|
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 23 2019 11:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 11:47 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 11:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 11:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 10:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 10:23 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 09:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 09:47 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 09:05 IgnE wrote:On July 23 2019 09:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
The rich and powerful don't need to get violent. They can just fire everyone. That wouldn't serve them any good, so they'd go to the table and discuss better conditions for the worker. The workers would then happily go back to work, knowing conditions are marginally better than they were before.
And the people are the military. If you're talking about the MIC and materiel, then we're talking the government. Also, if you think that the military would willfully go against people seeking to make a better life for themselves here in the US, you're wrong. Sure, some would relish the excuse to murder anyone they disliked and knew they could get away with it. But those are all unlawful orders, punishable by court martial and death/imprisonment. Not a lot would choose that.
But enough about hypothetical gotcha talking points. Are you going to answer any of my points or interject with quips and snide remarks? If you don't want to act in good faith, please stand aside. They might need to get violent if the people decide to expropriate their property . . . I am not sure you are really grasping here what revolution means. Isolated protests do not a revolution make. But I see the problem. It is impossible to imagine revolution in America. I cannot do it. Wouldn't revolution look more like an amendment to the Constitution? It would need to get so bad economically, we're talking Great Depression with 20% unemployment, for a revolution to start. But as long as Americans are "comfortable" and they can, for the most part, provide, then they won't rise. They might demonstrate on the white house lawn or march down the street. But we're not to that point yet. A revolution is possible, just not probable. I see them hiring mercenaries or a PMC before the US government goes in and does anything. They may raise the national guard to protect "order" and they might fuck up some people, but no one is going to fire a shot at overmatched opponent in the US. A constitutional amendment containing what, exactly? Have you completed your side of our other conversation? The US military has been increasingly composed of contractors before Trump was even running. There is one significant aspect of this doctrine, however, that is rarely mentioned by the media and never by Obama: the unprecedented use of private contractors to support foreign military operations.
Obama has authorized the continuation or re-emergence of two of the most contractor-dependent wars (or “overseas contingency operations” in Pentagon-speak) in U.S. history. As noted previously, there are roughly three contractors for every U.S. troops in Afghanistan, far above the contractor per uniformed military personnel average of America’s previous wars.
Under Obama, more private military contractors have died in Iraq and Afghanistan than all the U.S. troops deployed to those countries.Under Obama, more private military contractors have died in Iraq and Afghanistan than all the U.S. troops deployed to those countries. foreignpolicy.com PMC and US military should be treated separately in my opinion. I've finished saying what I needed to say. So we're done with the "he doesn't answer questions/have a plan" trope from you? I don't want you to start repeating the same complaints later after passing up an opportunity to address them. Seems you had more to say... Just so we're clear. We left talking point 1 and went into another topic. I went along since we agree for the most part on the education aspect. The characterization I'm speaking of is you saying that the workers, after decades of exploitation, fed up with the role of being proles, are taking action. Their non violent means have been ignored and now they are left with violent means. This is what you have implied. I stated I disagree and explained why in my posts to the other person who chimed in. I've concluded that, without means of a successful non-violent remedy, you're only option is for a violent. That while you are willing to stoke the fires, you are not willing to lead the charge. You find yourself incapable of gathering the needed bodies to form your (r)evolution of the political state the world finds itself in, so you consigned yourself to posting on TL and other places, hoping to spread your gospel, quoted mostly from other sources without your own opinions attached. I've also concluded, that while we may share a few understandings of what needs to be done, we are at an impasse on how it should begin, continue, and end.
I care not for quotes, but from your own fingertips, the truths you hold to be dear, about your (r)evolution. Quote all day and all night. Hearken back to your bandied about words. They hold little water in the larger scheme of things. Because you feel wronged or despair, so should we all. Because you feel the world needs to be remade in a vision of not your choose, but through the choices of others who tugged at your heart, you lash out with (r)evolutionary cries. That you feel the need to pontificate constantly, forces others to shun away and turn deaf ears to you.
And with that, good sir, I take my leave from this conversation. You're mistaken, we largely have abandoned direct action and I'm calling for it to be renewed. When I said that about leading this I meant I don't see myself as some sort of intellectual leader of the movement. I'm a pawn not a king if that makes sense? Not that I'm not willing to do the work? Exchanges here help me work through common objections I encounter in my work outside of TL and I also get to see other people's responses to them or how they see situations. I'm not sure how to explain the value of citing sources for ideas that aren't your own? Maybe there's a librarian here or something that can better articulate why I do that? It's basically giving credit to the people that inspire my positions (where I don't agree in entirety). As well as more practical than writing a dissertation as has been mentioned by Drone. Just because someone else has an idea doesn't mean agreeing is some sort of sin. If socialism says 2+2=4 I don't think I have to provide a proof for it, I can just agree with it and repeat it if asked. I should have a general understanding of the topic before I agree though, so that if they tell me 1+1=3 I can recognize the problem and say "while I agree 2+2=4 I disagree that 1+1=3. We need to discuss why this contradiction exists". I don't know what all the poetic personal attacks are about or why you're doing that (r)evolution thing but as long as you're unwilling to engage fruitfully I don't know why I should be forced to respond to your inquiries in the future? With that I'm concluding the complaints about not addressing your arguments/not having a plan will cease from you, if not we can pick up where we left off which was point 1. of our plan. I want your thoughts. What did you take away? What was your interpretation? Does it align with what you believed before or did you need to appropriate it all? Being inspired is not a bad thing. When you cannot express explicitly why it inspired you or your own personal take on it, then I care not to read your writing. I don't care what Freier wrote when I ask you for your own personal opinion. Giving me his opinion is not answering, but deflecting to someone else that explains you better than you do. And if that is the case, I'll just go read them and ignore you completely. But where does that leave you? An echo chamber of those who agree. And without dissenting opinions, you cannot reformulate your original hypothesis to make sure you cover all weaknesses. I used to be a librarian. I understand the value of sourcing. But without your own words, you're merely plagiarizing. Innocently, but nonetheless. I'm trying to give you my thoughts but the entire framing is foreign to you so when I do you don't know what I'm talking about. So I was providing you the framing so that instead of asking what everything I say means you can reference the material and so that when I'm essentially paraphrasing something in my own words (with terms from the material) I'm not plagiarizing by trying to pass it off as an original thought (though lots of this stuff was along the lines of things I've thought for a long time). I highly recommend and have several times that you (and anyone who claims to want to understand me better) do read the sources I've mentioned and I'll be happy to discuss with you where we agree with them and disagree? + Show Spoiler +I do (r)evolution because who knows which you will pick the next time something inspirational and world shattering will come along. This is nonsensical and I suspect based on a misreading of a previous post. I made no personal attacks, merely observations based on my conclusions that I have inferred from what I have read. Lol you wouldn't know why that's so funny to me but it's practically word for word something I've heard and had rejected when I used it I internalized and contemplated what you could possibly mean, researched some of your links, I'm not sure you did? and stated my findings. This right? + Show Spoiler +The characterization I'm speaking of is you saying that the workers, after decades of exploitation, fed up with the role of being proles, are taking action. Their non violent means have been ignored and now they are left with violent means. This is what you have implied. I stated I disagree and explained why in my posts to the other person who chimed in. I've concluded that, without means of a successful non-violent remedy, you're only option is for a violent. That while you are willing to stoke the fires, you are not willing to lead the charge. You find yourself incapable of gathering the needed bodies to form your (r)evolution of the political state the world finds itself in, so you consigned yourself to posting on TL and other places, hoping to spread your gospel, quoted mostly from other sources without your own opinions attached. I've also concluded, that while we may share a few understandings of what needs to be done, we are at an impasse on how it should begin, continue, and end.
I care not for quotes, but from your own fingertips, the truths you hold to be dear, about your (r)evolution. Quote all day and all night. Hearken back to your bandied about words. They hold little water in the larger scheme of things. Because you feel wronged or despair, so should we all. Because you feel the world needs to be remade in a vision of not your choose, but through the choices of others who tugged at your heart, you lash out with (r)evolutionary cries. That you feel the need to pontificate constantly, forces others to shun away and turn deaf ears to you.
And with that, good sir, I take my leave from this conversation. That's why I'm trying to make sure your accusations are done or not? You seem to want to keep lobbing them but also refuse to engage in dialogue to clear it up? EDIT: If I told you I wanted to discuss Socialist revolution Harry Potter can you imagine how hard that would be if you hadn't ever seen the movies or read the books but just watched the trailers after I mentioned it? "Hagrid and Harry appeared to me to be an allegory for..." "what's a hagrid?, how tall is 'very tall' is there a threshold?, I need to know Hagrid's height in your own words" Or the nuances of a Starcraft fight if you'd never played or watched a game? That help communicate my point at all? Not at all because I know what you are talking about. Your inability to see why some have issues, is one of the root causes. I was reading john grisham, dean koontz, and behold a pale horse, in 4th grade (not that it matters but to reference your children analogy). You know how many times I consulted a dictionary? Belittling my intelligence rewards you no points. You've answered my questions in a round-a-bout manner, I suppose. But don't think I won't call bullshit the second I smell it coming from you. ...what? I'm not belittling your intelligence with the Harry Potter analogy, or at least that wasn't my intention. I was just picking a popular story. You can replace it with the Anne Rice Vampire series or whatever if that makes sense? I'm trying to very specifically and clearly answer your questions , then you told me you're done engaging, and going to pick up randomly again without finishing where we left off and that doesn't sound very fruitful. I'm perfectly fine with you "call[ing] out bullshit" it's the demanding I engage with it I'd like to resolve. EDIT: Duh moment: Imagine trying to explain to me who the good guy in "The Firm" is if I hadn't read the book or seen the movie and disagreed with you about the world building of the story being realistic? That help?
Time for bed for this old man.
Better analogy. And I've had that happen and I dropped it and moved on. Simple. But if someone wanted me to explain it to them, I would in a way that they would understand. I'd do it in my own words so that they would have a general and somewhat informed concept of what the book/movie was about.
You attempted such, credit given. Except you only quoted the book without explanation. You've done a good job trying to answer, but you still are missing that vital piece. Your words. Your plan. Your intentions for the beginning, middle, and end, of your struggle. I can quote Huey Newton, Haile Selassie, Malcolm, Marx, Garvey, W.E.B, etc. But unless I explained my position, you'd think I didn't have one. That is what is missing. If they say exactly what you're thinking, then just say "Freier is my spiritual animal and literally anything he thinks, I'm in agreement." And that would be the end of it. I'd know that Freier is the one I need to look into, not you. Freier is the one with all the ideas, not you.
Does that clarify a bit better? When I say I'm done engaging, I meant it that I find this discussion not moving forward and we should find some other topic to talk about. There are 4 other parts, but you insist that I coddle your misinterpreted intentions to conform with what you think.
Your ideas are half baked in the sense that they do not belong to you, you cannot articulate your personal stance on these without need to reference other sources, and you cannot be held accountable for the misinterpretation of others, because it isn't you saying these things, it is someone else. I want GH's thoughts on why violent direct action is needed. I want GH's thoughts on where things go after the (r)evolution. I want GH's thoughts on why the capitalist class has wronged him and the world so. Not Freier's. I can go read Freier if that is what I wanted. But he isn't here. You are. So you must state your opinion without the need to call for backup. (Alternatively, if you feel you must, put it in a spoiler tag so that people can later look up what you are referencing, as they do in historical texts.) You must lead with your opinions first, for people to understand that we are reading GH, not Freier.
(I continue to bring up Freier because he is the last person you've used.) And I don't want a question as an answer. I want a statement. Be clear. Be concise. Be bright.
|
|
|
On July 23 2019 12:40 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 11:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 11:47 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 11:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 11:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 10:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 10:23 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 09:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 09:47 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 09:05 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
They might need to get violent if the people decide to expropriate their property . . . I am not sure you are really grasping here what revolution means. Isolated protests do not a revolution make.
But I see the problem. It is impossible to imagine revolution in America. I cannot do it. Wouldn't revolution look more like an amendment to the Constitution? It would need to get so bad economically, we're talking Great Depression with 20% unemployment, for a revolution to start. But as long as Americans are "comfortable" and they can, for the most part, provide, then they won't rise. They might demonstrate on the white house lawn or march down the street. But we're not to that point yet. A revolution is possible, just not probable. I see them hiring mercenaries or a PMC before the US government goes in and does anything. They may raise the national guard to protect "order" and they might fuck up some people, but no one is going to fire a shot at overmatched opponent in the US. A constitutional amendment containing what, exactly? Have you completed your side of our other conversation? The US military has been increasingly composed of contractors before Trump was even running. There is one significant aspect of this doctrine, however, that is rarely mentioned by the media and never by Obama: the unprecedented use of private contractors to support foreign military operations.
Obama has authorized the continuation or re-emergence of two of the most contractor-dependent wars (or “overseas contingency operations” in Pentagon-speak) in U.S. history. As noted previously, there are roughly three contractors for every U.S. troops in Afghanistan, far above the contractor per uniformed military personnel average of America’s previous wars.
Under Obama, more private military contractors have died in Iraq and Afghanistan than all the U.S. troops deployed to those countries.Under Obama, more private military contractors have died in Iraq and Afghanistan than all the U.S. troops deployed to those countries. foreignpolicy.com PMC and US military should be treated separately in my opinion. I've finished saying what I needed to say. So we're done with the "he doesn't answer questions/have a plan" trope from you? I don't want you to start repeating the same complaints later after passing up an opportunity to address them. Seems you had more to say... Just so we're clear. We left talking point 1 and went into another topic. I went along since we agree for the most part on the education aspect. The characterization I'm speaking of is you saying that the workers, after decades of exploitation, fed up with the role of being proles, are taking action. Their non violent means have been ignored and now they are left with violent means. This is what you have implied. I stated I disagree and explained why in my posts to the other person who chimed in. I've concluded that, without means of a successful non-violent remedy, you're only option is for a violent. That while you are willing to stoke the fires, you are not willing to lead the charge. You find yourself incapable of gathering the needed bodies to form your (r)evolution of the political state the world finds itself in, so you consigned yourself to posting on TL and other places, hoping to spread your gospel, quoted mostly from other sources without your own opinions attached. I've also concluded, that while we may share a few understandings of what needs to be done, we are at an impasse on how it should begin, continue, and end.
I care not for quotes, but from your own fingertips, the truths you hold to be dear, about your (r)evolution. Quote all day and all night. Hearken back to your bandied about words. They hold little water in the larger scheme of things. Because you feel wronged or despair, so should we all. Because you feel the world needs to be remade in a vision of not your choose, but through the choices of others who tugged at your heart, you lash out with (r)evolutionary cries. That you feel the need to pontificate constantly, forces others to shun away and turn deaf ears to you.
And with that, good sir, I take my leave from this conversation. You're mistaken, we largely have abandoned direct action and I'm calling for it to be renewed. When I said that about leading this I meant I don't see myself as some sort of intellectual leader of the movement. I'm a pawn not a king if that makes sense? Not that I'm not willing to do the work? Exchanges here help me work through common objections I encounter in my work outside of TL and I also get to see other people's responses to them or how they see situations. I'm not sure how to explain the value of citing sources for ideas that aren't your own? Maybe there's a librarian here or something that can better articulate why I do that? It's basically giving credit to the people that inspire my positions (where I don't agree in entirety). As well as more practical than writing a dissertation as has been mentioned by Drone. Just because someone else has an idea doesn't mean agreeing is some sort of sin. If socialism says 2+2=4 I don't think I have to provide a proof for it, I can just agree with it and repeat it if asked. I should have a general understanding of the topic before I agree though, so that if they tell me 1+1=3 I can recognize the problem and say "while I agree 2+2=4 I disagree that 1+1=3. We need to discuss why this contradiction exists". I don't know what all the poetic personal attacks are about or why you're doing that (r)evolution thing but as long as you're unwilling to engage fruitfully I don't know why I should be forced to respond to your inquiries in the future? With that I'm concluding the complaints about not addressing your arguments/not having a plan will cease from you, if not we can pick up where we left off which was point 1. of our plan. I want your thoughts. What did you take away? What was your interpretation? Does it align with what you believed before or did you need to appropriate it all? Being inspired is not a bad thing. When you cannot express explicitly why it inspired you or your own personal take on it, then I care not to read your writing. I don't care what Freier wrote when I ask you for your own personal opinion. Giving me his opinion is not answering, but deflecting to someone else that explains you better than you do. And if that is the case, I'll just go read them and ignore you completely. But where does that leave you? An echo chamber of those who agree. And without dissenting opinions, you cannot reformulate your original hypothesis to make sure you cover all weaknesses. I used to be a librarian. I understand the value of sourcing. But without your own words, you're merely plagiarizing. Innocently, but nonetheless. I'm trying to give you my thoughts but the entire framing is foreign to you so when I do you don't know what I'm talking about. So I was providing you the framing so that instead of asking what everything I say means you can reference the material and so that when I'm essentially paraphrasing something in my own words (with terms from the material) I'm not plagiarizing by trying to pass it off as an original thought (though lots of this stuff was along the lines of things I've thought for a long time). I highly recommend and have several times that you (and anyone who claims to want to understand me better) do read the sources I've mentioned and I'll be happy to discuss with you where we agree with them and disagree? + Show Spoiler +I do (r)evolution because who knows which you will pick the next time something inspirational and world shattering will come along. This is nonsensical and I suspect based on a misreading of a previous post. I made no personal attacks, merely observations based on my conclusions that I have inferred from what I have read. Lol you wouldn't know why that's so funny to me but it's practically word for word something I've heard and had rejected when I used it I internalized and contemplated what you could possibly mean, researched some of your links, I'm not sure you did? and stated my findings. This right? + Show Spoiler +The characterization I'm speaking of is you saying that the workers, after decades of exploitation, fed up with the role of being proles, are taking action. Their non violent means have been ignored and now they are left with violent means. This is what you have implied. I stated I disagree and explained why in my posts to the other person who chimed in. I've concluded that, without means of a successful non-violent remedy, you're only option is for a violent. That while you are willing to stoke the fires, you are not willing to lead the charge. You find yourself incapable of gathering the needed bodies to form your (r)evolution of the political state the world finds itself in, so you consigned yourself to posting on TL and other places, hoping to spread your gospel, quoted mostly from other sources without your own opinions attached. I've also concluded, that while we may share a few understandings of what needs to be done, we are at an impasse on how it should begin, continue, and end.
I care not for quotes, but from your own fingertips, the truths you hold to be dear, about your (r)evolution. Quote all day and all night. Hearken back to your bandied about words. They hold little water in the larger scheme of things. Because you feel wronged or despair, so should we all. Because you feel the world needs to be remade in a vision of not your choose, but through the choices of others who tugged at your heart, you lash out with (r)evolutionary cries. That you feel the need to pontificate constantly, forces others to shun away and turn deaf ears to you.
And with that, good sir, I take my leave from this conversation. That's why I'm trying to make sure your accusations are done or not? You seem to want to keep lobbing them but also refuse to engage in dialogue to clear it up? EDIT: If I told you I wanted to discuss Socialist revolution Harry Potter can you imagine how hard that would be if you hadn't ever seen the movies or read the books but just watched the trailers after I mentioned it? "Hagrid and Harry appeared to me to be an allegory for..." "what's a hagrid?, how tall is 'very tall' is there a threshold?, I need to know Hagrid's height in your own words" Or the nuances of a Starcraft fight if you'd never played or watched a game? That help communicate my point at all? Not at all because I know what you are talking about. Your inability to see why some have issues, is one of the root causes. I was reading john grisham, dean koontz, and behold a pale horse, in 4th grade (not that it matters but to reference your children analogy). You know how many times I consulted a dictionary? Belittling my intelligence rewards you no points. You've answered my questions in a round-a-bout manner, I suppose. But don't think I won't call bullshit the second I smell it coming from you. ...what? I'm not belittling your intelligence with the Harry Potter analogy, or at least that wasn't my intention. I was just picking a popular story. You can replace it with the Anne Rice Vampire series or whatever if that makes sense? I'm trying to very specifically and clearly answer your questions , then you told me you're done engaging, and going to pick up randomly again without finishing where we left off and that doesn't sound very fruitful. I'm perfectly fine with you "call[ing] out bullshit" it's the demanding I engage with it I'd like to resolve. EDIT: Duh moment: Imagine trying to explain to me who the good guy in "The Firm" is if I hadn't read the book or seen the movie and disagreed with you about the world building of the story being realistic? That help? Time for bed for this old man. Better analogy. And I've had that happen and I dropped it and moved on. Simple. But if someone wanted me to explain it to them, I would in a way that they would understand. I'd do it in my own words so that they would have a general and somewhat informed concept of what the book/movie was about. You attempted such, credit given. Except you only quoted the book without explanation. You've done a good job trying to answer, but you still are missing that vital piece. Your words. Your plan. Your intentions for the beginning, middle, and end, of your struggle. I can quote Huey Newton, Haile Selassie, Malcolm, Marx, Garvey, W.E.B, etc. But unless I explained my position, you'd think I didn't have one. That is what is missing. If they say exactly what you're thinking, then just say "Freier is my spiritual animal and literally anything he thinks, I'm in agreement." And that would be the end of it. I'd know that Freier is the one I need to look into, not you. Freier is the one with all the ideas, not you. Does that clarify a bit better? When I say I'm done engaging, I meant it that I find this discussion not moving forward and we should find some other topic to talk about. There are 4 other parts, but you insist that I coddle your misinterpreted intentions to conform with what you think. Your ideas are half baked in the sense that they do not belong to you, you cannot articulate your personal stance on these without need to reference other sources, and you cannot be held accountable for the misinterpretation of others, because it isn't you saying these things, it is someone else. I want GH's thoughts on why violent direct action is needed. I want GH's thoughts on where things go after the (r)evolution. I want GH's thoughts on why the capitalist class has wronged him and the world so. Not Freier's. I can go read Freier if that is what I wanted. But he isn't here. You are. So you must state your opinion without the need to call for backup. (Alternatively, if you feel you must, put it in a spoiler tag so that people can later look up what you are referencing, as they do in historical texts.) You must lead with your opinions first, for people to understand that we are reading GH, not Freier. (I continue to bring up Freier because he is the last person you've used.)
I guess you don't remember the part where you guys said I was making these words up, didn't know what they meant, and didn't provide sources or detailed descriptions?
I'm doing the best I can here guys...
If they say exactly what you're thinking, then just say "Freier is my spiritual animal and literally anything he thinks, I'm in agreement." And that would be the end of it. I'd know that Freier is the one I need to look into, not you. Freier is the one with all the ideas, not you.
I can't help but conclude you don't understand my perspective if you think I would refer to anyone as my "spirit animal"?
Presuming that was just a small mistaken assumption I'll address the rest.
I've referenced dozens of people. So they can't all think exactly what I think, because they think/thought different things sometimes changing throughout their lives. I usually preface it with "this person articulates (the thing I mentioned) it better than I can" because I'd be a pompous dick to think I can better articulate some of these things than the people who did such professionally (Baldwin for example).
No it doesn't clarify for me, I apologize. It was moving forward but then you pulled out unexpectedly imo? The other parts are way harder to reconcile so if we can't do the first one it's unlikely we'll have better success there imo, but I told you, you're the captain now.
I mean Freire (think this was just a typo but if you should look I want you to find the right person) wouldn't argue the ideas are his either and I can articulate my personal stances without needing to reference other sources (that's why I suggested you specify something you needed to see me articulate in my own words so you can stop, rather than repeat the vague allegation).
I've told you several different times and ways why I think direct action is necessary and will lead to capitalists beating, killing, and bombing people long before they physically defend themselves or engage in what you would consider "aggressive acts of violent direct action".
I've explained in more ways than I can count (including statistics, anecdote, references, contemporary news, history, to name a few) the many faults, acts of violence, and general "wrongs" the capitalist class has and is inflicting on us.
I'll go back to leading with my opinions (that somewhat conflicts with the rule at the top of the thread) when I can though if that's your major gripe.
|
|
|
United States41984 Posts
Pretty sure Stalin was a Stalinist. He certainly would not have claimed to have been a socialist though, you gotta remember that the Bolsheviks thought the Mensheviks were gutless cowards who refused to seize the reins of history. They did not view non revolutionary socialists kindly.
|
On July 23 2019 13:07 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 09:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 07:31 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 06:42 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 06:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 05:55 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 04:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 04:58 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 04:22 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] I'm being forced to respond to you until a public statement is made otherwise. I don't know what you mean by "socialist class"? [quote] Couple guys named Marx and Engels did that about 160 years ago. Here's a brief summary, with a more in depth explanation I suggest people should read (should read Marx himself too) before replacing "capitalist" with "socialist" in a term and presuming it has meaning. [quote] liberationschool.orgIf all you read is that small summary you'll continue to ask questions that have already been addressed. I'd be happy to explain what I meant by that right after you define "capitalist class". Including some examples of the people in it. wut? I just gave that to you? That is still quite vague no? No idea what you've read/comprehended (from what I've just provided) and didn't at this point? Like the guy in my town who owns a gift shop and has 3 employee's? Or because he doesn't produce anything he doesn't count? Or because he is not wealthy he doesn't count? Is there a cut off? (your article describes them as small capitalists.)
I'm trying to figure out if this is just the Gates of the world or whether it is every business owner that will need to be removed. There are more in depth resources you should check out if you really want to learn about this stuff (happy to point you toward them), I'm not a professor. But so long as I'm being forced to do this... Let's look at the answer provided already: Owners of neighborhood markets and landlords are examples of small capitalists. If owners employ other people, they are capitalists-even if the people they employ are family members. If they don’t employ other people, they hope to. If an owner’s small business does not grow, it fails. The business is taken over by a larger one.
Is a manager in the work place a capitalist? Managers who supervise workers don’t usually own the company. They receive higher pay and better benefits than workers. They are not capitalists, but are paid to act in the interests of the capitalist bosses.
There are many different layers within the ruling class and the working class. There is also a huge middle class in the U.S. Yet, both the capitalist and working class have fewer layers within them than any other class in history. The wealth of the ruling class is constantly being concentrated in to fewer hands. Capitalism is always pushing more people into the working class. The working class is becoming poorer and larger. I'd say they are a member of/adjacent to white club, a capitalist, and not in the same layer of the capitalist class as Gates. The individual power they possess is minimal relative to the strata of the capitalist class occupied by the likes of Bezos and Gates. Yes the power derived from white club and their membership in the capitalist class must be removed for a successful society to sustain in my view. Also, where would you categorize workers who do not wish to be part of the socialist revolution? Are they part of the capital class because they support it or are they still workers? What is the consequences for them for not agreeing? Again, there's a bunch of literature on this I advise people look at to see what they think make sense themselves. Again let's look at the answer provided: The ruling class uses the military to protect their private property and oppress workers. But what class is the military? There are different classes in the military. Generals often come from the ruling class. The majority of soldiers come from the working class, so their loyalty to the ruling class is never a sure bet. Many workers have no way to survive other than taking a job with the military. Due to racism the poorest workers are disproportionately Black, Latino, Asian, Arab and Native American. This is reflected in the military.
The ruling class uses racism to keep the workers divided. They use laws and prisons, schools and the corporate media to spread racism. Fighting racism is integral to fighting capitalism. In this example it's the military and racism but the same general concepts apply to other gray areas. If we return to z2c and my discussion on this topic, it's our step one that is meant to address this conflict. In the answer I provided you it's articulated as: their loyalty to the ruling class is never a sure bet. Edit: also if you hold stock are you considered a owner? What if the company pays a portion of the salary in stock options? This line of questioning is of little value imo but it's respond to you or get banned as best I understand it at this point. Worker ownership is a thing that's been discussed at length before so I don't even know what you're trying to ask here? Capitalism and Socialism at their core are organizing principles of ownership? No I understand the theory, and it is very odd that you keep telling me to go read things. I am fully capable of doing that myself. What I'm interested in is your interpenetration. I find it very strange that you are so protective of it. I'm asking what these things mean to you. I haven't seen you demonstrate the type of understanding you're claiming which is why I find this process frustrating. I'm not protective of it, it's just if you had a familiarity with the theory I would have to explain much less of it in layman terms for someone I don't believe is entering dialogue in good faith. I'm a person who is interested in both the practical and the theoretical. You seem fairly well versed in the the theoretical but completely unwilling to address the practical applications of your theory. This is also why I and so many others have asked things like your work history and education to try to better understand where you are coming from. I don't know how you can claim to have familiarity with the theory and then make this assertion. I've discussed my jobs before but I've had many. Ranging from labor ready type shit to selling real estate. As a matter of basic self-preservation and personal security it's not in my interest to provide more detailed information than that. If you don't want to discuss the practical part that is fine I'm fine discussing it? I'd rather not with you for reasons I mentioned. But I want to be able to engage with everyone else, so here we are. but then I would suggest stop bringing up the revolution or solving climate change. No, and I'd appreciate if you stop telling me what to do. It is like you keep putting the teaser out of a amazing solution but than are unwilling to discuss how it actually would work. You gotta watch the movie if you want to know how it ends bro. In all seriousness it both our jobs (as well as everyone else) to answer that question (to the degree that we can predict the future). Also, I'm sure you wouldn't get banned for not responding to me. You probably just miss read and are being over dramatic. I've asked for clarification from the person that gave me that impression and you're free to ask in feedback as well for that clarification rather than accuse me of being dramatic and having "miss read" it. I mean I don't care if you don't respond to me I'm perfectly content to go back to ignoring you (more or less), but I need your help clearing that up with moderation. I'm a believer in choice and free will, I'm sure they don't. But they are probably not big fans of your passive aggressive responses where you are responding to me clearly but don't say my name or loosely veil it. Occasionally you raise arguments that are popularly believed or expressed and should be addressed, there's just little value in engaging with you directly from my experience/imo. And while your paying attention. ? I'm not sure why you are so confused on my position regarding South America. I'm not? I don't support right wing Authoritarians anymore than I support Maduro. Posting about them is no dig to me, and I'm well aware that the US supports some dictatorships and not others and that their motives are not altruistic. I don't think you recognize the defining features of the delineations between the ones they support and the ones they don't. Or if you recognize them, you don't appreciate their significance. I'm referencing their subservience to US interests. But that does not mean I automatically am against everything that they do. Sometimes they do the right thing, even if it may be for the wrong reasons.
Okay? On Israel, feel free to clarify because people have been saying I have your position wrong. you do. But I believe it to be "go back to their own countries" or be destroyed. That's a poor interpretation as several people have told you. And considering we both know they are not leaving this means you would like to see them destroyed. Again a poor interpretation as you've been told several times by several people. I find it odd that you find it so offensive when people in America tell people to go back to their own countries I don't find it offensive when indigenous people do? , but you do not see the parallel. It's a preposterous one? I'm pretty sure someone would be banned if they told a group (religion, race nationality or whatever) to go back to their countries or be destroyed. Maybe? But you're the only one saying that, soo... I guess we'll see? And I'm also talking about telling the white people from white club to go back to their countries as well. Why? As a general rule I think if you added a lot more of the "how" your preferred policies would be implemented instead of just sticking to the theoretical "why's". You would have a much more well rounded approach. Thanks for the tip? It would either further your belief as you would feel like it is much more obtainable or it might alter your belief as you find out why things happen the way they do now. And perhaps even better, how things that failed before, or at least didn't succeed completely can be done better. Thanks for the advice? Suggestions are not telling you what to do, they are suggestions. For a guy who argues that he is offended when I call your "presumptions" "assumptions", I would think you would know the difference. You keep doing what you want, just don't expect different results from what you are getting. You like to think of me as the root of all your problems. But you guy into fights with all sorts of people, it is not only me. If you say so. On Israel, sure they have but I don't believe that they actually got it right. You're definitely wrong still? So please clarify. Since obviously you can describe your position better. You have multiple times said you want to "resettle" Israel. The people don't want to go. "Resettle Israel" doesn't sound like me, how about you quote it or stop raising this line of argument? Please, quote whatever gave you this perception or just assume you misunderstood it and move on. How would you feel if the US decided to resettle a bunch of the Chinese in San Francisco back to China? I then "presume" you move to violence since that is where you move to in removing the "capitalist class". What? I think maybe why you think I don't understand socialism is some sort of odd intellectual elitism Nope, just that questions you ask, arguments you make, and your inability to recognize when you're given answers. when you only want to discuss it as if we are in a political science class reading political philosophers. No, like people familiar with the material or prepared to enter good faith dialogue. I'm not that guy, I was many years ago but only entry level as to me it gets old fast to go found and round only on the philosophical level without ever moving to the practical level. Sure... I also find it pretty funny how you like to talk about being "on your level". Did I say that or did you make it up like the other positions you want me to defend? If you would like we could decide on some online IQ test that would be fair and we hadn't gamed it and see. This is silly and irreverent but I'm competitive and confident so that could be fun. I'm not saying I'm smarter than you, I'm certainly not the writer you are, or the philosophical buff. But I think you would be surprised where we ended up. It is not that I can't comprehend what you are saying, it is that you are not answering the questions posed to you. Sure seems like a comprehension issue (maybe a little communication as IgnE pointed out before) according to the people who have already demonstrated they understand the material being discussed Might be a fun exercise where you can embarrass me with your superior intellect! Yeah, but to what end? From the posting it would be my guess that you would end up much higher in the Language portions and lower in some of the others. But we don't know until we try.
Am I just not going to get an explanation of the "socialist class"? A lot of people have "trouble understanding your answers" because telling people where to go read does not answer your opinion on something. And if you can't explain it yourself, you probably don't have a firm grasp on it.
I can explain myself fine and it's pretty much down to you and zero lodging this complaint with any vigor.
You're probably going to find this hard to believe, but you post a ton and I'm not really going to dig through it a millions times. What you could easily say is "I believe that we need to do X with Israel and Palestine and if it doesn't work we will keep trying or do this. Not "if it doesn't work violent revolution or "voluntary relocation". And if you do believe that great, no more need to discuss, I would likely agree, and you won't need to keep referencing it. But if you do want one, man up and explain who are the targets and how the new world order will actually operate, at a high level. Who will make decisions? How will they be chosen? What will happen to those who disagree? Just the basics.
It's never that easy with you. But being the US politics thread my basic position is that the US should stop arming and funding Israel immediately.
If it's the Palestinians that are the problem it seems to me Israel should be anywhere else and the problem is solved. After all, many Jews died because they didn't want to leave Germany in the first place.
It seems a voluntary relocation of Israel and future settlements into Germany alleviates the conflict and surely Germany would welcome them. Though if not Germany, certainly the US could take them in and eliminate the conflict without committing genocide. If Israel decided to expand it's borders within the US I'm sure the US wouldn't mind.
I vaguely remember that (the link to it's context would be helpful), it was me articulating options other than genocide of Palestinians that people declared inevitable so we might as well stop thinking of alternatives iirc. Hence the "eliminate the conflict without committing genocide.". It was also supposed to be tongue in cheek satire.
I was using socialist class to describe those who claim to have socialist values to mask their authoritarianism and get uninformed people from other countries to support him by claiming vast conspiracies. Examples would be Maduro and his Government. NK government, China but lessor now since they have mostly stopped pretending to be socialists, people like Stalin and so on.
Kwark pointed out one reason he thinks this is silly but now that I know what you mean I'm not understanding your question? Was Che Guevara part of the socialist class? Castro? Black Panthers? Is there a threshold of authoritarianism that separates the "socialist class" you're talking about and genuine socialists (whomever you deem them to be)?
With "capitalist class" you can reference Marx or the article I provided if you want details, where can I go for more people talking/info about "the socialist class" as you're describing them as a "class" Is it just nations/nations leaders that are part of the "socialist class" or "the people in the uniforms from other countries supporting them in response to claims of vast conspiracies" part of the "socialist class" too? Who makes decisions for the "socialist class"? just the basics ya know? It's just one term you (seem to have created?) used and it still isn't clear what you're talking about. I would suggest it's because it's something you've recently constructed in your mind whereas capitalist class or Bourgeoisie (whichever is clearer to you) is a term with over a century of work on defining just who it is and why, the words I'm using and the meanings they carry don't originate from me, in part because then you end up doing things like you did with "socialist class". Which is making up a term to describe a grouping that you haven't even clearly set out the boundaries of in your own mind, let alone considered the faults of such reasoning.
I have made up a word just for this site too btw, raycism (EDIT: dawned on me that not having to use it recently is a significant mark of progress imo), so I'm not expecting more from you in creating a word/term than I asked of myself.
|
On July 23 2019 09:39 Doodsmack wrote:
Pretty odd outburst from trump today in which he said that nuking afghanistan and killing all of it's people would end the war. He then turned to the Pakistani FM and asked him whether he understood what trump was saying.
Of course, no one should consider what trump said as serious or credible. It's just him being a clown, per usual.
Have we forgotten Trumps first intelligence briefings during the election where he repeatedly asked why the US doesn't use nukes?
Trump's position on "why don't we just nuke it" has been known for a long time.
|
|
|
|
|
Norway28558 Posts
On July 23 2019 23:30 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 13:11 KwarK wrote:
Pretty sure Stalin was a Stalinist. He certainly would not have claimed to have been a socialist though, you gotta remember that the Bolsheviks thought the Mensheviks were gutless cowards who refused to seize the reins of history. They did not view non revolutionary socialists kindly. I'll leave him in their since he was all about his own power and not actually about the ideology.
So he's not relevant to socialism at all then?
|
|
|
On July 23 2019 23:29 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 13:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 13:07 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 09:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 07:31 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 06:42 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 06:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 05:55 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 04:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
wut? I just gave that to you? That is still quite vague no? No idea what you've read/comprehended (from what I've just provided) and didn't at this point? Like the guy in my town who owns a gift shop and has 3 employee's? Or because he doesn't produce anything he doesn't count? Or because he is not wealthy he doesn't count? Is there a cut off? (your article describes them as small capitalists.)
I'm trying to figure out if this is just the Gates of the world or whether it is every business owner that will need to be removed. There are more in depth resources you should check out if you really want to learn about this stuff (happy to point you toward them), I'm not a professor. But so long as I'm being forced to do this... Let's look at the answer provided already: Owners of neighborhood markets and landlords are examples of small capitalists. If owners employ other people, they are capitalists-even if the people they employ are family members. If they don’t employ other people, they hope to. If an owner’s small business does not grow, it fails. The business is taken over by a larger one.
Is a manager in the work place a capitalist? Managers who supervise workers don’t usually own the company. They receive higher pay and better benefits than workers. They are not capitalists, but are paid to act in the interests of the capitalist bosses.
There are many different layers within the ruling class and the working class. There is also a huge middle class in the U.S. Yet, both the capitalist and working class have fewer layers within them than any other class in history. The wealth of the ruling class is constantly being concentrated in to fewer hands. Capitalism is always pushing more people into the working class. The working class is becoming poorer and larger. I'd say they are a member of/adjacent to white club, a capitalist, and not in the same layer of the capitalist class as Gates. The individual power they possess is minimal relative to the strata of the capitalist class occupied by the likes of Bezos and Gates. Yes the power derived from white club and their membership in the capitalist class must be removed for a successful society to sustain in my view. Also, where would you categorize workers who do not wish to be part of the socialist revolution? Are they part of the capital class because they support it or are they still workers? What is the consequences for them for not agreeing? Again, there's a bunch of literature on this I advise people look at to see what they think make sense themselves. Again let's look at the answer provided: The ruling class uses the military to protect their private property and oppress workers. But what class is the military? There are different classes in the military. Generals often come from the ruling class. The majority of soldiers come from the working class, so their loyalty to the ruling class is never a sure bet. Many workers have no way to survive other than taking a job with the military. Due to racism the poorest workers are disproportionately Black, Latino, Asian, Arab and Native American. This is reflected in the military.
The ruling class uses racism to keep the workers divided. They use laws and prisons, schools and the corporate media to spread racism. Fighting racism is integral to fighting capitalism. In this example it's the military and racism but the same general concepts apply to other gray areas. If we return to z2c and my discussion on this topic, it's our step one that is meant to address this conflict. In the answer I provided you it's articulated as: their loyalty to the ruling class is never a sure bet. Edit: also if you hold stock are you considered a owner? What if the company pays a portion of the salary in stock options? This line of questioning is of little value imo but it's respond to you or get banned as best I understand it at this point. Worker ownership is a thing that's been discussed at length before so I don't even know what you're trying to ask here? Capitalism and Socialism at their core are organizing principles of ownership? No I understand the theory, and it is very odd that you keep telling me to go read things. I am fully capable of doing that myself. What I'm interested in is your interpenetration. I find it very strange that you are so protective of it. I'm asking what these things mean to you. I haven't seen you demonstrate the type of understanding you're claiming which is why I find this process frustrating. I'm not protective of it, it's just if you had a familiarity with the theory I would have to explain much less of it in layman terms for someone I don't believe is entering dialogue in good faith. I'm a person who is interested in both the practical and the theoretical. You seem fairly well versed in the the theoretical but completely unwilling to address the practical applications of your theory. This is also why I and so many others have asked things like your work history and education to try to better understand where you are coming from. I don't know how you can claim to have familiarity with the theory and then make this assertion. I've discussed my jobs before but I've had many. Ranging from labor ready type shit to selling real estate. As a matter of basic self-preservation and personal security it's not in my interest to provide more detailed information than that. If you don't want to discuss the practical part that is fine I'm fine discussing it? I'd rather not with you for reasons I mentioned. But I want to be able to engage with everyone else, so here we are. but then I would suggest stop bringing up the revolution or solving climate change. No, and I'd appreciate if you stop telling me what to do. It is like you keep putting the teaser out of a amazing solution but than are unwilling to discuss how it actually would work. You gotta watch the movie if you want to know how it ends bro. In all seriousness it both our jobs (as well as everyone else) to answer that question (to the degree that we can predict the future). Also, I'm sure you wouldn't get banned for not responding to me. You probably just miss read and are being over dramatic. I've asked for clarification from the person that gave me that impression and you're free to ask in feedback as well for that clarification rather than accuse me of being dramatic and having "miss read" it. I mean I don't care if you don't respond to me I'm perfectly content to go back to ignoring you (more or less), but I need your help clearing that up with moderation. I'm a believer in choice and free will, I'm sure they don't. But they are probably not big fans of your passive aggressive responses where you are responding to me clearly but don't say my name or loosely veil it. Occasionally you raise arguments that are popularly believed or expressed and should be addressed, there's just little value in engaging with you directly from my experience/imo. And while your paying attention. ? I'm not sure why you are so confused on my position regarding South America. I'm not? I don't support right wing Authoritarians anymore than I support Maduro. Posting about them is no dig to me, and I'm well aware that the US supports some dictatorships and not others and that their motives are not altruistic. I don't think you recognize the defining features of the delineations between the ones they support and the ones they don't. Or if you recognize them, you don't appreciate their significance. I'm referencing their subservience to US interests. But that does not mean I automatically am against everything that they do. Sometimes they do the right thing, even if it may be for the wrong reasons.
Okay? On Israel, feel free to clarify because people have been saying I have your position wrong. you do. But I believe it to be "go back to their own countries" or be destroyed. That's a poor interpretation as several people have told you. And considering we both know they are not leaving this means you would like to see them destroyed. Again a poor interpretation as you've been told several times by several people. I find it odd that you find it so offensive when people in America tell people to go back to their own countries I don't find it offensive when indigenous people do? , but you do not see the parallel. It's a preposterous one? I'm pretty sure someone would be banned if they told a group (religion, race nationality or whatever) to go back to their countries or be destroyed. Maybe? But you're the only one saying that, soo... I guess we'll see? And I'm also talking about telling the white people from white club to go back to their countries as well. Why? As a general rule I think if you added a lot more of the "how" your preferred policies would be implemented instead of just sticking to the theoretical "why's". You would have a much more well rounded approach. Thanks for the tip? It would either further your belief as you would feel like it is much more obtainable or it might alter your belief as you find out why things happen the way they do now. And perhaps even better, how things that failed before, or at least didn't succeed completely can be done better. Thanks for the advice? Suggestions are not telling you what to do, they are suggestions. For a guy who argues that he is offended when I call your "presumptions" "assumptions", I would think you would know the difference. You keep doing what you want, just don't expect different results from what you are getting. You like to think of me as the root of all your problems. But you guy into fights with all sorts of people, it is not only me. If you say so. On Israel, sure they have but I don't believe that they actually got it right. You're definitely wrong still? So please clarify. Since obviously you can describe your position better. You have multiple times said you want to "resettle" Israel. The people don't want to go. "Resettle Israel" doesn't sound like me, how about you quote it or stop raising this line of argument? Please, quote whatever gave you this perception or just assume you misunderstood it and move on. How would you feel if the US decided to resettle a bunch of the Chinese in San Francisco back to China? I then "presume" you move to violence since that is where you move to in removing the "capitalist class". What? I think maybe why you think I don't understand socialism is some sort of odd intellectual elitism Nope, just that questions you ask, arguments you make, and your inability to recognize when you're given answers. when you only want to discuss it as if we are in a political science class reading political philosophers. No, like people familiar with the material or prepared to enter good faith dialogue. I'm not that guy, I was many years ago but only entry level as to me it gets old fast to go found and round only on the philosophical level without ever moving to the practical level. Sure... I also find it pretty funny how you like to talk about being "on your level". Did I say that or did you make it up like the other positions you want me to defend? If you would like we could decide on some online IQ test that would be fair and we hadn't gamed it and see. This is silly and irreverent but I'm competitive and confident so that could be fun. I'm not saying I'm smarter than you, I'm certainly not the writer you are, or the philosophical buff. But I think you would be surprised where we ended up. It is not that I can't comprehend what you are saying, it is that you are not answering the questions posed to you. Sure seems like a comprehension issue (maybe a little communication as IgnE pointed out before) according to the people who have already demonstrated they understand the material being discussed Might be a fun exercise where you can embarrass me with your superior intellect! Yeah, but to what end? From the posting it would be my guess that you would end up much higher in the Language portions and lower in some of the others. But we don't know until we try.
Am I just not going to get an explanation of the "socialist class"? A lot of people have "trouble understanding your answers" because telling people where to go read does not answer your opinion on something. And if you can't explain it yourself, you probably don't have a firm grasp on it. I can explain myself fine and it's pretty much down to you and zero lodging this complaint with any vigor. You're probably going to find this hard to believe, but you post a ton and I'm not really going to dig through it a millions times. What you could easily say is "I believe that we need to do X with Israel and Palestine and if it doesn't work we will keep trying or do this. Not "if it doesn't work violent revolution or "voluntary relocation". And if you do believe that great, no more need to discuss, I would likely agree, and you won't need to keep referencing it. But if you do want one, man up and explain who are the targets and how the new world order will actually operate, at a high level. Who will make decisions? How will they be chosen? What will happen to those who disagree? Just the basics. It's never that easy with you. But being the US politics thread my basic position is that the US should stop arming and funding Israel immediately. If it's the Palestinians that are the problem it seems to me Israel should be anywhere else and the problem is solved. After all, many Jews died because they didn't want to leave Germany in the first place.
It seems a voluntary relocation of Israel and future settlements into Germany alleviates the conflict and surely Germany would welcome them. Though if not Germany, certainly the US could take them in and eliminate the conflict without committing genocide. If Israel decided to expand it's borders within the US I'm sure the US wouldn't mind. I vaguely remember that (the link to it's context would be helpful), it was me articulating options other than genocide of Palestinians that people declared inevitable so we might as well stop thinking of alternatives iirc. Hence the "eliminate the conflict without committing genocide.". It was also supposed to be tongue in cheek satire. I was using socialist class to describe those who claim to have socialist values to mask their authoritarianism and get uninformed people from other countries to support him by claiming vast conspiracies. Examples would be Maduro and his Government. NK government, China but lessor now since they have mostly stopped pretending to be socialists, people like Stalin and so on.
Kwark pointed out one reason he thinks this is silly but now that I know what you mean I'm not understanding your question? Was Che Guevara part of the socialist class? Castro? Black Panthers? Is there a threshold of authoritarianism that separates the "socialist class" you're talking about and genuine socialists (whomever you deem them to be)? With "capitalist class" you can reference Marx or the article I provided if you want details, where can I go for more people talking/info about "the socialist class" as you're describing them as a "class" Is it just nations/nations leaders that are part of the "socialist class" or "the people in the uniforms from other countries supporting them in response to claims of vast conspiracies" part of the "socialist class" too? Who makes decisions for the "socialist class"? just the basics ya know? It's just one term you (seem to have created?) used and it still isn't clear what you're talking about. I would suggest it's because it's something you've recently constructed in your mind whereas capitalist class or Bourgeoisie (whichever is clearer to you) is a term with over a century of work on defining just who it is and why, the words I'm using and the meanings they carry don't originate from me, in part because then you end up doing things like you did with "socialist class". Which is making up a term to describe a grouping that you haven't even clearly set out the boundaries of in your own mind, let alone considered the faults of such reasoning. I have made up a word just for this site too btw, raycism (EDIT: dawned on me that not having to use it recently is a significant mark of progress imo), so I'm not expecting more from you in creating a word/term than I asked of myself. You mean you want more details? You don't just want me to throw out terms and make bold proclamations? Go figure. This is my big issue with you in general. You expectations for what others should do is completely different from how you view what you need to do.
I don't have a problem with you using terms I'm unfamiliar with, it's just if you made them up and they appear to be a misnomer there's not really anywhere to go if you don't describe them (since you made it up rather than pulling it from more than a century of scholarship like mine).
|
never mind i’ve been taking this position too frequently lately and it’s exhausting.
|
|
|
On July 23 2019 23:51 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 23:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 23:29 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 13:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 13:07 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 09:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 07:31 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 06:42 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 06:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
No idea what you've read/comprehended (from what I've just provided) and didn't at this point?
[quote]
There are more in depth resources you should check out if you really want to learn about this stuff (happy to point you toward them), I'm not a professor. But so long as I'm being forced to do this...
Let's look at the answer provided already:
[quote]
I'd say they are a member of/adjacent to white club, a capitalist, and not in the same layer of the capitalist class as Gates.
The individual power they possess is minimal relative to the strata of the capitalist class occupied by the likes of Bezos and Gates. Yes the power derived from white club and their membership in the capitalist class must be removed for a successful society to sustain in my view.
[quote]
Again, there's a bunch of literature on this I advise people look at to see what they think make sense themselves. Again let's look at the answer provided:
The ruling class uses the military to protect their private property and oppress workers.
[quote]
In this example it's the military and racism but the same general concepts apply to other gray areas.
If we return to z2c and my discussion on this topic, it's our step one that is meant to address this conflict. In the answer I provided you it's articulated as:
[quote]
[quote]
This line of questioning is of little value imo but it's respond to you or get banned as best I understand it at this point.
Worker ownership is a thing that's been discussed at length before so I don't even know what you're trying to ask here?
Capitalism and Socialism at their core are organizing principles of ownership?
No I understand the theory, and it is very odd that you keep telling me to go read things. I am fully capable of doing that myself. What I'm interested in is your interpenetration. I find it very strange that you are so protective of it. I'm asking what these things mean to you. I haven't seen you demonstrate the type of understanding you're claiming which is why I find this process frustrating. I'm not protective of it, it's just if you had a familiarity with the theory I would have to explain much less of it in layman terms for someone I don't believe is entering dialogue in good faith. I'm a person who is interested in both the practical and the theoretical. You seem fairly well versed in the the theoretical but completely unwilling to address the practical applications of your theory. This is also why I and so many others have asked things like your work history and education to try to better understand where you are coming from. I don't know how you can claim to have familiarity with the theory and then make this assertion. I've discussed my jobs before but I've had many. Ranging from labor ready type shit to selling real estate. As a matter of basic self-preservation and personal security it's not in my interest to provide more detailed information than that. If you don't want to discuss the practical part that is fine I'm fine discussing it? I'd rather not with you for reasons I mentioned. But I want to be able to engage with everyone else, so here we are. but then I would suggest stop bringing up the revolution or solving climate change. No, and I'd appreciate if you stop telling me what to do. It is like you keep putting the teaser out of a amazing solution but than are unwilling to discuss how it actually would work. You gotta watch the movie if you want to know how it ends bro. In all seriousness it both our jobs (as well as everyone else) to answer that question (to the degree that we can predict the future). Also, I'm sure you wouldn't get banned for not responding to me. You probably just miss read and are being over dramatic. I've asked for clarification from the person that gave me that impression and you're free to ask in feedback as well for that clarification rather than accuse me of being dramatic and having "miss read" it. I mean I don't care if you don't respond to me I'm perfectly content to go back to ignoring you (more or less), but I need your help clearing that up with moderation. I'm a believer in choice and free will, I'm sure they don't. But they are probably not big fans of your passive aggressive responses where you are responding to me clearly but don't say my name or loosely veil it. Occasionally you raise arguments that are popularly believed or expressed and should be addressed, there's just little value in engaging with you directly from my experience/imo. And while your paying attention. ? I'm not sure why you are so confused on my position regarding South America. I'm not? I don't support right wing Authoritarians anymore than I support Maduro. Posting about them is no dig to me, and I'm well aware that the US supports some dictatorships and not others and that their motives are not altruistic. I don't think you recognize the defining features of the delineations between the ones they support and the ones they don't. Or if you recognize them, you don't appreciate their significance. I'm referencing their subservience to US interests. But that does not mean I automatically am against everything that they do. Sometimes they do the right thing, even if it may be for the wrong reasons.
Okay? On Israel, feel free to clarify because people have been saying I have your position wrong. you do. But I believe it to be "go back to their own countries" or be destroyed. That's a poor interpretation as several people have told you. And considering we both know they are not leaving this means you would like to see them destroyed. Again a poor interpretation as you've been told several times by several people. I find it odd that you find it so offensive when people in America tell people to go back to their own countries I don't find it offensive when indigenous people do? , but you do not see the parallel. It's a preposterous one? I'm pretty sure someone would be banned if they told a group (religion, race nationality or whatever) to go back to their countries or be destroyed. Maybe? But you're the only one saying that, soo... I guess we'll see? And I'm also talking about telling the white people from white club to go back to their countries as well. Why? As a general rule I think if you added a lot more of the "how" your preferred policies would be implemented instead of just sticking to the theoretical "why's". You would have a much more well rounded approach. Thanks for the tip? It would either further your belief as you would feel like it is much more obtainable or it might alter your belief as you find out why things happen the way they do now. And perhaps even better, how things that failed before, or at least didn't succeed completely can be done better. Thanks for the advice? Suggestions are not telling you what to do, they are suggestions. For a guy who argues that he is offended when I call your "presumptions" "assumptions", I would think you would know the difference. You keep doing what you want, just don't expect different results from what you are getting. You like to think of me as the root of all your problems. But you guy into fights with all sorts of people, it is not only me. If you say so. On Israel, sure they have but I don't believe that they actually got it right. You're definitely wrong still? So please clarify. Since obviously you can describe your position better. You have multiple times said you want to "resettle" Israel. The people don't want to go. "Resettle Israel" doesn't sound like me, how about you quote it or stop raising this line of argument? Please, quote whatever gave you this perception or just assume you misunderstood it and move on. How would you feel if the US decided to resettle a bunch of the Chinese in San Francisco back to China? I then "presume" you move to violence since that is where you move to in removing the "capitalist class". What? I think maybe why you think I don't understand socialism is some sort of odd intellectual elitism Nope, just that questions you ask, arguments you make, and your inability to recognize when you're given answers. when you only want to discuss it as if we are in a political science class reading political philosophers. No, like people familiar with the material or prepared to enter good faith dialogue. I'm not that guy, I was many years ago but only entry level as to me it gets old fast to go found and round only on the philosophical level without ever moving to the practical level. Sure... I also find it pretty funny how you like to talk about being "on your level". Did I say that or did you make it up like the other positions you want me to defend? If you would like we could decide on some online IQ test that would be fair and we hadn't gamed it and see. This is silly and irreverent but I'm competitive and confident so that could be fun. I'm not saying I'm smarter than you, I'm certainly not the writer you are, or the philosophical buff. But I think you would be surprised where we ended up. It is not that I can't comprehend what you are saying, it is that you are not answering the questions posed to you. Sure seems like a comprehension issue (maybe a little communication as IgnE pointed out before) according to the people who have already demonstrated they understand the material being discussed Might be a fun exercise where you can embarrass me with your superior intellect! Yeah, but to what end? From the posting it would be my guess that you would end up much higher in the Language portions and lower in some of the others. But we don't know until we try.
Am I just not going to get an explanation of the "socialist class"? A lot of people have "trouble understanding your answers" because telling people where to go read does not answer your opinion on something. And if you can't explain it yourself, you probably don't have a firm grasp on it. I can explain myself fine and it's pretty much down to you and zero lodging this complaint with any vigor. You're probably going to find this hard to believe, but you post a ton and I'm not really going to dig through it a millions times. What you could easily say is "I believe that we need to do X with Israel and Palestine and if it doesn't work we will keep trying or do this. Not "if it doesn't work violent revolution or "voluntary relocation". And if you do believe that great, no more need to discuss, I would likely agree, and you won't need to keep referencing it. But if you do want one, man up and explain who are the targets and how the new world order will actually operate, at a high level. Who will make decisions? How will they be chosen? What will happen to those who disagree? Just the basics. It's never that easy with you. But being the US politics thread my basic position is that the US should stop arming and funding Israel immediately. If it's the Palestinians that are the problem it seems to me Israel should be anywhere else and the problem is solved. After all, many Jews died because they didn't want to leave Germany in the first place.
It seems a voluntary relocation of Israel and future settlements into Germany alleviates the conflict and surely Germany would welcome them. Though if not Germany, certainly the US could take them in and eliminate the conflict without committing genocide. If Israel decided to expand it's borders within the US I'm sure the US wouldn't mind. I vaguely remember that (the link to it's context would be helpful), it was me articulating options other than genocide of Palestinians that people declared inevitable so we might as well stop thinking of alternatives iirc. Hence the "eliminate the conflict without committing genocide.". It was also supposed to be tongue in cheek satire. I was using socialist class to describe those who claim to have socialist values to mask their authoritarianism and get uninformed people from other countries to support him by claiming vast conspiracies. Examples would be Maduro and his Government. NK government, China but lessor now since they have mostly stopped pretending to be socialists, people like Stalin and so on.
Kwark pointed out one reason he thinks this is silly but now that I know what you mean I'm not understanding your question? Was Che Guevara part of the socialist class? Castro? Black Panthers? Is there a threshold of authoritarianism that separates the "socialist class" you're talking about and genuine socialists (whomever you deem them to be)? With "capitalist class" you can reference Marx or the article I provided if you want details, where can I go for more people talking/info about "the socialist class" as you're describing them as a "class" Is it just nations/nations leaders that are part of the "socialist class" or "the people in the uniforms from other countries supporting them in response to claims of vast conspiracies" part of the "socialist class" too? Who makes decisions for the "socialist class"? just the basics ya know? It's just one term you (seem to have created?) used and it still isn't clear what you're talking about. I would suggest it's because it's something you've recently constructed in your mind whereas capitalist class or Bourgeoisie (whichever is clearer to you) is a term with over a century of work on defining just who it is and why, the words I'm using and the meanings they carry don't originate from me, in part because then you end up doing things like you did with "socialist class". Which is making up a term to describe a grouping that you haven't even clearly set out the boundaries of in your own mind, let alone considered the faults of such reasoning. I have made up a word just for this site too btw, raycism (EDIT: dawned on me that not having to use it recently is a significant mark of progress imo), so I'm not expecting more from you in creating a word/term than I asked of myself. You mean you want more details? You don't just want me to throw out terms and make bold proclamations? Go figure. This is my big issue with you in general. You expectations for what others should do is completely different from how you view what you need to do. I don't have a problem with you using terms I'm unfamiliar with, it's just if you made them up and they appear to be a misnomer there's not really anywhere to go if you don't describe them (since you made it up rather than pulling it from more than a century of scholarship like mine). That is a difference, but I'm not sure it is a distinction. Because it is a very wide swath of people that you have said needs to be removed, if not willingly (which you say won't happen) violently. Then I say "so this means killings of millions?" and you say no. But there are millions in the Capitalist class. So there is some sort of logical failing here. I try to get you to walk me through it and you say I need to read 100's of years of writing. Which I'm not going to do because it still won't get me from violently removing this group of millions, without killing millions.
It's really tiresome that you keep assigning me positions I haven't taken and seem to have zero accountability for it.
Stop saying that I've said a very wide swath of people must be removed (or quote it so I can clarify like the Israel thing that was clearly you misunderstanding the post). I haven't. Get that part right and the rest should fall in place.
|
|
|
We could also chase them down into their doomsday bunkers and seal them in. I'm sure they're more luxurious than 99.999% of the world's housing anyways.
Just like violently removing a rowdy drunk from a bar doesn't require slashing his throat with a broken beer bottle, getting the bouncer to toss his ass out works fine.
|
On July 23 2019 23:56 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 23:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 23:51 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 23:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 23:29 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 13:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 13:07 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 09:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 07:31 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I haven't seen you demonstrate the type of understanding you're claiming which is why I find this process frustrating. I'm not protective of it, it's just if you had a familiarity with the theory I would have to explain much less of it in layman terms for someone I don't believe is entering dialogue in good faith.
[quote]
I don't know how you can claim to have familiarity with the theory and then make this assertion. I've discussed my jobs before but I've had many. Ranging from labor ready type shit to selling real estate. As a matter of basic self-preservation and personal security it's not in my interest to provide more detailed information than that.
[quote]
I'm fine discussing it? I'd rather not with you for reasons I mentioned. But I want to be able to engage with everyone else, so here we are.
[quote]
No, and I'd appreciate if you stop telling me what to do.
[quote]
You gotta watch the movie if you want to know how it ends bro. In all seriousness it both our jobs (as well as everyone else) to answer that question (to the degree that we can predict the future).
[quote]
I've asked for clarification from the person that gave me that impression and you're free to ask in feedback as well for that clarification rather than accuse me of being dramatic and having "miss read" it.
[quote]
I'm perfectly content to go back to ignoring you (more or less), but I need your help clearing that up with moderation.
[quote]
Occasionally you raise arguments that are popularly believed or expressed and should be addressed, there's just little value in engaging with you directly from my experience/imo.
[quote]
?
[quote]
I'm not?
[quote]
I don't think you recognize the defining features of the delineations between the ones they support and the ones they don't. Or if you recognize them, you don't appreciate their significance. I'm referencing their subservience to US interests.
[quote]
Okay?
[quote]
you do.
[quote]
That's a poor interpretation as several people have told you.
[quote]
Again a poor interpretation as you've been told several times by several people.
[quote]
I don't find it offensive when indigenous people do?
[quote]
It's a preposterous one?
[quote]
Maybe? But you're the only one saying that, soo... I guess we'll see?
[quote]
Why?
[quote]
Thanks for the tip?
[quote]
Thanks for the advice? Suggestions are not telling you what to do, they are suggestions. For a guy who argues that he is offended when I call your "presumptions" "assumptions", I would think you would know the difference. You keep doing what you want, just don't expect different results from what you are getting. You like to think of me as the root of all your problems. But you guy into fights with all sorts of people, it is not only me. If you say so. On Israel, sure they have but I don't believe that they actually got it right. You're definitely wrong still? So please clarify. Since obviously you can describe your position better. You have multiple times said you want to "resettle" Israel. The people don't want to go. "Resettle Israel" doesn't sound like me, how about you quote it or stop raising this line of argument? Please, quote whatever gave you this perception or just assume you misunderstood it and move on. How would you feel if the US decided to resettle a bunch of the Chinese in San Francisco back to China? I then "presume" you move to violence since that is where you move to in removing the "capitalist class". What? I think maybe why you think I don't understand socialism is some sort of odd intellectual elitism Nope, just that questions you ask, arguments you make, and your inability to recognize when you're given answers. when you only want to discuss it as if we are in a political science class reading political philosophers. No, like people familiar with the material or prepared to enter good faith dialogue. I'm not that guy, I was many years ago but only entry level as to me it gets old fast to go found and round only on the philosophical level without ever moving to the practical level. Sure... I also find it pretty funny how you like to talk about being "on your level". Did I say that or did you make it up like the other positions you want me to defend? If you would like we could decide on some online IQ test that would be fair and we hadn't gamed it and see. This is silly and irreverent but I'm competitive and confident so that could be fun. I'm not saying I'm smarter than you, I'm certainly not the writer you are, or the philosophical buff. But I think you would be surprised where we ended up. It is not that I can't comprehend what you are saying, it is that you are not answering the questions posed to you. Sure seems like a comprehension issue (maybe a little communication as IgnE pointed out before) according to the people who have already demonstrated they understand the material being discussed Might be a fun exercise where you can embarrass me with your superior intellect! Yeah, but to what end? From the posting it would be my guess that you would end up much higher in the Language portions and lower in some of the others. But we don't know until we try.
Am I just not going to get an explanation of the "socialist class"? A lot of people have "trouble understanding your answers" because telling people where to go read does not answer your opinion on something. And if you can't explain it yourself, you probably don't have a firm grasp on it. I can explain myself fine and it's pretty much down to you and zero lodging this complaint with any vigor. You're probably going to find this hard to believe, but you post a ton and I'm not really going to dig through it a millions times. What you could easily say is "I believe that we need to do X with Israel and Palestine and if it doesn't work we will keep trying or do this. Not "if it doesn't work violent revolution or "voluntary relocation". And if you do believe that great, no more need to discuss, I would likely agree, and you won't need to keep referencing it. But if you do want one, man up and explain who are the targets and how the new world order will actually operate, at a high level. Who will make decisions? How will they be chosen? What will happen to those who disagree? Just the basics. It's never that easy with you. But being the US politics thread my basic position is that the US should stop arming and funding Israel immediately. If it's the Palestinians that are the problem it seems to me Israel should be anywhere else and the problem is solved. After all, many Jews died because they didn't want to leave Germany in the first place.
It seems a voluntary relocation of Israel and future settlements into Germany alleviates the conflict and surely Germany would welcome them. Though if not Germany, certainly the US could take them in and eliminate the conflict without committing genocide. If Israel decided to expand it's borders within the US I'm sure the US wouldn't mind. I vaguely remember that (the link to it's context would be helpful), it was me articulating options other than genocide of Palestinians that people declared inevitable so we might as well stop thinking of alternatives iirc. Hence the "eliminate the conflict without committing genocide.". It was also supposed to be tongue in cheek satire. I was using socialist class to describe those who claim to have socialist values to mask their authoritarianism and get uninformed people from other countries to support him by claiming vast conspiracies. Examples would be Maduro and his Government. NK government, China but lessor now since they have mostly stopped pretending to be socialists, people like Stalin and so on.
Kwark pointed out one reason he thinks this is silly but now that I know what you mean I'm not understanding your question? Was Che Guevara part of the socialist class? Castro? Black Panthers? Is there a threshold of authoritarianism that separates the "socialist class" you're talking about and genuine socialists (whomever you deem them to be)? With "capitalist class" you can reference Marx or the article I provided if you want details, where can I go for more people talking/info about "the socialist class" as you're describing them as a "class" Is it just nations/nations leaders that are part of the "socialist class" or "the people in the uniforms from other countries supporting them in response to claims of vast conspiracies" part of the "socialist class" too? Who makes decisions for the "socialist class"? just the basics ya know? It's just one term you (seem to have created?) used and it still isn't clear what you're talking about. I would suggest it's because it's something you've recently constructed in your mind whereas capitalist class or Bourgeoisie (whichever is clearer to you) is a term with over a century of work on defining just who it is and why, the words I'm using and the meanings they carry don't originate from me, in part because then you end up doing things like you did with "socialist class". Which is making up a term to describe a grouping that you haven't even clearly set out the boundaries of in your own mind, let alone considered the faults of such reasoning. I have made up a word just for this site too btw, raycism (EDIT: dawned on me that not having to use it recently is a significant mark of progress imo), so I'm not expecting more from you in creating a word/term than I asked of myself. You mean you want more details? You don't just want me to throw out terms and make bold proclamations? Go figure. This is my big issue with you in general. You expectations for what others should do is completely different from how you view what you need to do. I don't have a problem with you using terms I'm unfamiliar with, it's just if you made them up and they appear to be a misnomer there's not really anywhere to go if you don't describe them (since you made it up rather than pulling it from more than a century of scholarship like mine). That is a difference, but I'm not sure it is a distinction. Because it is a very wide swath of people that you have said needs to be removed, if not willingly (which you say won't happen) violently. Then I say "so this means killings of millions?" and you say no. But there are millions in the Capitalist class. So there is some sort of logical failing here. I try to get you to walk me through it and you say I need to read 100's of years of writing. Which I'm not going to do because it still won't get me from violently removing this group of millions, without killing millions. It's really tiresome that you keep assigning me positions I haven't taken and seem to have zero accountability for it. Stop saying that I've said a very wide swath of people must be removed (or quote it so I can clarify like the Israel thing that was clearly you misunderstanding the post). I haven't. Get that part right and the rest should fall in place. How about you clarify instead of just saying I'm wrong. It is not a hard thing to do on ones position. What do you mean by "violent revolution" or "bloody revolution"? Conversely if you don't want to explain what you mean simply stop bringing it up and so will I.
I'm trying but I'm not going to "clarify" something you made up when you won't even clarify the term you made up?
"violent revolution" or "bloody revolution" in what context? Those could be references to anything from the American revolution to the Iranian revolution, to the Russian revolution, and so on.
Just get someone else to do the engaging/moderating of communication (not warnings and bans) and that would help. We're having severe communication issues that very well may be entirely my fault but I'm doing my best to communicate with you and practically everyone else understands (that has opined) except you and I don't know how else besides that to resolve that contradiction at this point.
|
On July 23 2019 23:56 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 23:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 23:51 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 23:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 23:29 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 13:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 13:07 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 09:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 07:31 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I haven't seen you demonstrate the type of understanding you're claiming which is why I find this process frustrating. I'm not protective of it, it's just if you had a familiarity with the theory I would have to explain much less of it in layman terms for someone I don't believe is entering dialogue in good faith.
[quote]
I don't know how you can claim to have familiarity with the theory and then make this assertion. I've discussed my jobs before but I've had many. Ranging from labor ready type shit to selling real estate. As a matter of basic self-preservation and personal security it's not in my interest to provide more detailed information than that.
[quote]
I'm fine discussing it? I'd rather not with you for reasons I mentioned. But I want to be able to engage with everyone else, so here we are.
[quote]
No, and I'd appreciate if you stop telling me what to do.
[quote]
You gotta watch the movie if you want to know how it ends bro. In all seriousness it both our jobs (as well as everyone else) to answer that question (to the degree that we can predict the future).
[quote]
I've asked for clarification from the person that gave me that impression and you're free to ask in feedback as well for that clarification rather than accuse me of being dramatic and having "miss read" it.
[quote]
I'm perfectly content to go back to ignoring you (more or less), but I need your help clearing that up with moderation.
[quote]
Occasionally you raise arguments that are popularly believed or expressed and should be addressed, there's just little value in engaging with you directly from my experience/imo.
[quote]
?
[quote]
I'm not?
[quote]
I don't think you recognize the defining features of the delineations between the ones they support and the ones they don't. Or if you recognize them, you don't appreciate their significance. I'm referencing their subservience to US interests.
[quote]
Okay?
[quote]
you do.
[quote]
That's a poor interpretation as several people have told you.
[quote]
Again a poor interpretation as you've been told several times by several people.
[quote]
I don't find it offensive when indigenous people do?
[quote]
It's a preposterous one?
[quote]
Maybe? But you're the only one saying that, soo... I guess we'll see?
[quote]
Why?
[quote]
Thanks for the tip?
[quote]
Thanks for the advice? Suggestions are not telling you what to do, they are suggestions. For a guy who argues that he is offended when I call your "presumptions" "assumptions", I would think you would know the difference. You keep doing what you want, just don't expect different results from what you are getting. You like to think of me as the root of all your problems. But you guy into fights with all sorts of people, it is not only me. If you say so. On Israel, sure they have but I don't believe that they actually got it right. You're definitely wrong still? So please clarify. Since obviously you can describe your position better. You have multiple times said you want to "resettle" Israel. The people don't want to go. "Resettle Israel" doesn't sound like me, how about you quote it or stop raising this line of argument? Please, quote whatever gave you this perception or just assume you misunderstood it and move on. How would you feel if the US decided to resettle a bunch of the Chinese in San Francisco back to China? I then "presume" you move to violence since that is where you move to in removing the "capitalist class". What? I think maybe why you think I don't understand socialism is some sort of odd intellectual elitism Nope, just that questions you ask, arguments you make, and your inability to recognize when you're given answers. when you only want to discuss it as if we are in a political science class reading political philosophers. No, like people familiar with the material or prepared to enter good faith dialogue. I'm not that guy, I was many years ago but only entry level as to me it gets old fast to go found and round only on the philosophical level without ever moving to the practical level. Sure... I also find it pretty funny how you like to talk about being "on your level". Did I say that or did you make it up like the other positions you want me to defend? If you would like we could decide on some online IQ test that would be fair and we hadn't gamed it and see. This is silly and irreverent but I'm competitive and confident so that could be fun. I'm not saying I'm smarter than you, I'm certainly not the writer you are, or the philosophical buff. But I think you would be surprised where we ended up. It is not that I can't comprehend what you are saying, it is that you are not answering the questions posed to you. Sure seems like a comprehension issue (maybe a little communication as IgnE pointed out before) according to the people who have already demonstrated they understand the material being discussed Might be a fun exercise where you can embarrass me with your superior intellect! Yeah, but to what end? From the posting it would be my guess that you would end up much higher in the Language portions and lower in some of the others. But we don't know until we try.
Am I just not going to get an explanation of the "socialist class"? A lot of people have "trouble understanding your answers" because telling people where to go read does not answer your opinion on something. And if you can't explain it yourself, you probably don't have a firm grasp on it. I can explain myself fine and it's pretty much down to you and zero lodging this complaint with any vigor. You're probably going to find this hard to believe, but you post a ton and I'm not really going to dig through it a millions times. What you could easily say is "I believe that we need to do X with Israel and Palestine and if it doesn't work we will keep trying or do this. Not "if it doesn't work violent revolution or "voluntary relocation". And if you do believe that great, no more need to discuss, I would likely agree, and you won't need to keep referencing it. But if you do want one, man up and explain who are the targets and how the new world order will actually operate, at a high level. Who will make decisions? How will they be chosen? What will happen to those who disagree? Just the basics. It's never that easy with you. But being the US politics thread my basic position is that the US should stop arming and funding Israel immediately. If it's the Palestinians that are the problem it seems to me Israel should be anywhere else and the problem is solved. After all, many Jews died because they didn't want to leave Germany in the first place.
It seems a voluntary relocation of Israel and future settlements into Germany alleviates the conflict and surely Germany would welcome them. Though if not Germany, certainly the US could take them in and eliminate the conflict without committing genocide. If Israel decided to expand it's borders within the US I'm sure the US wouldn't mind. I vaguely remember that (the link to it's context would be helpful), it was me articulating options other than genocide of Palestinians that people declared inevitable so we might as well stop thinking of alternatives iirc. Hence the "eliminate the conflict without committing genocide.". It was also supposed to be tongue in cheek satire. I was using socialist class to describe those who claim to have socialist values to mask their authoritarianism and get uninformed people from other countries to support him by claiming vast conspiracies. Examples would be Maduro and his Government. NK government, China but lessor now since they have mostly stopped pretending to be socialists, people like Stalin and so on.
Kwark pointed out one reason he thinks this is silly but now that I know what you mean I'm not understanding your question? Was Che Guevara part of the socialist class? Castro? Black Panthers? Is there a threshold of authoritarianism that separates the "socialist class" you're talking about and genuine socialists (whomever you deem them to be)? With "capitalist class" you can reference Marx or the article I provided if you want details, where can I go for more people talking/info about "the socialist class" as you're describing them as a "class" Is it just nations/nations leaders that are part of the "socialist class" or "the people in the uniforms from other countries supporting them in response to claims of vast conspiracies" part of the "socialist class" too? Who makes decisions for the "socialist class"? just the basics ya know? It's just one term you (seem to have created?) used and it still isn't clear what you're talking about. I would suggest it's because it's something you've recently constructed in your mind whereas capitalist class or Bourgeoisie (whichever is clearer to you) is a term with over a century of work on defining just who it is and why, the words I'm using and the meanings they carry don't originate from me, in part because then you end up doing things like you did with "socialist class". Which is making up a term to describe a grouping that you haven't even clearly set out the boundaries of in your own mind, let alone considered the faults of such reasoning. I have made up a word just for this site too btw, raycism (EDIT: dawned on me that not having to use it recently is a significant mark of progress imo), so I'm not expecting more from you in creating a word/term than I asked of myself. You mean you want more details? You don't just want me to throw out terms and make bold proclamations? Go figure. This is my big issue with you in general. You expectations for what others should do is completely different from how you view what you need to do. I don't have a problem with you using terms I'm unfamiliar with, it's just if you made them up and they appear to be a misnomer there's not really anywhere to go if you don't describe them (since you made it up rather than pulling it from more than a century of scholarship like mine). That is a difference, but I'm not sure it is a distinction. Because it is a very wide swath of people that you have said needs to be removed, if not willingly (which you say won't happen) violently. Then I say "so this means killings of millions?" and you say no. But there are millions in the Capitalist class. So there is some sort of logical failing here. I try to get you to walk me through it and you say I need to read 100's of years of writing. Which I'm not going to do because it still won't get me from violently removing this group of millions, without killing millions. It's really tiresome that you keep assigning me positions I haven't taken and seem to have zero accountability for it. Stop saying that I've said a very wide swath of people must be removed (or quote it so I can clarify like the Israel thing that was clearly you misunderstanding the post). I haven't. Get that part right and the rest should fall in place. How about you clarify instead of just saying I'm wrong. It is not a hard thing to do on ones position. What do you mean by "violent revolution" or "bloody revolution"? Conversely if you don't want to explain what you mean simply stop bringing it up and so will I.
that you are shoving words in his mouth with the expectation he defend them after also claiming, in your own words, that GH ‘expects more from others than he does himself’ is so glaringly hypocritical that i have second hand embarrassment.
it is expected of you to do as much as you’re asking of him, in your very own words.
put up or shut up. literally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
