|
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 July 02 2019 09:48 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2019 09:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2019 09:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 02 2019 09:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2019 09:31 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 02 2019 09:30 Nebuchad wrote:On July 02 2019 09:29 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 02 2019 09:27 Nebuchad wrote:On July 02 2019 09:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 02 2019 09:19 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I'm advocating democratic socialism, for the record. I don't think I'm a communist. At least not yet.
The advantages are that we create better conditions for workers, remove the major social hierarchy that exists and in the process reduce economic inequality, and create a motive for business that isn't purely reduced to "profit" which allows us to face an overwhelming danger like climate change much more effectively. So basically what I said 2 pages ago when you asked for my "solutions"? You said some decent stuff, yeah. But you clearly didn't say "workplace democracy" or anything anticapitalist so clearly this isn't "basically what you said". Gotcha. Semantics. Well, glad we had this talk. We should do it again sometime. Capitalism vs anticapitalism is semantics to you? What the hell man... If that is your takeaway, then I got nothing. It's literally what you said? You're still here. Thought you left. I meant his use of the word "clearly" to suggest that everything said which did not include those specific catchphrases were now null and void. Capitalism and anti-capitalism isn't a "catchphrase" simply because you're not familiar with the difference. It basically boils down to what is supposed to be a distinction between Social Democrats (basically what you're thinking) and Democratic Socialists (what Neb is advocating). Reading Comprehension 101. I was referring to "workplace democracy" and "anticapitalism" having to be spelled out, which in Neb's mind, voided everything else.
Yes, I recognize your ideas incorporated workplace democracy without explicitly saying it. They were not however anti-capitalist which is why that's what I explained you were misunderstanding if you think what neb is saying is "basically what you said".
|
On July 02 2019 09:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2019 09:48 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 02 2019 09:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2019 09:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 02 2019 09:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2019 09:31 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 02 2019 09:30 Nebuchad wrote:On July 02 2019 09:29 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 02 2019 09:27 Nebuchad wrote:On July 02 2019 09:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
So basically what I said 2 pages ago when you asked for my "solutions"? You said some decent stuff, yeah. But you clearly didn't say "workplace democracy" or anything anticapitalist so clearly this isn't "basically what you said". Gotcha. Semantics. Well, glad we had this talk. We should do it again sometime. Capitalism vs anticapitalism is semantics to you? What the hell man... If that is your takeaway, then I got nothing. It's literally what you said? You're still here. Thought you left. I meant his use of the word "clearly" to suggest that everything said which did not include those specific catchphrases were now null and void. Capitalism and anti-capitalism isn't a "catchphrase" simply because you're not familiar with the difference. It basically boils down to what is supposed to be a distinction between Social Democrats (basically what you're thinking) and Democratic Socialists (what Neb is advocating). Reading Comprehension 101. I was referring to "workplace democracy" and "anticapitalism" having to be spelled out, which in Neb's mind, voided everything else. Yes, I recognize your ideas incorporated workplace democracy without explicitly saying it. They were not however anti-capitalist which is why that's what I explained you were misunderstanding if you think what neb is saying is "basically what you said".
But Neb decided to put forth that I meant my semantics remark was in regards to that. It wasn't. Which I've stated. And you have clarified. Thanks for coming to my TEDx Talk.
|
On July 02 2019 09:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2019 09:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2019 09:48 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 02 2019 09:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2019 09:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 02 2019 09:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2019 09:31 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 02 2019 09:30 Nebuchad wrote:On July 02 2019 09:29 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 02 2019 09:27 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
You said some decent stuff, yeah. But you clearly didn't say "workplace democracy" or anything anticapitalist so clearly this isn't "basically what you said". Gotcha. Semantics. Well, glad we had this talk. We should do it again sometime. Capitalism vs anticapitalism is semantics to you? What the hell man... If that is your takeaway, then I got nothing. It's literally what you said? You're still here. Thought you left. I meant his use of the word "clearly" to suggest that everything said which did not include those specific catchphrases were now null and void. Capitalism and anti-capitalism isn't a "catchphrase" simply because you're not familiar with the difference. It basically boils down to what is supposed to be a distinction between Social Democrats (basically what you're thinking) and Democratic Socialists (what Neb is advocating). Reading Comprehension 101. I was referring to "workplace democracy" and "anticapitalism" having to be spelled out, which in Neb's mind, voided everything else. Yes, I recognize your ideas incorporated workplace democracy without explicitly saying it. They were not however anti-capitalist which is why that's what I explained you were misunderstanding if you think what neb is saying is "basically what you said". But Neb decided to put forth that I meant my semantics remark was in regards to that. It wasn't. Which I've stated. And you have clarified. Thanks for coming to my TEDx Talk.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean?
Are you saying you're anti-capitalist or not?
|
On July 02 2019 09:44 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2019 09:35 Taelshin wrote:
Neb - Not quite sure what you mean, but in my previous post I stated "but then even if he was a nazi propagandist - defeat his idea's with better idea's not with milkshakes and punches." I think that answers your question. I wonder who get's to decide who the fascists are and are not. It is impossible to "defeat their ideas" as fascists aren't rational. In order for the marketplace of ideas to function your opponent has to believe that rationality matters when it comes to politics, and fascists do not (no far right ideology does). You could throw the entirety of human knowledge at them and it wouldn't change what they think. Nobody ever stopped being a fascist because someone carefully explained to them that fascism is incorrect. Your strategy will not work.
wait, are you rational? unlike a fascist? and what is your account of how a fascist becomes an ex-fascist?
|
On July 02 2019 09:58 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2019 09:44 Nebuchad wrote:On July 02 2019 09:35 Taelshin wrote:
Neb - Not quite sure what you mean, but in my previous post I stated "but then even if he was a nazi propagandist - defeat his idea's with better idea's not with milkshakes and punches." I think that answers your question. I wonder who get's to decide who the fascists are and are not. It is impossible to "defeat their ideas" as fascists aren't rational. In order for the marketplace of ideas to function your opponent has to believe that rationality matters when it comes to politics, and fascists do not (no far right ideology does). You could throw the entirety of human knowledge at them and it wouldn't change what they think. Nobody ever stopped being a fascist because someone carefully explained to them that fascism is incorrect. Your strategy will not work. wait, are you rational? unlike a fascist? and what is your account of how a fascist becomes an ex-fascist?
This was worded poorly, you're right. It should say that fascism is irrational, not fascists, as rationality isn't a state. Sorry.
Broadly speaking you become an ex-fascist by having some sort of experience with a "subhuman" individual that causes you to realize that they aren't subhuman, that's what I gathered from the few accounts I saw on Youtube, from Picciolini to Faraday Speaks.
|
I find it amusing that you are arguing that fascism is irrational when there is quite an argument to be made that your form of communism-lite is quite irrational.
|
On July 02 2019 10:12 xDaunt wrote:
I find it amusing that you are arguing that fascism is irrational when there is quite an argument to be made that your form of communism-lite is quite irrational.
I also find it fascinating that he basically described the plot of American History X.
|
On July 02 2019 10:28 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2019 10:12 xDaunt wrote:
I find it amusing that you are arguing that fascism is irrational when there is quite an argument to be made that your form of communism-lite is quite irrational. I also find it fascinating that he basically described the plot of American History X.
I haven't seen it, I didn't know. I guess I should^^.
|
On July 02 2019 10:32 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2019 10:28 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 02 2019 10:12 xDaunt wrote:
I find it amusing that you are arguing that fascism is irrational when there is quite an argument to be made that your form of communism-lite is quite irrational. I also find it fascinating that he basically described the plot of American History X. I haven't seen it, I didn't know. I guess I should^^.
From a black guy, it's an incredible movie.
Edit: I guess I should add: Once you watch it, it'll become clear why I prefaced it the way I did.
|
I've never seen that either but its been recommended I should check it out.
|
This isn't the movie discussion thread, but all I'll say is, be careful of who recommended it to you. There are really only two ways to react to the way it ends. And if you're honest to yourself, you'll reveal a lot about yourself.
|
On July 02 2019 10:32 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2019 10:28 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 02 2019 10:12 xDaunt wrote:
I find it amusing that you are arguing that fascism is irrational when there is quite an argument to be made that your form of communism-lite is quite irrational. I also find it fascinating that he basically described the plot of American History X. I haven't seen it, I didn't know. I guess I should^^.
It's a good movie, but it's also pretty much entirely devoid of a critique of capitalism and focuses on race (and violence) exclusively.
EDIT: Thinking back on it through an anti-capitalist lens it's actually pretty reactionary but entertaining/interesting nonetheless.
|
On July 02 2019 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2019 05:45 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 02 2019 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2019 04:58 Mohdoo wrote:On July 02 2019 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2019 04:02 Mohdoo wrote:On July 02 2019 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2019 02:31 Mohdoo wrote:On July 02 2019 01:53 brian wrote:
well, no, then the worst case scenario is that it was entrapment. I have zero issues with entrapment being used to take down shitty people with an amazing amount of power. We have enough history to assume people with incredible power are going to be shit people. I would fully endorse fake offers for illegal intelligence being used on all current democrat candidates. I'm having a hard time putting into words why this seems so problematic. I guess namely that we'd only hold losers accountable? At my job, we are regularly tested by our ability to evade and report corporate espionage and cyber attacks. Retail workers have secret shoppers to see what kinda job they are doing and if they pursue thieves. The basic idea I am assuming is that there is value in making sure points of weakness do not turn into major issues. When politicians are corrupt or unethical, the nature of their job means they can cause extreme harm. As an example, see privatized prisons. To me, the risk is too great to treat politicians as Joe Shmoe. They need to be regularly audited for all the same reasons I am regularly audited. Stuff going bad is too bad to allow. I think the issue I have is that accountability runs downhill. For example, in Trump's case it's the person who told on him who is most likely to be the most harshly punished (presuming he pardons Manafort after the election in Nov win or lose). This is the fundamental problem with trying to reform the system with checks like that, the system will invariably exploit them to push accountability down, not up. This all sounds more like a lack of faith in something being easy rather than a lack of faith in possibility. Society didn't make it this far from everyone saying "yeah but it probably won't work". We need to know what we are aiming for and try to get there. There's some of the points danglars raises as well, but I can only hope that thinking expands beyond reforming a system that will always be designed and dependent on the exploitation which sustains it and onward to revolutionary change of the system which overturns it entirely. Granted anyone but Bernie wins and I'm going all in on preparing for climate collapse and doing what I can to prepare the generations condemned to it by this one. I would like to hope/add that Warren would offer a very similar outcome of change that Sanders would as president. Keep in mind Bernie is my #1. Warren is too tied to capitalism and fails to see the urgency of direct action by voters imo. Bernie is just the only one that makes me think we're not hopeless, not so much that he's actually going to "save" us. Show nested quote +On July 02 2019 05:57 Nebuchad wrote:On July 02 2019 05:48 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 02 2019 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2019 05:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 02 2019 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2019 04:58 Mohdoo wrote:On July 02 2019 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2019 04:02 Mohdoo wrote:On July 02 2019 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I'm having a hard time putting into words why this seems so problematic. I guess namely that we'd only hold losers accountable? At my job, we are regularly tested by our ability to evade and report corporate espionage and cyber attacks. Retail workers have secret shoppers to see what kinda job they are doing and if they pursue thieves. The basic idea I am assuming is that there is value in making sure points of weakness do not turn into major issues. When politicians are corrupt or unethical, the nature of their job means they can cause extreme harm. As an example, see privatized prisons. To me, the risk is too great to treat politicians as Joe Shmoe. They need to be regularly audited for all the same reasons I am regularly audited. Stuff going bad is too bad to allow. I think the issue I have is that accountability runs downhill. For example, in Trump's case it's the person who told on him who is most likely to be the most harshly punished (presuming he pardons Manafort after the election in Nov win or lose). This is the fundamental problem with trying to reform the system with checks like that, the system will invariably exploit them to push accountability down, not up. This all sounds more like a lack of faith in something being easy rather than a lack of faith in possibility. Society didn't make it this far from everyone saying "yeah but it probably won't work". We need to know what we are aiming for and try to get there. There's some of the points danglars raises as well, but I can only hope that thinking expands beyond reforming a system that will always be designed and dependent on the exploitation which sustains it and onward to revolutionary change of the system which overturns it entirely. Which will be replaced with......? Socialism on the path to communism. I can appreciate if you're not familiar with what that entails, but it's literally in the theory that I can't pour the knowledge into you, even if I want to. What, in today's world, constitutes a good example of communism? If you can't think of one, pick the closest and implement your ideal scenario. If you'd be so kind. Some days I'm extremely glad that the internet didn't exist when we transitioned out of monarchies. Agreed. I've already said that Mondragon is far from perfect, but an example we can learn from too. Want to bet on whether anyone who requested such an example did anything more than check a wiki or something?
To me, Warren feels completely committed to cleaning up the corruption and continuing to fight until her last breath. I think if the corruption is cleaned up, many many different things will happen. The corruption in politics has just been freezing the flow of change that needs to take place (for the gain of money for the rich)... but it's like plugging holes in a dam with your fingers...
Can't hold back change forever.
I think if we fix the corruption change will happen faster than we think.
|
United States15275 Posts
Fascism is perfectly rational, it is simply incorrect in its priors and virtually anti-Enlightenment in all its principles. Most people who profess faith in liberal values will be instinctively repulsed by it regardless of its logical coherence.
|
If you don't like American history X because of its lack of economic context then you'll absolutely love fight club. Its basically the same movie. You can be dumb and think its the best ever and be smart and think its the best ever, its that boring middle zone of analysis that they fall apart.
|
On July 02 2019 13:57 CosmicSpiral wrote:
Fascists is perfectly rational, it is simply incorrect in its priors and virtually anti-Enlightenment in all its principles. Most people who profess faith in liberal values will be instinctively repulsed by it regardless of its logical coherence.
I think we're mostly saying the same thing in terms of content, perhaps I'm being lazy with the terminology. If your priors can adequately be described as incorrect and you refuse to reconsider them, I wouldn't consider that to be perfectly rational.
|
I'm just curious, are the people talking about rationality overlapping the same people who think ideas like rent control are good, or that increases in minimum wage does not displace workers, or I don't know, simple concepts like monopoly economics applying equally to the State. /shrug
|
United States15275 Posts
On July 02 2019 14:24 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2019 13:57 CosmicSpiral wrote:
Fascists is perfectly rational, it is simply incorrect in its priors and virtually anti-Enlightenment in all its principles. Most people who profess faith in liberal values will be instinctively repulsed by it regardless of its logical coherence. I think we're mostly saying the same thing in terms of content, perhaps I'm being lazy with the terminology. If your priors can adequately be described as incorrect and you refuse to reconsider them, I wouldn't consider that to be perfectly rational.
Philosophically, the issue is threefold:
- There are (theoretically) an infinite number of belief systems that can be derived from a set of correct priors that can be adequately descriptive and prescriptive.
- In non-scientific fields, one still has to evaluate priors in relation to each other or as part of a hierarchy. How people do this depends largely on teleology, intuition, and pragmatic application.
- The factual accuracy of priors usually pales in importance compared to their persuasive or sentimental value. Liberalism is the most ironic example of this phenomenon.
|
Why would they take congress members phones and not allow photo or video of the migrant detention facilities?
|
On July 02 2019 13:57 CosmicSpiral wrote:
Fascism is perfectly rational, it is simply incorrect in its priors and virtually anti-Enlightenment in all its principles. Most people who profess faith in liberal values will be instinctively repulsed by it regardless of its logical coherence.
No ideology is 'perfectly rational' but fascism in particular is riddled with mysticism, it's what differentiates it from generic right wing authoritarianism. Rebirth myths, hero worship and a sense of impending cultural doom due to the decadence of society are all key ingredients rather than symptoms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
