|
And I don't know why talking about how something fixes something, the inevitability's of that action and will that solution actually fix the problem are unfair questions. Or why someone passionate about the their solution is either unwilling or unable to answer them.
I don't think anyone is going to be able to explain it to you satisfactorily. I just want to not have to continue to be one of the people who responds to you about it (without a choice in the matter).
I'm not asking for anything but explicit permission (from moderation) to not have to respond to you directly, that's it. I thought that used to be a perfectly acceptable strategy afaik.
Neb and Drone are probably the two nicest posters ever to stick around the thread with seemingly endless patience, that you think they are picking on you (or don't understand your argument) instead of trying to assist you is emblematic of the miscommunications at the center of this conflict. Kwark was picking on you to be fair, but that's just Kwark.
|
We all come here because we like it and have fun. I hope so anyway.
Now is anyone having fun?
Is anyone feeling good while writing these posts?
Does anyone think staff is having fun and feeling good in these situations?
If you aren't having fun, if you aren't feeling good, while writing up these posts/PMs, or any post or PM, it's probably a bad idea that isn't going to make you have fun or feel good in the future either.
And if you are well then ummm *shrug*
|
On July 26 2019 07:31 DeepElemBlues wrote:
We all come here because we like it and have fun. I hope so anyway.
Now is anyone having fun?
Is anyone feeling good while writing these posts?
Does anyone think staff is having fun and feeling good in these situations?
If you aren't having fun, if you aren't feeling good, while writing up these posts/PMs, or any post or PM, it's probably a bad idea that isn't going to make you have fun or feel good in the future either.
And if you are well then ummm *shrug*
Some people just like the sight of their own posts.
|
|
|
|
|
On July 26 2019 08:04 JimmiC wrote:I don't think Drone is picking on me, I think he is extremely reasonable. I do believe that Neb is mad at me and starting to attack me. Which he can do, all good, and I will keep responding to him. So on that note I'll use Drones post as jumping off post to new beginnings!! Show nested quote +On July 26 2019 02:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:In my opinion the 'how' of the revolution is only really relevant once people accept the 'why' of the revolution. If people reject the why of the revolution then there's no real point in them attacking the lack of a how - they'd be opposed either way. And it is a very common theme that the people most vocally decrying the lack of a how are people who think a revolution is not necessary to fix the problems threatening our societies.  I am not attacking this position, I honestly don't know what I believe in this regard myself. But if you think incremental gradual improvement is sufficient to handle the biggest issues we face then that's where your disagreement with GH lies, not in 'how do we undertake the revolution'. Going further, you might argue that whether you support the revolution hinges on its execution, because you might share the following two sentiments at the same time :that a revolution is probably necessary to achieve the rapid societal change required to handle climate change, and that most revolutions throughout history have caused such immediate societal damage that it is difficult to estimate at what point, if any, they ended up as a net positive (and perhaps even that this point very rarely happened to be 'during my life expectancy'). However, while on the face of things I feel that to be an entirely rational point of view to take, it ends up somewhat missing a crucial element: The socialist revolution is both for and by the people. If you agree with GH that there is a need for a revolution, you should not ask him 'tell me how to go about achieving this', you should go 'I agree with your fight, let us convince more people', because that is the central element: the agreement of a significant majority of the population that the situation is sufficiently dire for more drastic measures. (Historically in violent uprising, ideally through voting for a revolutionary candidate - however then GH feels confident that a revolutionary candidate winning a vote would be unlikely to actually get to rule (which again is an opinion with significant historical foundation.  ) In a way it's not up to GH to explain how to undertake the revolution, once you agree on its necessity, it's up to you to discuss how to do it with GH. (Arguing for incremental improvement rather than revolution is of course an entirely valid course of discussion, but it's a separate one from how do we undertake the revolution.) I am on board with the revolution as long as it is not violent.
What do you suggest non-violent revolutionaries do when they are targeted by the state for harassment, abuse, incarceration, and/or assassination like in the cases of MLK jr and Fred Hampton for example?
(should respond in the appropriate thread imo).
|
|
|
idk despite me being critical i still thought it to be a productive conversation. i’m not not enjoying it. what’s different between disagreeing about politics vs how we post? in any case i learned some shit.
|
I don't know about having "fun", but certainly get enjoyment and some sort of amusement. And I'm sure at least one staff is too.
|
I submit this loop as supporting evidence to my argument that I should be allowed to determine the degree to which I engage with JimmiC's arguments rather than the forced arrangement of me being trapped in this endless loop of his "direct questions".
On July 27 2019 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2019 07:53 JimmiC wrote:On July 27 2019 07:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2019 07:15 JimmiC wrote:On July 27 2019 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2019 06:37 JimmiC wrote:On July 27 2019 06:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2019 03:51 JimmiC wrote:On July 27 2019 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2019 00:35 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I'm assuming you've never been to Cuba, I'm sure you wouldn't want that kind of revolution. The Cuban revolution was only successful depending on your view for a select few the top 1% while everyone else lives in horrible misery. I believe we need a revolution that removes the current government, Cuba accomplished that. I do want that kind of revolution (as opposed to the many that didn't get that far). I don't want violence, which is one reason why I believe revolution is necessary. (So does JimmiC for this exercise btw, but he's not playing his role very convincingly imo) I think it's obvious (whether I agree with your characterization of Cuba or not) that my goal isn't for the 1% to live in luxury and everyone else in "horrible misery". But does it not make you think when someone from there, and with current family tells you that it more authoritarian than Socialist that perhaps that could be true? Whether it's more socialist or authoritarian seems totally irrelevant to my question to you about your alternative to non-violent revolutionaries defending themselves from a terrorist state that is targeting them? But sure I listen to people from other countries about what they believe is happening there and balance it against other available information (like other residents). As a quick pause. I'm really confused to why I was misrepresenting your position. It appears that you are completely convinced that any revolution will end up being violent no matter the intent. Was the issue that I said you were advocating for a violent revolution, when I should have said you are advocating for a revolution that you believe 100% will become violent? Was it a semantics thing? No that's not the issue, though your framing/language/confusion is certainly part of it. Right now the issue is you're supposed to be pro-revolution (for the purpose of this exercise) and tbh you're not very convincing or answering direct questions (like I'm being required to do for you). This doesn't feel dialogical (Freire) to me at all at the moment. Norway has moved closer to socialism through working within the system. My thought is you don't consider that a revolution because it moved to slow? No, that's not my position, as I've articulated. I don't think Norwegians think they (recently) had a revolution, but I could be mistaken? If you're not going to answer direct questions, I think we're done here. EDIT: I took a peek and some do think they had a "violent/non-violent revolution/struggle"(~80+ years ago). How they did it was through non-violent direct action (people died though) and circumstance. The first I've been calling for, the latter I can't really affect. I did, I gave you a couple examples of revolutions that did not take violence? Yes I heard others say what your position was on Israel not yours, and that the post a referenced was tongue and cheek even thought I didn't read it as such. So go ahead what is your position on Israel? Should it be removed from the map? And if yes, what does that mean and how do you see it happening? Examples of "revolutions" that did not take violence isn't what I asked you for. Drone told you I've answered both parts of the first question and the second. If you're intention is to get me to answer them again I'm not under the impression my requirement to respond to direct questions from you includes ones that have been ruled answered. I think we're done. + Show Spoiler +On July 24 2019 05:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2019 05:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2019 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
GH was actually commanded to respond. But I think it was intended to be just two direct questions/clarifications some pages ago. I honestly don't know what "direct questions" are in the opinion of my commander, because JimmiC's been harassing me like this for months with little to no consequence. Practically everyone except the person giving me that instruction seems to recognize how problematic he's being. I understood it to be these two bolded sentences towards the end of one of Jimmy's posts; Do you want a bloody violent revolution to eliminate the "capitalist class"? If so who are in the capitalist class?
Do you think Israel should be removed from the map? Do you think this will require violence and murder. Do you think this is a fair price to pay because of the atrocities that Israel has committed to the Palestinians? Now, I'm going a bit far in making assumptions and sharing my thoughts about communication you've had with another moderator. It's important for me to clarify that I think the intention was a good one, and also a sensible one, in that there was a hope that if these two questions were clarified, the conversation could move on and the thread would clean up. I do now fully agree that you have done a more than satisfactory job fleshing out your thoughts, and I hope we can just.. move on.
|
|
|
I, too, would prefer it if we could have the US Pol thread not be 60% GH vs JimmiC passive aggressive fighting, and instead actually be about US politics.
|
|
|
I too would enjoy a separate socialism/capitalism thread. It seems like a recurring theme that goes on for several pages each time, where not a lot of it has to do with US politics specifically.
|
Could have sworn I asked KwarK if it was okay to do that. GH is mostly interested in philosophy of politics. There are others who share his same inclination. A separate thread to discuss that would be best for everyone.
|
On July 27 2019 23:40 Neneu wrote:
I too would enjoy a separate socialism/capitalism thread. It seems like a recurring theme that goes on for several pages each time, where not a lot of it has to do with US politics specifically.
Are you saying despite capitalism being global and central to: US politics, exploitation here and abroad in US interests, and conflicts/wars throughout US history, that an alternative shouldn't be considered a topic for US politics?
I would say that's part of why we have concentration camps, mercenaries, and the president we do. I don't think analysis absent consideration of capitalism is honest or complete. Without capitalism Trump is a nobody and never becomes president imo for example.
I think a "dump on Trump/Republicans" thread would be more satisfactory for those not enjoying the analytical stuff.
|
|
|
to a point i disagree, for the same reason as earlier. one alone can not ram a discussion down anyone’s throat. it takes a few, and at that point it is it’s own conversation. and to a point, not everyone needs to feel like they have a place in, or any interest at all, in every conversation.
whether it’s still enough to warrant its own thread, perhaps. though i’ll note if not for this conversation we’d just be back to talking about how Trump is a racist for the billionth time for which many others have all the same complaints.
it is absolutely impossible to make everyone happy.
|
|
|
i’d certainly be down for reading it that’s for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
