EPTUS Politics Feedback Thread - Page 251
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
brian
United States9610 Posts
i’ll also note your response amounts to ‘read all this,’ which is directly part of your complaint of GH. embarrassing. provide the quote or don’t. talking about self reflection is pretty funny in that context. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22696 Posts
On July 26 2019 00:12 JimmiC wrote: There is nothing for you to respond too, just a suggestion that, you look at all the "fights" you have had. The two you mentioned, the one with P6, the one with me, the one with the Mod or Mod's, the one with Velr, the Blazer with Dave, and all the other ones I don't know about. And reflect on, wow I sure get into a lot of these, perhaps there is something I am doing that is creating this situation. Take some responsibility and decide, do I want to keep having these and keep behaving like this or not. If you do, that is completely fine with me. But then stop coming into this thread like some Martyr or victim and just deal with all the people you are condescending too and then get in fights with you. Completely up to you. And as I mentioned to Brian if you wish to stop talking about it, stop talking about it. And no, this is not me calling the kettle black, I am OK to continue to talk about it. I have through PM with those who said they didnt want to publicly. And other than Brian it went quite well. If you would prefer to discuss there, I'm fine, prefer on here that is good too, prefer not to, that is great too. Just don't say you don't want to discuss it, don't like drama, and then continue to discuss it. It's directed at me, there are question marks and I don't want to risk it. I think you literally saying I'm not supposed to answer the questions should cover me though, so ty. If people are emboldening you in PM and not publicly I don't think it's with your best interests in their minds imo, but do you. | ||
|
brian
United States9610 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22696 Posts
On July 26 2019 00:22 JimmiC wrote: I am literally saying you are in control of your answers so answer what you want but think about it. All these PM's where you say it was the other guy, but you got banned, maybe them too. Consider that perhaps you are not a innocent victim and maybe not even the perpetrator, but perhaps a equal contributor. And that you seem to be the guy with the most of these situations, so how could you be contributing to it. Shit. Are you saying those are direct questions, not rhetorical? One of my bans I was cited admitting fault as part of the reason I was banned so... Yeah, I've considered it lol: Yes, JimmiC posted something stupid and insensitive. He went too far. But you also admitted that you weren't completely free of fault either... On July 26 2019 00:25 JimmiC wrote: I'll throw this out too anyone who has been saying I'm completely wrong. If someone believes that revolution with out small arms is impossible. And then constantly brings up that we need a revolution. Is it not logical to believe that he means a revolution with small arms? Is a revolution that requires the use of small arms a peaceful revolution? + Show Spoiler + If you want something to speak for itself, the best way to do so is to let it speak for it self. Not to say "I'll let it speak for itself. Just in the spirit of trying to improve my communication, what you're supposed to do is argue against the necessity of revolution, and/or ways to keep it peaceful, not that people die in them. To your credit, you have made efforts on those fronts, when you're talking about what you think is working and how we can get from here to there without revolution. But instead of addressing my counter-arguments about how almost all of the emissions progress the US and Europe has made was just outsourced to poorer/less regulated countries, the ineffectiveness of electoralism in the US, the countless dead and suffering to maintain the status quo and so on, you lurch into these tirades where you essentially insist I'd prefer a violent revolution over oligarchs peacefully transitioning into a more equitable society or indict me for recognizing it's inevitability (in the same sense countless people through history have) Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. — John F. Kennedy | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Fildun
Netherlands4122 Posts
On July 26 2019 00:25 JimmiC wrote: I'll throw this out too anyone who has been saying I'm completely wrong. If someone believes that revolution with out small arms is impossible. And then constantly brings up that we need a revolution. Is it not logical to believe that he means a revolution with small arms? Is a revolution that requires the use of small arms a peaceful revolution? + Show Spoiler + If you want something to speak for itself, the best way to do so is to let it speak for it self. Not to say "I'll let it speak for itself. So, just to be clear, you don't see an ethical/moral difference between the positions of 1. "calling for a revolution with the use of small arms" and 2. "calling for a revolution that is most likely impossible without small arms being in the possession of the revolutionaries" Edit: GH says multiple times that "small arms (whether used or not)" are instrumental to a successful revolution. You've responded to this multiple times (including quoting that position in this thread). Every time you characterize that position as GH wanting a revolution that "requires the use of small arms". Would you call that a mischaracterization? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22696 Posts
On July 26 2019 00:30 JimmiC wrote: Yes I'm very aware of that, that was when you got banned because you submitted our PM's to the Mods in an attempt to get me banned and it ended up with us BOTH banned for BOTH being jerks. Unlike you I understand when I have been a jerk and am not arguing that I am not, or have not been one. I'm pointing arguing that you are not a victim of me or moderation, but rather a victim of your own behavior. The thing is, I got permed, one of the legitimate critiques that came with it was my jerkiness. I argued it was a reflection from particular posters. Some mods/posters agreed more or less, some didn't. Regardless, since I've returned I've tried desperately not to reflect the vitriol I (in some ways earned) from various posters. This is clear to anyone with any familiarity of me when I was at my worst. As well as take responsibility for my role in conflicts. What I think an increasing number of people are coming around to, is that with you in particular, that doesn't seem to be helping at all. Others I've previously had conflicts with (brian for example) see this all rather clearly. I'm not saying this to embarrass you or win an argument but to sincerely try to demonstrate what I consider fruitful dialogue and do my part to invite you to join in. | ||
|
brian
United States9610 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22696 Posts
On July 26 2019 00:58 farvacola wrote: He posted to remember incontrol and that was the last I’ve seen of him. I've speculated 1000 things in my mind but I'm sure it'll turn out to be the least satisfying one I could have eventually imagined. fwiw (and despite being reminded of that moment from p6 lol) I miss his posting too, but respect if restraint has anything to do with it. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22696 Posts
On July 26 2019 01:15 JimmiC wrote: It is all good, like I said all along I'm not out to get you, I just don't understand your logic. I don't believe p6, the mod or even Zeflin was out to get you either. I'm aware. Each had unique circumstances but the general thread for at least you and P6 imo is the incongruity between my argument and your worldview and it's a lot easier to attack my position than it is to reconfigure your worldview (let alone deal with the fallout of that). You may say "back at ya" or something but the thing is it's not the same at all because my political position isn't popular, hegemonic or even one I thought worth considering until I really thought critically about it all during Obama's 2nd term. It's not like you used to be a well-versed communist and struggled through the worldview remodeling it would take to be where you are now. To me it is logically in-congruent to say revolution requires small arms, those in power won't give up power anyway but through violence and will respond violently, so we must have a violent revolution. And then say when you bring up the revolution you are not advocating for a violent revolution when you also believe that it is inevitable. I don't think a single person here doesn't know that's at least one of your ongoing issues with my positions. To me if you advocate for something that leads to a inevitable conclusion, then you are advocating for the inevitable conclusion. I'm OK with that part, I think it is interesting to discuss why you think it inevitable, or impossible to change otherwise. I'm also interested in discussing if the cost of the inevitability is worth the result, and how you make sure that the result is as intended because there is such a high cost. You're free to think all of that/have those opinions. What I am not interested is skipping the entire important middle part if you believe the start leads to an inevitable outcome. So to me if you want regime change and not revolution, that is possible without violence, at least not a outright war. But it requires time, education, getting a incredible amount of people on board. It was not that long ago when people thought throwing a apple or grass in the landfill was fine because it was going into the ground. It has taken a long time to get some of the population to understand how the lack of oxygen, pressure, all the "stuff" it is around creates methane gas and leachate. This is why there are many organic programs popping up in various cities and businesses. It is not happening as fast as I would like, it is not happening everywhere. But it is happening without violence, and with much fewer negative consequences then if we forced it on everyone after a revolution involving small arms. + Show Spoiler + Honestly this seems to have shifted into a semantic argument and you repeating an argument about being optimistic about programs I've demonstrated are wholly inadequate and largely incapable of being scaled to a degree/in a time frame to make them of much value. EDIT: I think fildun deserves a response to his direct question though. Which I'd gather from this post is "no I don't think it's a mischaracterization", which then makes me wonder about the Israel thing, and others. | ||
|
Jealous
10097 Posts
In the thread, GH made a post that was along the lines of "We need a revolution," but when probed about how this revolution would go or what it was meant to achieve, he made a post that was along the lines of "It's not up to me to explain and coordinate a revolution." Did I understand this right? I can go back and pull the quotes if needed. At that point, as a silent observer, I was done with reading what he has to say about revolution. It's just hot air. How are you going to take a position that has a future-facing objective but not provide any reasoning for how that objective could be achieved and why? This doesn't work in any context. "We should throw a party," says GH. "Okay, how are we going to get supplies for the party? Who is going to buy the keg, whose house are we doing it at?" is the logical response. "Oh, it's not up to me to plan the party." Well, that was a load of wasted time discussing parties, wasn't it? "We should get a dog." "Who is going to walk it?" "Oh, it's not up to me to discuss the details of dog ownership - I just want you to disprove that we should get a dog." Thus, I can see how it is infernally frustrating to deal with someone who (seemingly) zealously believes in something, but isn't interested in discussing why they believe in it. It's a waste of time to argue against a position that hasn't been adequately defended, and it is almost arrogant to expect others to overlook this and address the vague idea without specifics provided. For example, if GH offered one cause-effect-resolution argument, people could actually explain why a revolution isn't necessary, or agree that it is necessary, regardless of the nature of said revolution. A possible example is Cause: The wealth gap is growing and this has been proven to have a direct correlation to standards of healthcare, so poor people are receiving worse health care when they need it most. Effect: Poor people are incentivized to revolt against the status quo. Resolution: A revolution, once having toppled the standing government, can change regulations on income and wealth disparity through taxation, and systematically improve the distribution of good medical practitioners and organizations while allowing free healthcare to all. In response, someone could argue that these things are achievable through other means. As JimmiC said above, education would be one of them, incentivizing the development of healthcare systems in underprivileged neighborhoods, voting for the direct attribution of tax funds into medical technology that would overcome the shortage of accessible healthcare in poor areas of the country, put limitations on health insurance minimums and increase minimum coverage standards legally, so on and so forth. This is a possible discussion that at least I would be interested in having. However, missing the talking points, what is there to even talk about? "We need a revolution." "I don't think so. How would a revolution achieve desirable changes?" "It's not up to me to plan the details of a revolution." "Oh, well it's not up to me to explain why we don't need a revolution that doesn't have a plan." | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22696 Posts
On July 26 2019 01:41 Jealous wrote: I only lurk in the thread and thus I probably pay more sparse and less intimate attention to the discourse, and also tune out shitfests to an extent, so the following may be inaccurate and if it is then I apologize in advance. In the thread, GH made a post that was along the lines of "We need a revolution," but when probed about how this revolution would go or what it was meant to achieve, he made a post that was along the lines of "It's not up to me to explain and coordinate a revolution." Did I understand this right? I can go back and pull the quotes if needed. At that point, as a silent observer, I was done with reading what he has to say about revolution. It's just hot air. How are you going to take a position that has a future-facing objective but not provide any reasoning for how that objective could be achieved and why? This doesn't work in any context. "We should throw a party," says GH. "Okay, how are we going to get supplies for the party? Who is going to buy the keg, whose house are we doing it at?" is the logical response. "Oh, it's not up to me to plan the party." Well, that was a load of wasted time discussing parties, wasn't it? "We should get a dog." "Who is going to walk it?" "Oh, it's not up to me to discuss the details of dog ownership - I just want you to disprove that we should get a dog." Thus, I can see how it is infernally frustrating to deal with someone who (seemingly) zealously believes in something, but isn't interested in discussing why they believe in it. It's a waste of time to argue against a position that hasn't been adequately defended, and it is almost arrogant to expect others to overlook this and address the vague idea without specifics provided. For example, if GH offered one cause-effect-resolution argument, people could actually explain why a revolution isn't necessary, or agree that it is necessary, regardless of the nature of said revolution. A possible example is Cause: The wealth gap is growing and this has been proven to have a direct correlation to standards of healthcare, so poor people are receiving worse health care when they need it most. Effect: Poor people are incentivized to revolt against the status quo. Resolution: A revolution, once having toppled the standing government, can change regulations on income and wealth disparity through taxation, and systematically improve the distribution of good medical practitioners and organizations while allowing free healthcare to all. In response, someone could argue that these things are achievable through other means. As JimmiC said above, education would be one of them, incentivizing the development of healthcare systems in underprivileged neighborhoods, voting for the direct attribution of tax funds into medical technology that would overcome the shortage of accessible healthcare in poor areas of the country, put limitations on health insurance minimums and increase minimum coverage standards legally, so on and so forth. This is a possible discussion that at least I would be interested in having. However, missing the talking points, what is there to even talk about? "We need a revolution." "I don't think so. How would a revolution achieve desirable changes?" "It's not up to me to plan the details of a revolution." "Oh, well it's not up to me to explain why we don't need a revolution that doesn't have a plan." Lot there but let me be brief. If I say "we should throw a party" and you look at me to do everything I'm gunna look at you like you're a dick. "I said we", if you're agreeing that's all of us and if you prefer your personal comfort at home or don't want to help, you aren't part of "we" and I'm probably not inviting you. Same thing if I say "we should get a dog" and you agree then expect me to do all of the work while you only want enjoyment and 0 responsibility. I'm 100% willing to discuss details, but "discuss" isn't "put my ideas up to be shit on by counterrevolutionaries who by and large lack a ( or haven't demonstrated) familiarity with the theoretical underpinnings and historical context resulting in questions and demands that are indicative not of inquiry but inquisition". | ||
|
Jealous
10097 Posts
On July 26 2019 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote: Lot there but let me be brief. If I say "we should throw a party" and you look at me to do everything I'm gunna look at you like you're a dick. "I said we", if you're agreeing that's all of us and if you prefer your personal comfort at home or don't want to help, you aren't part of "we" and I'm probably not inviting you. Same thing if I say "we should get a dog" and you agree then expect me to do all of the work while you only want enjoyment and 0 responsibility. I'm 100% willing to discuss details, but "discuss" isn't "put my ideas up to be shit on by counterrevolutionaries who by and large lack a ( or haven't demonstrated) familiarity with the theoretical underpinnings and historical context resulting in questions and demands that are indicative not of inquiry but inquisition". I think you misunderstood my analogies as it demanding that you actually DO all of the things required to throw a party or own a dog. I refuse to believe that you think I am demanding that you actually START a revolution based on how you interpreted my analogy. The aim was to show that just throwing an idea out there with no support at all doesn't achieve anything. We are still at the planning stage here, not at the actual task distribution stage. In the planning stage, as a person who is seemingly interested in throwing a party, the onus is on you to express your desires in a constructive way. I can completely sympathize with the fact that you don't want to put in hours of work to flesh out your position (although, to be fair, you seem to be putting in hours of work to defend your right to not flesh it out) only to have someone respond with "lol what a dumb idea," but why not take it piecemeal? How about the example I provided? That took me a few minutes at most to put together for the sake of a hypothetical position you could take. Also, I can now first hand see what other people mean by condescension. Why even talk about revolution if your initial position is that your opponents are unqualified to talk about revolution, and only you are? | ||
| ||
