican candidates or state-level issues that were nothing to do with Trump. And most of the Republicans who lost were ones who actively distanced themselves from Trump.
Not saying the above is true, just what I remember from the mid-term discussions when they happened, from both sides. Daunt and co were disappointed but not surprised especially, and the left-leaning posters felt they didn't score any really big wins because none of the Republican critical states flipped.
|
On May 31 2019 18:35 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2019 05:49 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 05:31 JimmiC wrote:On May 31 2019 05:26 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 05:02 JimmiC wrote:On May 31 2019 04:37 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 03:52 JimmiC wrote:On May 31 2019 02:20 Nebuchad wrote:On May 30 2019 20:13 JimmiC wrote:On May 30 2019 09:44 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Nothing in my post shows any sign of being upset, lol? I'm going to assume this is just your way of asserting victory and I'll be over there, quite unimpressed.
First, it's pretty clear that capitalists are doing that, it's not just "if you think that". They have an history of doing it, from lying about sugar causing obesity to lying about smoking causing cancer. Now that they know that they are causing climate change, they are lying about it as long as they can. There is a consistency there. If they were being short-sighted about this, then they were also short-sighted about smoking under the same logic: "we maximize profits now but once people discover that smoking actually does cause cancer, it's going to go badly". Okay... but it's going to go badly later, and for now we are making profits, that's what maximizing is.
Second, no it won't be the same people. You have to be a certain type of person to be a good capitalist and rise to the top of that system. Not all people are like that, most people aren't. It is much harder for an entire set of workers to decide to screw people over than it is for a single individual that massively benefits from doing it.
I don't really know why the US won the cold war to be honest. Probably a variety of reasons. USSR sucked at being leftist, convinced a bunch of Slavs that capitalism was preferable. But I wouldn't be comfortable defining what the main reason is, I haven't cared enough about the USSR to research that.
The business owners that you know won't rise to the top of capitalism. They care about external things like the well-being of their workers or their own moral compass. That doesn't maximize profits. People reaching a sufficient level in capitalism and keeping those types of views are extreme outliers, most of the time we're talking Koch and Bezos and Soros.
I think it's clear from our posts who is getting emotional and who isn't. Upset was probably the wrong word, but you are getting progressively more insulting and I should stop before I insult you and one or both of us get upset. Your second paragraph basically insinuated that anybody who is not a socialist doesn't care about the environment and as you put it brown people. That is super frustrating when there are tons of us out there actually doing something and we have to hear about how you have solution to all our problems, oh whats that, socialism, how does it solve the problems? Socialism. You are going to end up alienating all the people you hope to convince for your revolution. What I don't understand with you and especially GH is do you guys not understand that the people you consider evil centerist libs are the exact people that you would need to convince to have your revolution? Do you really think the right strategy in this is to allude that we are racists who don't care about the environment and are controlled by right-wing propoganda? You seem to think that changing the system from Capitalism to socialism will change all the people from your definition of capitalist to your definition of socialist. So far this has never happened. It might be valuable for you to do some actual research into why the countries that tried to go communist did not work, how it worked out for the average person and why in the end it failed. Not because your wrong, or I'm trying win, because then when people like me ask you these basic questions you will have the answers and it won't appear that you are a very young guy, very naive to how historically these revolutions turn out. Please consider that not every piece of news out there about the negatives of communism or socialism is right wing propaganda. And there is left-wing propaganda out there. If you just dismiss everything that you don't like as "right-wing propaganda" you are really no different then the right wing people who dismiss everything as "left-wing propaganda". I'm clearly not a trustworthy source to you but it is worth looking outside of what your looking at now to better understand why so few people want this revolution you are speaking about when to you it solves all the major problems. And also no I don't think I won, I think I lost, and there is no hope of any positive outcome. I was hoping to have a discussion about how you would implement a socialist system that would fall prey to all the same issues that the others one had, that perhaps you had done some thought and research into it. But instead of you attempting to pull me into your camp with actual ideas I got the same old surface stuff sprinkled with insults and condescension. + Show Spoiler +On the environment, what are you doing to save the world? GH has completely avoided this question. I really hope you are making some big lifestyle changes because it does make a difference. And if you are not and just hoping that this revolution you dream of that only a small % of people want will solve all those problems . And maybe even hoping that some terrible event killing or displacing millions will be what triggers them to join your side. It probably won't it will probably push more people right to protect what they have, more walls, more anti immigration, so on. So I really hope you are actually doing everything you can to stop the catastrophe from happening in the first place. So please let me know what you are actually doing? I think you shifted the meaning of capitalist from "member of the capitalist class" to "person who supports capitalism" and that's how you got that impression that I was attacking you. What I described was the thought process that would lead someone that owns the means of production in a coal or a petroleum company to fight climate change science without being irrational or short-sighted. I believe that it's totally rational for them to do this based on the framework of capitalism, and that's what I'm trying to show. I do think that when people talk about what they have to lose in a fight against capitalism, that certainly comes from a position of privilege, but that's something I can only attack from a moral standpoint, not a rational standpoint, so I won't be using this. This conversation is interesting because of the type of progress that we're making. For example, I gave you an answer on why socialism is an improvement on capitalism when it comes to climate change, and you've decided to completely ignore that and continue to pretend that I'm saying "socialism, how does it solve the problems? Socialism". So there's no progress there. On the other side, you're now clearly standing in support of capitalism and against socialism, so hopefully there's progress there, and next time we have this conversation we won't have to deal with the period where you pretend that you like socialism but you just need a clear picture of how it's going to be implemented. The way you are using moral character of humans is interesting and shows quite a bit of projection I believe. Nothing I've said demonstrates that I believe the character of humans changes between economic systems, that's something that you appear to have just made up. Oppositely, your reaction of "If you think people are that callous and self-interested" when defending capitalists is something that stands in stark contrast with your attacks on state ownership, that generally involve talking about human corruption and self-interest. If there is an inconsistency there, I think it's on your part of the argument. I... really don't care about the USSR? I'm not a tankie? They went for a state ownership system and I don't think that's a good idea? The idea of state ownership is justified as a transitory state before we give the means of production to the workers, and they... never did that in 70 years (I believe they actively fought against it)? People in the USSR made sure that people read Marx as seldom as possible so that they wouldn't notice that the party line looked nothing like what Marx was saying? Like, I could also look at Pol Pot, he thought that the good way to go about communism was to go full nazbol, so he went with state ownership (with peasantry as the vanguard, as it's the maoist system) plus a whole lot of nationalism! That's... the horseshoe theory, surprisingly, and guess what it didn't work either. But I don't want to do that shit, so what would it bring me to know how it failed? I gave you a bunch of answers to the questions that you purportedly have. It's up to you what you do with them. No, I'm personally not a great example when it comes to climate. I'm not the worst but I don't make particularly large efforts, I use a car when I need it which is about once or twice a week, I take a plane to Vegas every year... I can't even bring myself to become a vegan even though I have no rational argument to oppose veganism. But I do take solace in my ability to recognize that climate change is a systemic problem and it necessitates a systemic solution, that's at least something I've got over the most climate-conscious liberal.
But I do take solace in my ability to recognize that climate change is a systemic problem and it necessitates a systemic solution, that's at least something I've got over the most climate-conscious liberal.
Us people doing things about it would call this a cop out, "I can't solve it so I just won't do anything." Yes you not taking trans Atlantic flights every year will not save the planet, but it does make a difference especially if millions of people like you stop. Change is hard and uncomfortable, perhaps some reflection on why you knowingly don't make these changes you have stated that you know will help you to understand why I don't think you can simply drop knowledge to people and they will automatically become however you want them to be. And that is even if you can get them that knowledge. I... really don't care about the USSR? That is fine, but when you are a looking at system you need to look at the ones that came before and failed so you don't repeat the same mistakes. If you ever want to move past the philosophical stage to the practical one you are going to have to understand its past failings. On the other side, you're now clearly standing in support of capitalism and against socialism, The more I talk to you to some degree, and to a much bigger degree the more I talk to GH I move further and further into the socialist democracy camp with regulated capitalism as a must. Your and his version of the "capitalist class" gets way to close to the "deep state" for my liking. It appears to take all responsibility away from people and the individual choices they make, because socialism will save the day. While I'm glad the propaganda you are immersed in far less hateful than the far rights it does not seem any more grounded in reality. There are reasons there has been no successful communist/socialist country. It is not because of the capitalist class bogey man, actual tangible reasons, and they are out there in history books and so on. The answer is far from as simple as they do work its capitalist propaganda that they have not. Or they have not worked because of capitalists under mining it. I'll let you come to your own conclusions about why past attempted revolutions failed because you don't have any trust with me and it is more likely I'll push you basically opposite whatever I say. Be aware leftist propaganda also exists, the right does not have exclusive rights to it. If you look up literacy rates you will notice authoritarians who claim to be from both ends of the spectrum have high rates because teaching people to read is the perfect time to indoctrinate them. Propaganda works, on everybody me and you included. The best defense against it is to read news and information from as many sources as possible. If you only read leftist news, from leftist news sources chances are you will not get the entire picture. Also it seems like you live a pretty good lifestyle, not very many people from a % standpoint have the ability to take a transatlantic flight yearly for vacation purposes. It would suggest to me that you come from a family that is above what I would define as "working class". I'm not sure of your work history or even age for that matter, but if you expect to connect with these people, (who are people like my friends and family) you probably want to go find some work with them. Nothing a working class person likes less than is a starbucks communist with all the answers philosophically, none of the experience and fair bit of money. A lot of this answer is you refusing to engage with arguments that have been provided to you. On climate change, you think I want to do nothing because change is uncomfortable, when I'm actually proposing systemic change to fix a systemic problem, and it is you who is uncomfortable with that and instead want to limit yourself to individual change because that's a level of change you are comfortable with, regardless of the efficiency or realism of either of these ideas. On the USSR, you think I want a similar system and it's close to the deep state, when I repeatedly distinguished between state ownership of the means of production and worker ownership of the means of production. It is impossible to follow an argument that starts with "we should have an increased level of democracy" and conclude "That sounds too much like the Deep State for my liking", clearly there is some prejudice going on here. The notion that active and violent opposition from a powerful economic system is not a tangible reason for failure is ridiculous. We live in the First World my friend. All of our lifestyles are pretty good from a % standpoint. I make money from poker, so Vegas has been most of the time a source of income rather than a vacation. Not that it would change anything otherwise. Closing thoughts on propaganda. Here is a recent example of leftist propaganda that I fell for: there were polls on Biden and Sanders that showed Biden was in the lead with a large margin. But if you looked at the methodology of these polls, you saw that they had a bunch of "N/A" in the 19-45 demographics. Some leftist news source that I watch and generally trust argued that those polls were bullshit because, while N/A doesn't mean "nobody in the demographic was polled", the sample was so small that it can't be considered representative, and therefore the poll result is skewed. That made sense to me and I didn't doubt them, so I thought that was the truth. It turns out it's more complicated than that, because when pollsters don't have enough people representing a demographic, they extrapolate from the numbers they have and pretend that they got more than they did. It's still not a perfect representation, of course, because if you interrogate 50 25 years-old and 8 of them are for Biden, you can't logically conclude that if you had interrogated 500, then 80 of them would be for Biden. But it's still a better estimate than the picture I had because of the news source I watched. Do you know how I can tell that this is propaganda? Because there is a reality. Facts exist. So I can compare what I've been told with the facts, and see that this doesn't match. That's helpful that way. Hey, here's one for you: what's the last example of you falling for liberal propaganda that you remember? I have no idea what system you want. That is my big issue. Because I don't know I guessed that the USSR might be one of the closest to what you want. You have said you don't want central decision making, and some sort of democracy per factory thing, but I'm not sure how that works in regards to public services or on a global scale. And it is scary that you don't know why the USSR or other attempted socialist states failed. As you said facts exist it would be worth looking them up. My point was that your version of the capital class is a lot like the rights version of the deep state. I believed that plastic recycling was good and than when I put it in the proper bin the proper way it was good and good for the environment. I don't know if this is the thread to get into why that was so foolish and the many ways it is wrong but if there is interest I'm happy to. On a smaller and TL related thing I also believed an article that said that Hugo Chavez daughter was a billionaire, when it turns out no one has any idea what she is worth, just that shes leads a exceptional lifestyle, including living in palaces and so on, and no one really knows how much money she has, could be none and is just funded by Maduro's government to keep the good will of the Chavista's or she could be super rich. Well the USSR was a terrible guess based on the information you had. You could also have relied on this conversation we're in the middle of, where I regularly argue against the USSR system. I misunderstood you on the deep state, I apologize. If we go on wiki: "some analysts believe that there is "a hybrid association of elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process"". The problem with the deep state formulation is the "hybrid association" part. It fails in that it presents this as a conspiracy of people in shadowy rooms, often jewish because why not, rather than an extremely logical consequence of how the capitalist system is built. People who have more money have more power than people who have less money, so they are capable of influencing policy better than people who don't have money if they choose to do so. As a result, over time, policy is likely to reflect the will of the people with more money and influence. To counteract that, we have fought for this system called democracy, where we get to influence policy regardless of how much money or how much influence we have. This is sometimes effective and sometimes not: there is a tension there. In the US nowadays, it is almost always ineffective, which is exemplified in how rarely the will of the people has an influence on policy. The system you speak of sounds a lot more like Norway than it does the USSR. But given that you (and if I'm confusing you with GH here my bad some times I'm talking to both of you at the same time and you have different beliefs but when both interject I can mix it up) seem to think that a revolution is required from that form of government I'm left guessing. Even in the post above you say not USSR. Great what then? Why is this a difficult question? The system I speak of doesn't really sound like Norway either, no. Norway has a social democracy. But Norway is good. It's an excellent starting point to strive for, as it incorporates more socialist ideas within its economic system despite it still being capitalist. Getting the most leftwing candidate that you can find elected so that the Overton window shifts is, if you recall, the first thing that I put in the list of "stuff that we should do" that I was asked for the other day. In most cases that will be a social democrat. Norway is good for what ? It is an oil-exporting country, and some of its policies are funded by proxy-polluting the world. I don't believe that's the target we should aim for, if the aim is sustainable policies and the environment.
Then make it Sweden, or Denmark, or Iceland. Same stuff without oil.
Norway is still the best you can get as an oil producing country. It’s investing huge amounts into green energy development and research, and is actively looking for solution to transition away from fossile fuel. It also is arguably one of the best working, most harmonious societies in the world.
|
Going green is kinda easy if you can finance it by selling oil tho  .
That doesn't make it a bad thing, it makes the Norway case just not easily applicable to other countries.
|
On May 31 2019 18:35 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2019 05:49 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 05:31 JimmiC wrote:On May 31 2019 05:26 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 05:02 JimmiC wrote:On May 31 2019 04:37 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 03:52 JimmiC wrote:On May 31 2019 02:20 Nebuchad wrote:On May 30 2019 20:13 JimmiC wrote:On May 30 2019 09:44 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Nothing in my post shows any sign of being upset, lol? I'm going to assume this is just your way of asserting victory and I'll be over there, quite unimpressed.
First, it's pretty clear that capitalists are doing that, it's not just "if you think that". They have an history of doing it, from lying about sugar causing obesity to lying about smoking causing cancer. Now that they know that they are causing climate change, they are lying about it as long as they can. There is a consistency there. If they were being short-sighted about this, then they were also short-sighted about smoking under the same logic: "we maximize profits now but once people discover that smoking actually does cause cancer, it's going to go badly". Okay... but it's going to go badly later, and for now we are making profits, that's what maximizing is.
Second, no it won't be the same people. You have to be a certain type of person to be a good capitalist and rise to the top of that system. Not all people are like that, most people aren't. It is much harder for an entire set of workers to decide to screw people over than it is for a single individual that massively benefits from doing it.
I don't really know why the US won the cold war to be honest. Probably a variety of reasons. USSR sucked at being leftist, convinced a bunch of Slavs that capitalism was preferable. But I wouldn't be comfortable defining what the main reason is, I haven't cared enough about the USSR to research that.
The business owners that you know won't rise to the top of capitalism. They care about external things like the well-being of their workers or their own moral compass. That doesn't maximize profits. People reaching a sufficient level in capitalism and keeping those types of views are extreme outliers, most of the time we're talking Koch and Bezos and Soros.
I think it's clear from our posts who is getting emotional and who isn't. Upset was probably the wrong word, but you are getting progressively more insulting and I should stop before I insult you and one or both of us get upset. Your second paragraph basically insinuated that anybody who is not a socialist doesn't care about the environment and as you put it brown people. That is super frustrating when there are tons of us out there actually doing something and we have to hear about how you have solution to all our problems, oh whats that, socialism, how does it solve the problems? Socialism. You are going to end up alienating all the people you hope to convince for your revolution. What I don't understand with you and especially GH is do you guys not understand that the people you consider evil centerist libs are the exact people that you would need to convince to have your revolution? Do you really think the right strategy in this is to allude that we are racists who don't care about the environment and are controlled by right-wing propoganda? You seem to think that changing the system from Capitalism to socialism will change all the people from your definition of capitalist to your definition of socialist. So far this has never happened. It might be valuable for you to do some actual research into why the countries that tried to go communist did not work, how it worked out for the average person and why in the end it failed. Not because your wrong, or I'm trying win, because then when people like me ask you these basic questions you will have the answers and it won't appear that you are a very young guy, very naive to how historically these revolutions turn out. Please consider that not every piece of news out there about the negatives of communism or socialism is right wing propaganda. And there is left-wing propaganda out there. If you just dismiss everything that you don't like as "right-wing propaganda" you are really no different then the right wing people who dismiss everything as "left-wing propaganda". I'm clearly not a trustworthy source to you but it is worth looking outside of what your looking at now to better understand why so few people want this revolution you are speaking about when to you it solves all the major problems. And also no I don't think I won, I think I lost, and there is no hope of any positive outcome. I was hoping to have a discussion about how you would implement a socialist system that would fall prey to all the same issues that the others one had, that perhaps you had done some thought and research into it. But instead of you attempting to pull me into your camp with actual ideas I got the same old surface stuff sprinkled with insults and condescension. + Show Spoiler +On the environment, what are you doing to save the world? GH has completely avoided this question. I really hope you are making some big lifestyle changes because it does make a difference. And if you are not and just hoping that this revolution you dream of that only a small % of people want will solve all those problems . And maybe even hoping that some terrible event killing or displacing millions will be what triggers them to join your side. It probably won't it will probably push more people right to protect what they have, more walls, more anti immigration, so on. So I really hope you are actually doing everything you can to stop the catastrophe from happening in the first place. So please let me know what you are actually doing? I think you shifted the meaning of capitalist from "member of the capitalist class" to "person who supports capitalism" and that's how you got that impression that I was attacking you. What I described was the thought process that would lead someone that owns the means of production in a coal or a petroleum company to fight climate change science without being irrational or short-sighted. I believe that it's totally rational for them to do this based on the framework of capitalism, and that's what I'm trying to show. I do think that when people talk about what they have to lose in a fight against capitalism, that certainly comes from a position of privilege, but that's something I can only attack from a moral standpoint, not a rational standpoint, so I won't be using this. This conversation is interesting because of the type of progress that we're making. For example, I gave you an answer on why socialism is an improvement on capitalism when it comes to climate change, and you've decided to completely ignore that and continue to pretend that I'm saying "socialism, how does it solve the problems? Socialism". So there's no progress there. On the other side, you're now clearly standing in support of capitalism and against socialism, so hopefully there's progress there, and next time we have this conversation we won't have to deal with the period where you pretend that you like socialism but you just need a clear picture of how it's going to be implemented. The way you are using moral character of humans is interesting and shows quite a bit of projection I believe. Nothing I've said demonstrates that I believe the character of humans changes between economic systems, that's something that you appear to have just made up. Oppositely, your reaction of "If you think people are that callous and self-interested" when defending capitalists is something that stands in stark contrast with your attacks on state ownership, that generally involve talking about human corruption and self-interest. If there is an inconsistency there, I think it's on your part of the argument. I... really don't care about the USSR? I'm not a tankie? They went for a state ownership system and I don't think that's a good idea? The idea of state ownership is justified as a transitory state before we give the means of production to the workers, and they... never did that in 70 years (I believe they actively fought against it)? People in the USSR made sure that people read Marx as seldom as possible so that they wouldn't notice that the party line looked nothing like what Marx was saying? Like, I could also look at Pol Pot, he thought that the good way to go about communism was to go full nazbol, so he went with state ownership (with peasantry as the vanguard, as it's the maoist system) plus a whole lot of nationalism! That's... the horseshoe theory, surprisingly, and guess what it didn't work either. But I don't want to do that shit, so what would it bring me to know how it failed? I gave you a bunch of answers to the questions that you purportedly have. It's up to you what you do with them. No, I'm personally not a great example when it comes to climate. I'm not the worst but I don't make particularly large efforts, I use a car when I need it which is about once or twice a week, I take a plane to Vegas every year... I can't even bring myself to become a vegan even though I have no rational argument to oppose veganism. But I do take solace in my ability to recognize that climate change is a systemic problem and it necessitates a systemic solution, that's at least something I've got over the most climate-conscious liberal.
But I do take solace in my ability to recognize that climate change is a systemic problem and it necessitates a systemic solution, that's at least something I've got over the most climate-conscious liberal.
Us people doing things about it would call this a cop out, "I can't solve it so I just won't do anything." Yes you not taking trans Atlantic flights every year will not save the planet, but it does make a difference especially if millions of people like you stop. Change is hard and uncomfortable, perhaps some reflection on why you knowingly don't make these changes you have stated that you know will help you to understand why I don't think you can simply drop knowledge to people and they will automatically become however you want them to be. And that is even if you can get them that knowledge. I... really don't care about the USSR? That is fine, but when you are a looking at system you need to look at the ones that came before and failed so you don't repeat the same mistakes. If you ever want to move past the philosophical stage to the practical one you are going to have to understand its past failings. On the other side, you're now clearly standing in support of capitalism and against socialism, The more I talk to you to some degree, and to a much bigger degree the more I talk to GH I move further and further into the socialist democracy camp with regulated capitalism as a must. Your and his version of the "capitalist class" gets way to close to the "deep state" for my liking. It appears to take all responsibility away from people and the individual choices they make, because socialism will save the day. While I'm glad the propaganda you are immersed in far less hateful than the far rights it does not seem any more grounded in reality. There are reasons there has been no successful communist/socialist country. It is not because of the capitalist class bogey man, actual tangible reasons, and they are out there in history books and so on. The answer is far from as simple as they do work its capitalist propaganda that they have not. Or they have not worked because of capitalists under mining it. I'll let you come to your own conclusions about why past attempted revolutions failed because you don't have any trust with me and it is more likely I'll push you basically opposite whatever I say. Be aware leftist propaganda also exists, the right does not have exclusive rights to it. If you look up literacy rates you will notice authoritarians who claim to be from both ends of the spectrum have high rates because teaching people to read is the perfect time to indoctrinate them. Propaganda works, on everybody me and you included. The best defense against it is to read news and information from as many sources as possible. If you only read leftist news, from leftist news sources chances are you will not get the entire picture. Also it seems like you live a pretty good lifestyle, not very many people from a % standpoint have the ability to take a transatlantic flight yearly for vacation purposes. It would suggest to me that you come from a family that is above what I would define as "working class". I'm not sure of your work history or even age for that matter, but if you expect to connect with these people, (who are people like my friends and family) you probably want to go find some work with them. Nothing a working class person likes less than is a starbucks communist with all the answers philosophically, none of the experience and fair bit of money. A lot of this answer is you refusing to engage with arguments that have been provided to you. On climate change, you think I want to do nothing because change is uncomfortable, when I'm actually proposing systemic change to fix a systemic problem, and it is you who is uncomfortable with that and instead want to limit yourself to individual change because that's a level of change you are comfortable with, regardless of the efficiency or realism of either of these ideas. On the USSR, you think I want a similar system and it's close to the deep state, when I repeatedly distinguished between state ownership of the means of production and worker ownership of the means of production. It is impossible to follow an argument that starts with "we should have an increased level of democracy" and conclude "That sounds too much like the Deep State for my liking", clearly there is some prejudice going on here. The notion that active and violent opposition from a powerful economic system is not a tangible reason for failure is ridiculous. We live in the First World my friend. All of our lifestyles are pretty good from a % standpoint. I make money from poker, so Vegas has been most of the time a source of income rather than a vacation. Not that it would change anything otherwise. Closing thoughts on propaganda. Here is a recent example of leftist propaganda that I fell for: there were polls on Biden and Sanders that showed Biden was in the lead with a large margin. But if you looked at the methodology of these polls, you saw that they had a bunch of "N/A" in the 19-45 demographics. Some leftist news source that I watch and generally trust argued that those polls were bullshit because, while N/A doesn't mean "nobody in the demographic was polled", the sample was so small that it can't be considered representative, and therefore the poll result is skewed. That made sense to me and I didn't doubt them, so I thought that was the truth. It turns out it's more complicated than that, because when pollsters don't have enough people representing a demographic, they extrapolate from the numbers they have and pretend that they got more than they did. It's still not a perfect representation, of course, because if you interrogate 50 25 years-old and 8 of them are for Biden, you can't logically conclude that if you had interrogated 500, then 80 of them would be for Biden. But it's still a better estimate than the picture I had because of the news source I watched. Do you know how I can tell that this is propaganda? Because there is a reality. Facts exist. So I can compare what I've been told with the facts, and see that this doesn't match. That's helpful that way. Hey, here's one for you: what's the last example of you falling for liberal propaganda that you remember? I have no idea what system you want. That is my big issue. Because I don't know I guessed that the USSR might be one of the closest to what you want. You have said you don't want central decision making, and some sort of democracy per factory thing, but I'm not sure how that works in regards to public services or on a global scale. And it is scary that you don't know why the USSR or other attempted socialist states failed. As you said facts exist it would be worth looking them up. My point was that your version of the capital class is a lot like the rights version of the deep state. I believed that plastic recycling was good and than when I put it in the proper bin the proper way it was good and good for the environment. I don't know if this is the thread to get into why that was so foolish and the many ways it is wrong but if there is interest I'm happy to. On a smaller and TL related thing I also believed an article that said that Hugo Chavez daughter was a billionaire, when it turns out no one has any idea what she is worth, just that shes leads a exceptional lifestyle, including living in palaces and so on, and no one really knows how much money she has, could be none and is just funded by Maduro's government to keep the good will of the Chavista's or she could be super rich. Well the USSR was a terrible guess based on the information you had. You could also have relied on this conversation we're in the middle of, where I regularly argue against the USSR system. I misunderstood you on the deep state, I apologize. If we go on wiki: "some analysts believe that there is "a hybrid association of elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process"". The problem with the deep state formulation is the "hybrid association" part. It fails in that it presents this as a conspiracy of people in shadowy rooms, often jewish because why not, rather than an extremely logical consequence of how the capitalist system is built. People who have more money have more power than people who have less money, so they are capable of influencing policy better than people who don't have money if they choose to do so. As a result, over time, policy is likely to reflect the will of the people with more money and influence. To counteract that, we have fought for this system called democracy, where we get to influence policy regardless of how much money or how much influence we have. This is sometimes effective and sometimes not: there is a tension there. In the US nowadays, it is almost always ineffective, which is exemplified in how rarely the will of the people has an influence on policy. The system you speak of sounds a lot more like Norway than it does the USSR. But given that you (and if I'm confusing you with GH here my bad some times I'm talking to both of you at the same time and you have different beliefs but when both interject I can mix it up) seem to think that a revolution is required from that form of government I'm left guessing. Even in the post above you say not USSR. Great what then? Why is this a difficult question? The system I speak of doesn't really sound like Norway either, no. Norway has a social democracy. But Norway is good. It's an excellent starting point to strive for, as it incorporates more socialist ideas within its economic system despite it still being capitalist. Getting the most leftwing candidate that you can find elected so that the Overton window shifts is, if you recall, the first thing that I put in the list of "stuff that we should do" that I was asked for the other day. In most cases that will be a social democrat. Norway is good for what ? It is an oil-exporting country, and some of its policies are funded by proxy-polluting the world. I don't believe that's the target we should aim for, if the aim is sustainable policies and the environment.
Your beef is with JimmiC there. I agree that it can't be the target goal, but it's a good entry point.
|
On May 31 2019 19:06 Velr wrote:Going green is kinda easy if you can finance it by selling oil tho . That doesn't make it a bad thing, it makes the Norway case just not easily applicable to other countries.
I agree, but then again, Sweden and Denmark have comparable systems that are not financed by oil.
Norway is maybe the unique case of predominantly oil producing country that is not totally fucked on at least several levels. The resource curse seems to have just left the country alone, which really speaks volume about their model of society.
|
On May 31 2019 08:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2019 08:18 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
GH, the problem I'm having currently is that I'm still waiting on your 5 point plan for initiating, achieving, or implementing your revolution. Give me something to work with. So far, you've made it an art form to say so much and yet absolutely nothing. Start with how your revolution begins, who is leading, and what the main objective is you are trying to achieve, at the onset of the revolution. We'll take the next step after you answer that. Forgive me if you will, but since you're in the "I know capitalism will lead to unavoidable catastrophe and there's nothing I can do about it but prepare and mediate the suffering of select groups" camp I'd appreciate if you waited or worked with me to get more people at least to where you're at.
You can probably stick me in that group as well. The only difference is I go a bit further and say socialism is even more hopeless.
But to get you there, I will probably have to start with a question: is selfishness an inherently human (or in fact, animal... or in fact, life-wide) trait? Or is it cultural?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
