• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 06:24
CEST 12:24
KST 19:24
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Season 1 - Final Week6[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed17Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission extension3Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation17$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced7
StarCraft 2
General
How Long Does ACCA Take After BCom? Everything You Who will win EWC 2025? Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed The Memories We Share - Facing the Final(?) GSL RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread
Tourneys
Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series $5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo)
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Flash Announces (and Retracts) Hiatus From ASL Soulkey Muta Micro Map? [ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues CSL Xiamen International Invitational 2025 ACS Season 2 Qualifier Cosmonarchy Pro Showmatches
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile Nintendo Switch Thread CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project The PlayStation 5
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Summer Games Done Quick 2025!
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Korean Music Discussion Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 605 users

US Politics Feedback Thread - Page 235

Forum Index > Website Feedback
Post a Reply
Prev 1 233 234 235 236 237 322 Next
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands21658 Posts
May 27 2019 23:07 GMT
#4681
On May 28 2019 08:04 JimmiC wrote:
I have yet to see anyone give too much detail. It is more often a case of like you said not explaining enough or using terms liek for example "revolution" or "abolish" and not explicitly stating what is meant by it.
Using different meanings of terms and not stating that.*
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
Acrofales
Profile Joined August 2010
Spain17979 Posts
May 27 2019 23:11 GMT
#4682
GH's posting is fine. You don't have to agree with him. You don't even have to respond to him. But he's writing informative posts in a clear manner and is happy to discuss his ideas.

And yes, I've had my problems with his posts in the past, but I'd rather discuss police violence with GH than Trump's tweets with P6 and Danglars. And I really don't want to discuss police violence in the US with anybody
JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
May 27 2019 23:32 GMT
#4683
--- Nuked ---
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23209 Posts
May 28 2019 01:38 GMT
#4684
On May 28 2019 08:11 Acrofales wrote:
GH's posting is fine. You don't have to agree with him. You don't even have to respond to him. But he's writing informative posts in a clear manner and is happy to discuss his ideas.

And yes, I've had my problems with his posts in the past, but I'd rather discuss police violence with GH than Trump's tweets with P6 and Danglars. And I really don't want to discuss police violence in the US with anybody


Thank you, I appreciate that and seeing things like "I want realism" "using different meaning" helps me see that explaining where those words and meanings come from (not me) was the right direction.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Nebuchad
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
Switzerland12164 Posts
May 28 2019 17:23 GMT
#4685
On May 28 2019 07:19 Velr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 28 2019 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
Feels like I can't win sometimes. I have someone complaining about not explaining myself clearly and another complaining I'm explaining myself too clearly.

Either you want my ideas/positions fleshed out or you don't but complaining about both at the same time is exhausting.


I want concrete, realistic!, propositions fleshed out, not always your ultimate dream.
What could be done now, whiteout revolution, whiteout a general rethinking... I want realism.


The built-in assumption here is that it's realistic to create a "very leftwing" framework for society without a drastic change in how it functions today under capitalism. There is no reason to assume this is a realistic assumption. There is every reason to assume otherwise.
No will to live, no wish to die
JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
May 28 2019 18:15 GMT
#4686
--- Nuked ---
Nebuchad
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
Switzerland12164 Posts
May 28 2019 18:34 GMT
#4687
On May 29 2019 03:15 JimmiC wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 29 2019 02:23 Nebuchad wrote:
On May 28 2019 07:19 Velr wrote:
On May 28 2019 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
Feels like I can't win sometimes. I have someone complaining about not explaining myself clearly and another complaining I'm explaining myself too clearly.

Either you want my ideas/positions fleshed out or you don't but complaining about both at the same time is exhausting.


I want concrete, realistic!, propositions fleshed out, not always your ultimate dream.
What could be done now, whiteout revolution, whiteout a general rethinking... I want realism.


The built-in assumption here is that it's realistic to create a "very leftwing" framework for society without a drastic change in how it functions today under capitalism. There is no reason to assume this is a realistic assumption. There is every reason to assume otherwise.


You have been open that you don't know exactly what that framework is and want to talk to people about how it would function. I think that is a completely reasonable position. What isn't reasonable is to call for a massive (and likely very bloody) revolution without a plan in place, or even the framework of the plan.

People are rightly very skeptical of revolutionaries that will sort it out after they are in power because the power or the revolution (or they were lying from the start) perverts and corrupts them from the ideal that they started with in mind.

To me the best functioning current systems are Socialist democracies, because of this I would like to push them further and see if they can continue to be successful and at what point if any they stop being that way. Can you point to a system out there that is further left of that, that you would model yours after. If so then we can talk about some of the issues that they have and what can possibly done to stop or minimize them.

Right now the discussion always seems to go to "socialism" is the answer and the philosophies around it. Practically though we have not seen it work out that way. It is fine to talk about capitalism's flaws, most posters here are aware of them and would like change. But it does not appear realistic without discussing the practical flaws that socialism has experienced when applied in the world.


The short story is I don't quite believe you. I don't think you want something more leftwing and are skeptical because of corruption, I think you just want social democracy without having to argue for it directly, so instead you just describe anything to the left of that as "vague" and "impossible" and that allows you not to think about it too much. Last time I asked you how you were going to save the world ( :p ), your answer was just about as vague as it could possibly get. It didn't bother you then.

If your concern is that we will be corrupted by power then one first move that we could realistically agree on would be to work for an increase in the level of democracy. Generally have more stuff that is decided by people rather than elected (and unelected) representants. Won't bring me more power so it can't really corrupt me. Helps our cause in that it increases the power of people, and most people are workers.
No will to live, no wish to die
Velr
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
Switzerland10696 Posts
May 28 2019 19:11 GMT
#4688
On May 28 2019 08:11 Acrofales wrote:
GH's posting is fine. You don't have to agree with him. You don't even have to respond to him. But he's writing informative posts in a clear manner and is happy to discuss his ideas.

And yes, I've had my problems with his posts in the past, but I'd rather discuss police violence with GH than Trump's tweets with P6 and Danglars. And I really don't want to discuss police violence in the US with anybody


No it plain isn't. He is acting like a priest shouting out the one true message, whiteout even the spark of an idea when it comes to the most important questions.
brian
Profile Blog Joined August 2004
United States9617 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-05-28 21:04:55
May 28 2019 19:48 GMT
#4689
On May 29 2019 04:11 Velr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 28 2019 08:11 Acrofales wrote:
GH's posting is fine. You don't have to agree with him. You don't even have to respond to him. But he's writing informative posts in a clear manner and is happy to discuss his ideas.

And yes, I've had my problems with his posts in the past, but I'd rather discuss police violence with GH than Trump's tweets with P6 and Danglars. And I really don't want to discuss police violence in the US with anybody


No it plain isn't. He is acting like a priest shouting out the one true message, whiteout even the spark of an idea when it comes to the most important questions.


i could understand this if it was still 2017, but if that’s how you feel reading the last page or so that’s on you, reading something into his posts that just isn’t there. he definitely does not present these opinions as the one true message, and certainly hasn’t done so from a place of unassailable moral high ground (which is the only way i can really interpret your complaint vis a vis a priest.)

and that he has no idea where to start seems inaccurate in my personal opinion. i would be interested in seeing you support that.
Dangermousecatdog
Profile Joined December 2010
United Kingdom7084 Posts
May 28 2019 21:17 GMT
#4690
On May 28 2019 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
Feels like I can't win sometimes. I have someone complaining about not explaining myself clearly and another complaining I'm explaining myself too clearly.

Either you want my ideas/positions fleshed out or you don't but complaining about both at the same time is exhausting.

I don't think anybody has ever complained that you are explaining yourself too clearly.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23209 Posts
May 28 2019 21:36 GMT
#4691
On May 29 2019 06:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 28 2019 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
Feels like I can't win sometimes. I have someone complaining about not explaining myself clearly and another complaining I'm explaining myself too clearly.

Either you want my ideas/positions fleshed out or you don't but complaining about both at the same time is exhausting.

I don't think anybody has ever complained that you are explaining yourself too clearly.

On May 29 2019 06:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 28 2019 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
Feels like I can't win sometimes. I have someone complaining about not explaining myself clearly and another complaining I'm explaining myself too clearly.

Either you want my ideas/positions fleshed out or you don't but complaining about both at the same time is exhausting.

I don't think anybody has ever complained that you are explaining yourself too clearly.


Velr did:

GH: I would actually love to discuss leftist ideas because I consider myself very leftist, but if the starting point is «revolution», «abolish the police» or «we need full on socialism/communism» I immediatly lose all interest. Coupled with his „with me or against me“ attitude i don’t see any benefit coming from engaging with him. I don’t see bad intent, it’s just a fundamental disagreement on how one should have a discussion especially with people that disagree.
These topics have their place for sure, but thats in a thread about political philosophy and not in one that is supposed to entail the momentary political discourse?


The issue here as I see it is that some people view clarification of my position as not being topical while others demand I not opine without that clarification which they seem to be refusing to get from anywhere other than my posts (which seems to exclude the quoted and cited materials). This creates a sort of Wargames situation where the only way for me to satisfy the demands of my posting is to not post.

From my perspective the rejection seems to be of my position (as interpreted) rather than my presentation which is used (less effectively when I'm not reflecting the vitriol I regularly receive) to mask that rather weakly argued (on the merit) rejection of my position/s.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
May 28 2019 23:31 GMT
#4692
--- Nuked ---
Nebuchad
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
Switzerland12164 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-05-29 12:10:54
May 29 2019 12:08 GMT
#4693
As you may remember, I'm not a fan of central planning on paper, but for the sake of the argument I'm going to answer differently here.

It seems that you're presenting different stages for your argument, and the more you move in the direction of your utopia, the less defined it is. The most defined stage is what you're doing right now with recyclable material: doesn't require any political change, is obviously possible (and probably a good thing). So here we have a ton of details. The issue that I have with it is, and again that's not our first time on this, that your vision to fight climate change is very liberal: it requires a bunch of people to take personal responsibility and fight climate change in their own lives. This is inconsistent with the problem we're facing, as we are only indirectly responsible for climate change: businesses are the main culprit. So no, I don't think it's contradictory for an ecologist to take a hot shower or use single use cups, as long as they understand that the larger fight against climate change occurs at the level of industry, not at the level of how often you accept to pee in the shower.

Then we have, get other countries in the world to be social democracies. Already less defined. And create a global government that does central planning. Entirely vague. Notice that while expanding on this you do not exactly go into details, instead you talk a lot about how other stuff doesn't work and what makes your vision harder to accomplish. You say you don't need as much detail as you work within well defined systems, but you actually don't work within a well-defined system: the system today doesn't contain a central planning, nor does it contain a bunch of social democracies. One element at the center of your worldview also appears contradictory to me: you want central planning, but you don't want a revolution? A central planning isn't compatible with capitalism, as far as I can tell. If you have a way to make this work I'd like to read it.

Also would like an answer on my proposition to increase democracies if you don't mind. From my perspective it's a revolutionary idea that should be compatible with all the issues you have stated concerning revolutionary ideas.
No will to live, no wish to die
JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
May 29 2019 14:02 GMT
#4694
--- Nuked ---
Nebuchad
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
Switzerland12164 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-05-29 15:08:19
May 29 2019 15:07 GMT
#4695
On May 29 2019 23:02 JimmiC wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 29 2019 21:08 Nebuchad wrote:
As you may remember, I'm not a fan of central planning on paper, but for the sake of the argument I'm going to answer differently here.

It seems that you're presenting different stages for your argument, and the more you move in the direction of your utopia, the less defined it is. The most defined stage is what you're doing right now with recyclable material: doesn't require any political change, is obviously possible (and probably a good thing). So here we have a ton of details. The issue that I have with it is, and again that's not our first time on this, that your vision to fight climate change is very liberal: it requires a bunch of people to take personal responsibility and fight climate change in their own lives. This is inconsistent with the problem we're facing, as we are only indirectly responsible for climate change: businesses are the main culprit. So no, I don't think it's contradictory for an ecologist to take a hot shower or use single use cups, as long as they understand that the larger fight against climate change occurs at the level of industry, not at the level of how often you accept to pee in the shower.

Then we have, get other countries in the world to be social democracies. Already less defined. And create a global government that does central planning. Entirely vague. Notice that while expanding on this you do not exactly go into details, instead you talk a lot about how other stuff doesn't work and what makes your vision harder to accomplish. You say you don't need as much detail as you work within well defined systems, but you actually don't work within a well-defined system: the system today doesn't contain a central planning, nor does it contain a bunch of social democracies. One element at the center of your worldview also appears contradictory to me: you want central planning, but you don't want a revolution? A central planning isn't compatible with capitalism, as far as I can tell. If you have a way to make this work I'd like to read it.

Also would like an answer on my proposition to increase democracies if you don't mind. From my perspective it's a revolutionary idea that should be compatible with all the issues you have stated concerning revolutionary ideas.


It would not be central planning anymore than than a current federal government is, in fact less so. It would just keep some global guiding principals to make sure humanity is not pulling against each other, do things like not have certain banking rules/taxation rules in some countries so people can launder and hide money and so on. And this is the fanciful part no doubt. I more or less through that in as a ideal, but I think many of the problems could be solved if we could just import actual socialized democracies to the world, they would be able to have shared interests for the most part. Pure democracy has its issues as well since most people are uninformed on most topics, that is part of the reason these populists with catch phrases, all the answers and scapegoats are sweeping the polls. Finding the right mix is not easy, but I think the social democracies have done it best.

I also don't believe it is as simple as capitalism is pure evil and socialism is pure good. Both sound amazing on paper and both have real issues when put into practice. I think creating a fair environment through social programs, along with regulations on businesses to make sure the reward and risk make sense, as well as that they compete fairly with each other, pay living wages, treat the environment correctly so on.

People have to start taking personal responsibility for the choices they individually make. Businesses make things the cheapest possible because people care most about paying the least. If consumers actually said we are not buying Nike anymore because their pay, facilities and so on are not safe then Nike would do something. People also care more about convenience than the environment, do you have a plastic bottle of water you use once or do you have a reusable water bottle? Do you take your own reusable mug to Starbucks or do take there single use cup? There are literately 100's of changes people can make and don't so that is why regulation is needed. But guess what, there are also a TON of private businesses that are leading edge and doing way more than government or requirements. In my city we actually have dedicated staff to just try to bring it up to our own regulations! Governments, unions, so on are great, but they arenot without flaws.

Hopefully that answered some of yours.

Now can you please explain to me how socialism will fix the environment? So far I feel like I'm in Seinfeld a episode where it is the world has problems yadda yadda revolution, yadda yadda, socialism, yadda yadda climate change solved.

And within the yadda yadda so much can go wrong or needs to be explained.


The arguments that you bring up against pure democracy aren't arguments against pure democracy, they're arguments against every kind of democracy, pure or unpure. People are uninformed and uneducated, so we can't trust them to make decisions about how they are governed, especially because of populism and propaganda. But in the system that we have today, people are uninformed and uneducated, and we trust them to make decisions about who will govern them, and populism and propaganda play a part in the process of who gets chosen.

I think almost nobody in the entire world believes that both capitalism and socialism sound amazing on paper. Capitalism and socialism are contradicting each other on a great variety of important topics about how society should be organized. One says that exploitation is fine, the other doesn't. One says that social hierarchy is fine, the other doesn't. One puts profit at the forefront, the other doesn't. Those are pretty crucial world view differences. It would be extremely weird to view both of those theories on paper and think that they are both amazing.

I'm going to give you a slightly flawed metaphor, that I still like, about what the liberal view of fighting climate change looks like to me. There's this huge forest fire in front of us, it's burning the whole forest. A group of people are throwing a ton of fuel into the fire, slightly to the side of the picture so it's not necessarily obvious to everyone watching that they're doing it. Liberals, in the center of the picture, are lining up and peeing into the fire in an effort to stop its progression. Sometimes someone comes up and talks to the liberals: "Hey, don't you think maybe we should try and do something about the people throwing fuel in the fire?" And the liberals answer: "Pff, this dude isn't even peeing with us, I dislike all these people not peeing, clearly they are the reason why the fire is still spreading."

And that brings us neatly to how I think socialism would help against climate change: the profit motive stops being the primary motive of businesses and corporations. By giving people the power to decide what a company should and shouldn't do, we get to put other motives into the picture, like, in our case, humanity's survival for example. Here's a concrete example: when confronted with the scientific notion that our species was likely to die if we didn't do anything about climate change, people in the capitalist class reacted by funding antiscience projects and backing antiscience politicians. They didn't do so because they are evil, they did so because convincing people that climate change was a hoax was more profitable than doing something about climate change. And capitalism dictates that the best route is the most profitable route. Capitalism, without a revolutionary reform, is by its very nature ill-equipped to defeat a threat like climate change because in order to defeat that threat, you have to go against the principles of capitalism.
No will to live, no wish to die
JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
May 29 2019 18:43 GMT
#4696
--- Nuked ---
Nebuchad
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
Switzerland12164 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-05-29 20:30:53
May 29 2019 20:30 GMT
#4697
On May 30 2019 03:43 JimmiC wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2019 00:07 Nebuchad wrote:
On May 29 2019 23:02 JimmiC wrote:
On May 29 2019 21:08 Nebuchad wrote:
As you may remember, I'm not a fan of central planning on paper, but for the sake of the argument I'm going to answer differently here.

It seems that you're presenting different stages for your argument, and the more you move in the direction of your utopia, the less defined it is. The most defined stage is what you're doing right now with recyclable material: doesn't require any political change, is obviously possible (and probably a good thing). So here we have a ton of details. The issue that I have with it is, and again that's not our first time on this, that your vision to fight climate change is very liberal: it requires a bunch of people to take personal responsibility and fight climate change in their own lives. This is inconsistent with the problem we're facing, as we are only indirectly responsible for climate change: businesses are the main culprit. So no, I don't think it's contradictory for an ecologist to take a hot shower or use single use cups, as long as they understand that the larger fight against climate change occurs at the level of industry, not at the level of how often you accept to pee in the shower.

Then we have, get other countries in the world to be social democracies. Already less defined. And create a global government that does central planning. Entirely vague. Notice that while expanding on this you do not exactly go into details, instead you talk a lot about how other stuff doesn't work and what makes your vision harder to accomplish. You say you don't need as much detail as you work within well defined systems, but you actually don't work within a well-defined system: the system today doesn't contain a central planning, nor does it contain a bunch of social democracies. One element at the center of your worldview also appears contradictory to me: you want central planning, but you don't want a revolution? A central planning isn't compatible with capitalism, as far as I can tell. If you have a way to make this work I'd like to read it.

Also would like an answer on my proposition to increase democracies if you don't mind. From my perspective it's a revolutionary idea that should be compatible with all the issues you have stated concerning revolutionary ideas.


It would not be central planning anymore than than a current federal government is, in fact less so. It would just keep some global guiding principals to make sure humanity is not pulling against each other, do things like not have certain banking rules/taxation rules in some countries so people can launder and hide money and so on. And this is the fanciful part no doubt. I more or less through that in as a ideal, but I think many of the problems could be solved if we could just import actual socialized democracies to the world, they would be able to have shared interests for the most part. Pure democracy has its issues as well since most people are uninformed on most topics, that is part of the reason these populists with catch phrases, all the answers and scapegoats are sweeping the polls. Finding the right mix is not easy, but I think the social democracies have done it best.

I also don't believe it is as simple as capitalism is pure evil and socialism is pure good. Both sound amazing on paper and both have real issues when put into practice. I think creating a fair environment through social programs, along with regulations on businesses to make sure the reward and risk make sense, as well as that they compete fairly with each other, pay living wages, treat the environment correctly so on.

People have to start taking personal responsibility for the choices they individually make. Businesses make things the cheapest possible because people care most about paying the least. If consumers actually said we are not buying Nike anymore because their pay, facilities and so on are not safe then Nike would do something. People also care more about convenience than the environment, do you have a plastic bottle of water you use once or do you have a reusable water bottle? Do you take your own reusable mug to Starbucks or do take there single use cup? There are literately 100's of changes people can make and don't so that is why regulation is needed. But guess what, there are also a TON of private businesses that are leading edge and doing way more than government or requirements. In my city we actually have dedicated staff to just try to bring it up to our own regulations! Governments, unions, so on are great, but they arenot without flaws.

Hopefully that answered some of yours.

Now can you please explain to me how socialism will fix the environment? So far I feel like I'm in Seinfeld a episode where it is the world has problems yadda yadda revolution, yadda yadda, socialism, yadda yadda climate change solved.

And within the yadda yadda so much can go wrong or needs to be explained.


The arguments that you bring up against pure democracy aren't arguments against pure democracy, they're arguments against every kind of democracy, pure or unpure. People are uninformed and uneducated, so we can't trust them to make decisions about how they are governed, especially because of populism and propaganda. But in the system that we have today, people are uninformed and uneducated, and we trust them to make decisions about who will govern them, and populism and propaganda play a part in the process of who gets chosen.

I think almost nobody in the entire world believes that both capitalism and socialism sound amazing on paper. Capitalism and socialism are contradicting each other on a great variety of important topics about how society should be organized. One says that exploitation is fine, the other doesn't. One says that social hierarchy is fine, the other doesn't. One puts profit at the forefront, the other doesn't. Those are pretty crucial world view differences. It would be extremely weird to view both of those theories on paper and think that they are both amazing.

I'm going to give you a slightly flawed metaphor, that I still like, about what the liberal view of fighting climate change looks like to me. There's this huge forest fire in front of us, it's burning the whole forest. A group of people are throwing a ton of fuel into the fire, slightly to the side of the picture so it's not necessarily obvious to everyone watching that they're doing it. Liberals, in the center of the picture, are lining up and peeing into the fire in an effort to stop its progression. Sometimes someone comes up and talks to the liberals: "Hey, don't you think maybe we should try and do something about the people throwing fuel in the fire?" And the liberals answer: "Pff, this dude isn't even peeing with us, I dislike all these people not peeing, clearly they are the reason why the fire is still spreading."

And that brings us neatly to how I think socialism would help against climate change: the profit motive stops being the primary motive of businesses and corporations. By giving people the power to decide what a company should and shouldn't do, we get to put other motives into the picture, like, in our case, humanity's survival for example. Here's a concrete example: when confronted with the scientific notion that our species was likely to die if we didn't do anything about climate change, people in the capitalist class reacted by funding antiscience projects and backing antiscience politicians. They didn't do so because they are evil, they did so because convincing people that climate change was a hoax was more profitable than doing something about climate change. And capitalism dictates that the best route is the most profitable route. Capitalism, without a revolutionary reform, is by its very nature ill-equipped to defeat a threat like climate change because in order to defeat that threat, you have to go against the principles of capitalism.


The thing is the elected people are like a board of directors not direct oversight. The people hired and trained within the governmental organization are the ones doing the real work and presenting the ideas to the various elected officials. Sure they can make changes about time frames and what they want looked at but the end of the day it is all the bureaucrats that are getting shit done. This is why you don't want every decision made by vote, because people can't possibly be informed on everything even if they wanted to.


Your last sentence is why capitalism alone has not solved the problem, it is about the issues with short term thinking which don't go away with socialism. Secondly we do not have "capitalism" right now, at least not in the Adam Smith sense.

My issue is it is not a fair comparison to point out the failings of the current systems (which I'm not saying do not exist) and match it up against a philosophical position. There are reasons why neither exists in those philosophical forms. Which is why I keep asking if there is country, preferably with some size, that you would like to at least use as a starting point. Since if you are talking about fixing climate change you have to be talking on a global scale.

I


If we do trust these people, hired and trained, within the governmental organization, to do the real work and make the right decisions, then why is it good to let the people vote at all? Don't these people in government know better than the uninformed population who would make the best ruler? This isn't to say that you are against democracy. This is to say that if we follow the logic of any argument against having more democracy, these arguments' logic can easily be brought up against the level of democracy that we have now. There is a tension there.

Of course we have capitalism. The means of production are privately owned, by a class of people. These people, who we call the capitalist class, then exploit the labor of workers to create a profit, and the goal of the game is to maximize their profit. If you bring up Adam Smith you're talking liberalism, not capitalism.

It's not short term thinking that causes capitalism to not fix its problems, it's capitalism. The capitalists aren't short-sighted, they're correct. It is unarguably true that it is more profitable to fight against science on climate change than it is to go with science and fight climate change. Reaching climate goals is a second set of goals, on top of maximizing profits, that you impose on yourself. If instead you just don't do it, you are of course going to maximize profits. Their behavior is entirely consistent with how we train them to think about the economy in this system.

You know there is no country like this, obviously. In Switzerland we have more democracy and we're doing fine, but it's not direct democracy either and we aren't fighting for it. And it's not remotely close to socialism, of course, nor should it be as we are a small as fuck country with not a ton of direct power. The change needs to come from a large, powerful country in order to have any chance at sustainability. Since most of the fights against socialism have been led by the US, it is a natural starting point, as it gets rid of a very natural enemy at the same time.
No will to live, no wish to die
Dangermousecatdog
Profile Joined December 2010
United Kingdom7084 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-05-29 22:23:59
May 29 2019 22:22 GMT
#4698
On May 29 2019 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 29 2019 06:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
On May 28 2019 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
Feels like I can't win sometimes. I have someone complaining about not explaining myself clearly and another complaining I'm explaining myself too clearly.

Either you want my ideas/positions fleshed out or you don't but complaining about both at the same time is exhausting.

I don't think anybody has ever complained that you are explaining yourself too clearly.

Show nested quote +
On May 29 2019 06:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
On May 28 2019 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
Feels like I can't win sometimes. I have someone complaining about not explaining myself clearly and another complaining I'm explaining myself too clearly.

Either you want my ideas/positions fleshed out or you don't but complaining about both at the same time is exhausting.

I don't think anybody has ever complained that you are explaining yourself too clearly.


Velr did:

Show nested quote +
GH: I would actually love to discuss leftist ideas because I consider myself very leftist, but if the starting point is «revolution», «abolish the police» or «we need full on socialism/communism» I immediatly lose all interest. Coupled with his „with me or against me“ attitude i don’t see any benefit coming from engaging with him. I don’t see bad intent, it’s just a fundamental disagreement on how one should have a discussion especially with people that disagree.
These topics have their place for sure, but thats in a thread about political philosophy and not in one that is supposed to entail the momentary political discourse?


The issue here as I see it is that some people view clarification of my position as not being topical while others demand I not opine without that clarification which they seem to be refusing to get from anywhere other than my posts (which seems to exclude the quoted and cited materials). This creates a sort of Wargames situation where the only way for me to satisfy the demands of my posting is to not post.

From my perspective the rejection seems to be of my position (as interpreted) rather than my presentation which is used (less effectively when I'm not reflecting the vitriol I regularly receive) to mask that rather weakly argued (on the merit) rejection of my position/s.

Only Velr can say whether he is complaining that GH explaining himself too clearly, but it'll be a tough sell to say that he is based on what you have quoted.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23209 Posts
May 29 2019 22:49 GMT
#4699
On May 30 2019 07:22 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 29 2019 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
On May 29 2019 06:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
On May 28 2019 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
Feels like I can't win sometimes. I have someone complaining about not explaining myself clearly and another complaining I'm explaining myself too clearly.

Either you want my ideas/positions fleshed out or you don't but complaining about both at the same time is exhausting.

I don't think anybody has ever complained that you are explaining yourself too clearly.

On May 29 2019 06:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
On May 28 2019 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
Feels like I can't win sometimes. I have someone complaining about not explaining myself clearly and another complaining I'm explaining myself too clearly.

Either you want my ideas/positions fleshed out or you don't but complaining about both at the same time is exhausting.

I don't think anybody has ever complained that you are explaining yourself too clearly.


Velr did:

GH: I would actually love to discuss leftist ideas because I consider myself very leftist, but if the starting point is «revolution», «abolish the police» or «we need full on socialism/communism» I immediatly lose all interest. Coupled with his „with me or against me“ attitude i don’t see any benefit coming from engaging with him. I don’t see bad intent, it’s just a fundamental disagreement on how one should have a discussion especially with people that disagree.
These topics have their place for sure, but thats in a thread about political philosophy and not in one that is supposed to entail the momentary political discourse?


The issue here as I see it is that some people view clarification of my position as not being topical while others demand I not opine without that clarification which they seem to be refusing to get from anywhere other than my posts (which seems to exclude the quoted and cited materials). This creates a sort of Wargames situation where the only way for me to satisfy the demands of my posting is to not post.

From my perspective the rejection seems to be of my position (as interpreted) rather than my presentation which is used (less effectively when I'm not reflecting the vitriol I regularly receive) to mask that rather weakly argued (on the merit) rejection of my position/s.

Only Velr can say whether he is complaining that GH explaining himself too clearly, but it'll be a tough sell to say that he is based on what you have quoted.


Of the crowd still complaining about my posting that's the best example (as flawed as it may be) of someone articulating my position and simply not liking it's presentation still/disagreeing with it.

Besides not liking that my position doesn't have a place for centrism or "very leftist" as Velr would call it (an important identification) his complaint is that rather than discussing the latest Trump tweet or whatever that I'm instead explaining the philosophy which underpins my position/s (which is at the core of why you guys think I'm making up words/definitions/being vague etc...

If I say "Voting for Biden is a better path than revolution" I don't have to explain it, you all just accept it because you've spent a lifetime inundated with arguments that support that hegemonic position. If I say "Revolution is better than voting for Biden" you guys reject it, and demand I explain. In order to explain I have to use concepts, terms, and ideas you guys have never or rarely been exposed to and usually in a dismissive fashion if you are.

So by saying "your philosophy explanation doesn't belong here" Velr is arguing for me not to explain the things people assert are vague, something I made up, etc...
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
May 29 2019 23:05 GMT
#4700
--- Nuked ---
Prev 1 233 234 235 236 237 322 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
CranKy Ducklings
10:00
Sea Duckling Open #136
CranKy Ducklings34
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
mouzHeroMarine 275
Nina 224
StarCraft: Brood War
BeSt 3617
Mini 989
Larva 469
Soma 358
firebathero 295
Hyun 267
Pusan 199
TY 183
Dewaltoss 171
Sharp 132
[ Show more ]
Barracks 130
Backho 97
Last 76
ToSsGirL 62
Free 43
Bonyth 35
sorry 26
zelot 25
ajuk12(nOOB) 17
Britney 0
Sea 0
Dota 2
Gorgc5287
singsing1713
XcaliburYe374
League of Legends
JimRising 433
Super Smash Bros
Westballz42
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor203
Other Games
Happy353
DeMusliM246
Fuzer 227
SortOf92
Trikslyr26
Lowko0
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick2603
StarCraft: Brood War
Afreeca ASL 408
UltimateBattle 70
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 14 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH228
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• lizZardDota2172
League of Legends
• Jankos1506
• Stunt790
Upcoming Events
Epic.LAN
1h 36m
CSO Contender
6h 36m
Sparkling Tuna Cup
23h 36m
Online Event
1d 5h
Esports World Cup
2 days
ByuN vs Astrea
Lambo vs HeRoMaRinE
Clem vs TBD
Solar vs Zoun
SHIN vs Reynor
Maru vs TriGGeR
herO vs Lancer
Cure vs ShoWTimE
Esports World Cup
3 days
Esports World Cup
4 days
Esports World Cup
6 days
CranKy Ducklings
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational: ShowMatche
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

BSL 2v2 Season 3
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
CSL Xiamen Invitational
2025 ACS Season 2
Championship of Russia 2025
Underdog Cup #2
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.