|
On May 14 2020 05:40 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 05:33 Danglars wrote:On May 14 2020 04:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I think that applies a lot to the right wing posters moreso than the left wing, just because there aren't a lot of them posting. The quality of those on the right posting has dropped considerably. I mean, is there really a right winger Trump voter that posts regularly in that thread anymore? It just looked like Nettles dips in once in a while. It's hard to call that a lack of quality, when it just so happens the remaining 1-2 guys not banned or gone just happen to be that kind of poster. I still read the thread, though not quite as frequently nowadays, so apologies if I missed you. That's what I'm talking about the drop in quality. xDaunt kept the thread alive with thoughtful engagements even though he was against 90% of the thread it seemed. And I think a lot of people appreciated his candor (not necessarily his beliefs in certain matters). Now we just have left vs far left (as they claim to be) arguing over semantics and how evil the US is vs other countries, or how the left isn't better than the right etc etc so on and so forth. Policy discussions are rare and if they start, are abandoned because we cycle back into the previous topics we've already and continue to rehash. I've voiced my frustration on that multiple times but always get rebuffed by the holders of the moral high ground.
Okay in that respect I agree with you. And I'm not going to rev up the blame game, since everything I thought should be said was said back when I ate two subjective bans, and nothing from moderation or poster response has really changed since that era.
I wager someone that comes in thinking Trump is the obvious best choice in the 2020 election is, by definition, against 90% of the thread. Your mileage may vary with using that as a metric. I did gradually decrease the number of posters I would respond to, since it did tend to shit up the thread with so many disagreements responding to one person. Honestly, the alternatives to Trump and GOP policy are the better focus of a thread united against it, and provoke more interesting discussion than frequent regressions from the mean held viewpoint.
On May 14 2020 06:09 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 04:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I think that applies a lot to the right wing posters moreso than the left wing, just because there aren't a lot of them posting. The quality of those on the right posting has dropped considerably. From my perspective, it seems that they aren't really defending anything of merit. Just trying to soothe the ugly that is the current political sphere of the party. When they do that and don't bring much of any substance behind it, most will just apply the labels you mentioned Serm.
I think interpretive charity would work, but only if the posters themselves weren't intentionally vague and obtuse. A lot of "gotcha" statements and worming to get posters to say things they don't believe is irksome to say the least. If we have to constantly try to interpret what the meaning is, we'll just lazily force an incorrect ideology on you and wait for you to clarify. It's a round-robin game that seems to never end. And when some of us do bring up the sad state of discourse, they get bullied into leaving the thread. In the case of a poster being "vague" intentionally or not the Ideal would be for people to ask them to clarify what they were saying Instead of passing judgment on what they said and just making assumptions on what they said. Ie when I brought up the government telling people who were democratically going about their business what they had to vote for and decide as a people being problematic I was memed for "we're still going to have the same legal structure for socialism as capitalism because why would there be any difference?" Because oh why would I assume anything would change when you change the fundamental structure of the way decisions work in the economy. If someone had said "why wouldn't what the government is doing now with sexual harassment and racial profiling in employment be different in socialism instead of what we're doing with capitalism" the conversation would have continued. Instead, we work with Schrodinger's socialism where everything is known and unarguable while also easy to implement and could change easily, but no one does it because rich people are evil and should die.
I also grate against what you term Schrodinger's socialism ... a hard-to-define thing that involves putting some artificial burdens on defending capitalistic/market/democratic responses, and removing those burdens when it means advancing socialistic alternatives. It's like one must accept that since the current system has so many known failings, and that they are severe in some aspects, that major alternative schemes must be better by default (and are assumed better until proven worse, somehow).
I'm a little lost to see how the charge of "vague"ness applies to the right wing from the past, but I'd have to see quoted examples to get a feel of what people mean. I've heard the accusation before, but never really saw the merit, except for maybe some Nettles and RealityIsKing.
|
On May 14 2020 07:52 Nebuchad wrote:
Ok but in all seriousness, you're aware that neither GH nor I thinks socialism is going to solve things magically, right? So what am I to do with you posting that?
In the last discussion I had, at least three people attacked me because socialism won't solve racism, a claim nobody ever made on the forum.
Either this is a case of lacking some of that "interpretative charity" that was discussed earlier, or this is just about talking about socialism in general.
I think the posters you're referring to meant for you to give an alternative to what we have that will help soften the issues. Nothing will solve racism. I also think that what was needed was for you to explicitly state that and move the conversation to how socialism as a structure would replace/enhance what is currently in place. The major issue is that you nor GH are taking into the transition of democracy/capitalism to socialism/mercantilism. That needs to be addressed in full before you make progress with some people.
You seem to want to be a victim of sorts and I don't understand where that is coming from. I'm not coming down or talking down. I'm just saying if you're going to suggest socialism as a structure is better than the democracy the majority of the world practices, while taking into account all of it's failings as it's been practiced thus far, is best you need to provide something substantial for those people.
|
On May 14 2020 08:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 07:52 Nebuchad wrote:
Ok but in all seriousness, you're aware that neither GH nor I thinks socialism is going to solve things magically, right? So what am I to do with you posting that?
In the last discussion I had, at least three people attacked me because socialism won't solve racism, a claim nobody ever made on the forum.
Either this is a case of lacking some of that "interpretative charity" that was discussed earlier, or this is just about talking about socialism in general. I think the posters you're referring to meant for you to give an alternative to what we have that will help soften the issues. Nothing will solve racism. I also think that what was needed was for you to explicitly state that and move the conversation to how socialism as a structure would replace/enhance what is currently in place. The major issue is that you nor GH are taking into the transition of democracy/capitalism to socialism/mercantilism. That needs to be addressed in full before you make progress with some people. You seem to want to be a victim of sorts and I don't understand where that is coming from. I'm not coming down or talking down. I'm just saying if you're going to suggest socialism as a structure is better than the democracy the majority of the world practices, while taking into account all of it's failings as it's been practiced thus far, is best you need to provide something substantial for those people.
But we were not talking about racism. At all. They brought it up. Is it really my responsibility to get the conversation back on the rails when they're derailing it? Are they non-player characters?
I think both GH and I spend a lot of time talking about what socialism would improve and how it would improve it. It's just that people have unrealistic expectations, both in terms of how figured out our plans are (btw GH and I don't even have the same plan) and in terms of how perfect the result is supposed to be afterwards in order for the change to be worth it (hence, in my opinion, the talk of magic).
And keep in mind that all the discussions about implementation that I have, I'm already having them against my will. I don't want people to follow my ideas, I'm not a leader, I'm not that smart. I don't even think having leaders is a good idea. The questions that you have, I would much rather we solve them together. But then people insisted that we should have a plan figured out for them before they even start the conversation, so I went and broadly checked out some plans.
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome back Farv!! You know I've missed those kinds of posts from you. Question is, will you do the other part you know I'm waiting for.
I get the impression that responding to the substance of your post will just trigger more of it if you don't.
|
Maybe if you hadn't spent the last few months answering 75% of the posts I made attributing positions to me that I don't hold, the same positions that you attribute to GH (and are also wrong when you attribute them to GH, it's a mystery how you don't get banned for posting this atrociously), just because you get a weird boner out of taunting me, or if Biff hadn't called me a leninist for expressing the very mild and necessary anticapitalist position that we shouldn't have capitalists, or if Zero wasn't also clearly annoyed with my posting in the thread, or if I couldn't tell obvious gaslighting when I saw it, then you'd have a point, Jimmi.
|
On May 14 2020 08:36 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 08:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 14 2020 07:52 Nebuchad wrote:
Ok but in all seriousness, you're aware that neither GH nor I thinks socialism is going to solve things magically, right? So what am I to do with you posting that?
In the last discussion I had, at least three people attacked me because socialism won't solve racism, a claim nobody ever made on the forum.
Either this is a case of lacking some of that "interpretative charity" that was discussed earlier, or this is just about talking about socialism in general. I think the posters you're referring to meant for you to give an alternative to what we have that will help soften the issues. Nothing will solve racism. I also think that what was needed was for you to explicitly state that and move the conversation to how socialism as a structure would replace/enhance what is currently in place. The major issue is that you nor GH are taking into the transition of democracy/capitalism to socialism/mercantilism. That needs to be addressed in full before you make progress with some people. You seem to want to be a victim of sorts and I don't understand where that is coming from. I'm not coming down or talking down. I'm just saying if you're going to suggest socialism as a structure is better than the democracy the majority of the world practices, while taking into account all of it's failings as it's been practiced thus far, is best you need to provide something substantial for those people. But we were not talking about racism. At all. They brought it up. Is it really my responsibility to get the conversation back on the rails when they're derailing it? Are they non-player characters? I think both GH and I spend a lot of time talking about what socialism would improve and how it would improve it. It's just that people have unrealistic expectations, both in terms of how figured out our plans are (btw GH and I don't even have the same plan) and in terms of how perfect the result is supposed to be afterwards in order for the change to be worth it (hence, in my opinion, the talk of magic). And keep in mind that all the discussions about implementation that I have, I'm already having them against my will. I don't want people to follow my ideas, I'm not a leader, I'm not that smart. I don't even think having leaders is a good idea. The questions that you have, I would much rather we solve them together. But then people insisted that we should have a plan figured out for them before they even start the conversation, so I went and broadly checked out some plans.
Yes. Plainly state that you only want to discuss the topics raised and stick to them. If they don't want to follow, then don't engage. It doesn't seem that hard, honestly. Or just don't respond (with an explicit statement of why you're not).
And the discussions you have on implementation have been responded to by various people. Did you not find some of that food for thought? Are you not open to having your views challenged? I'd wager that most of us are the people who are on your side, but need further evidence that you're not just being idealistic and naive.
To summarize and end the conversation, if you will, when you bring up socialism outside of the discussion and insist that it will be better because, provide substance. Don't tell us to go read the literature. We know where to find it. We want your thoughts. And if you have already given them, refer back to them. If people continue to hound you over it, then moderation (which includes you KwarK) should step in and get things back on track.
I don't mind discussing socialism with you. I think you have some ideas. When I ask for how you see it as replacing a system that is ingrained and working rather well for the majority of the people (regardless of the conspiracy theories and aberrations), then please provide something I can work off of. Otherwise, we're going to be talking past each other while agreeing on the fundamentals.
On May 14 2020 09:04 Nebuchad wrote:
Maybe if you hadn't spent the last few months answering 75% of the posts I made attributing positions to me that I don't hold, the same positions that you attribute to GH (and are also wrong when you attribute them to GH, it's a mystery how you don't get banned for posting this atrociously), just because you get a weird boner out of taunting me, or if Biff hadn't called me a leninist for expressing the very mild and necessary anticapitalist position that we shouldn't have capitalists, or if Zero wasn't also clearly annoyed with my posting in the thread, or if I couldn't tell obvious gaslighting when I saw it, then you'd have a point, Jimmi.
Refer to above. I'm not annoyed. I just don't want discussions derailed into "socialism to the rescue!" without substance, when we are discussing policies that work within the structure we have to move us forward.
|
On May 14 2020 08:45 JimmiC wrote:
TL-DR "Globalists" and "capitalist elites" are the same thing, scape goats created by populists to put put blame on because they have no actual solutions to the real and complicated problems in the world.
This view is emblematic of why the political establishment is suffering quite a bit globally right now. Essentially you are saying if we can't solve the problem we shouldn't complain about the people who created it, defend it and profit from it.
|
Jimmi, xDaunt got banned for advocating violence, and get's very specific about it. I know GH has called for a bloody revolution, but I don't think he's ever directed his hate towards one specific person and advocated they should be assaulted.
|
On May 14 2020 09:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 08:36 Nebuchad wrote:On May 14 2020 08:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 14 2020 07:52 Nebuchad wrote:
Ok but in all seriousness, you're aware that neither GH nor I thinks socialism is going to solve things magically, right? So what am I to do with you posting that?
In the last discussion I had, at least three people attacked me because socialism won't solve racism, a claim nobody ever made on the forum.
Either this is a case of lacking some of that "interpretative charity" that was discussed earlier, or this is just about talking about socialism in general. I think the posters you're referring to meant for you to give an alternative to what we have that will help soften the issues. Nothing will solve racism. I also think that what was needed was for you to explicitly state that and move the conversation to how socialism as a structure would replace/enhance what is currently in place. The major issue is that you nor GH are taking into the transition of democracy/capitalism to socialism/mercantilism. That needs to be addressed in full before you make progress with some people. You seem to want to be a victim of sorts and I don't understand where that is coming from. I'm not coming down or talking down. I'm just saying if you're going to suggest socialism as a structure is better than the democracy the majority of the world practices, while taking into account all of it's failings as it's been practiced thus far, is best you need to provide something substantial for those people. But we were not talking about racism. At all. They brought it up. Is it really my responsibility to get the conversation back on the rails when they're derailing it? Are they non-player characters? I think both GH and I spend a lot of time talking about what socialism would improve and how it would improve it. It's just that people have unrealistic expectations, both in terms of how figured out our plans are (btw GH and I don't even have the same plan) and in terms of how perfect the result is supposed to be afterwards in order for the change to be worth it (hence, in my opinion, the talk of magic). And keep in mind that all the discussions about implementation that I have, I'm already having them against my will. I don't want people to follow my ideas, I'm not a leader, I'm not that smart. I don't even think having leaders is a good idea. The questions that you have, I would much rather we solve them together. But then people insisted that we should have a plan figured out for them before they even start the conversation, so I went and broadly checked out some plans. Yes. Plainly state that you only want to discuss the topics raised and stick to them. If they don't want to follow, then don't engage. It doesn't seem that hard, honestly. Or just don't respond (with an explicit statement of why you're not). And the discussions you have on implementation have been responded to by various people. Did you not find some of that food for thought? Are you not open to having your views challenged? I'd wager that most of us are the people who are on your side, but need further evidence that you're not just being idealistic and naive. To summarize and end the conversation, if you will, when you bring up socialism outside of the discussion and insist that it will be better because, provide substance. Don't tell us to go read the literature. We know where to find it. We want your thoughts. And if you have already given them, refer back to them. If people continue to hound you over it, then moderation (which includes you KwarK) should step in and get things back on track. I don't mind discussing socialism with you. I think you have some ideas. When I ask for how you see it as replacing a system that is ingrained and working rather well for the majority of the people (regardless of the conspiracy theories and aberrations), then please provide something I can work off of. Otherwise, we're going to be talking past each other while agreeing on the fundamentals. Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 09:04 Nebuchad wrote:
Maybe if you hadn't spent the last few months answering 75% of the posts I made attributing positions to me that I don't hold, the same positions that you attribute to GH (and are also wrong when you attribute them to GH, it's a mystery how you don't get banned for posting this atrociously), just because you get a weird boner out of taunting me, or if Biff hadn't called me a leninist for expressing the very mild and necessary anticapitalist position that we shouldn't have capitalists, or if Zero wasn't also clearly annoyed with my posting in the thread, or if I couldn't tell obvious gaslighting when I saw it, then you'd have a point, Jimmi. Refer to above. I'm not annoyed. I just don't want discussions derailed into "socialism to the rescue!" without substance, when we are discussing policies that work within the structure we have to move us forward.
Well, it's clear that you're not reading the conversations I'm having if you think most people are on my side. Which I understand given your reactions here, I wouldn't expect you to. In the last one I couldn't even get them to agree that democracy was the best system of governance. If people are not humanists they're not going to like socialism, that's logical.
You just spent half a page telling me how I should improve my posting, can you at least agree that you have some issues with my posting? Please?
Shockey, I don't think GH has called for a "bloody revolution", in my opinion that is Jimmi's formula, and he repeats it so often that you've forgotten he made it up.
Let's verify this together:
https://tl.net/forum/search.php?q="bloody revolution"&t=c&f=-1&u=Greenhorizons&gb=date&d=
https://tl.net/forum/search.php?q="bloody revolution"&t=c&f=-1&u=JimmiC&gb=date&d=
|
The thread is best when it is full of witty insights like
Pence has god on his side. By transitive property, so does trump. Who needs masks?
I agree with Neb as well.
Shockey, I don't think GH has called for a "bloody revolution", in my opinion that is Jimmi's formula, and he repeats it so often that you've forgotten he made it up.
Wow! I had started to tune him out and hadn't realized it was that ridiculous. Some real gems in there.
|
On May 14 2020 09:17 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 09:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 14 2020 08:36 Nebuchad wrote:On May 14 2020 08:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 14 2020 07:52 Nebuchad wrote:
Ok but in all seriousness, you're aware that neither GH nor I thinks socialism is going to solve things magically, right? So what am I to do with you posting that?
In the last discussion I had, at least three people attacked me because socialism won't solve racism, a claim nobody ever made on the forum.
Either this is a case of lacking some of that "interpretative charity" that was discussed earlier, or this is just about talking about socialism in general. I think the posters you're referring to meant for you to give an alternative to what we have that will help soften the issues. Nothing will solve racism. I also think that what was needed was for you to explicitly state that and move the conversation to how socialism as a structure would replace/enhance what is currently in place. The major issue is that you nor GH are taking into the transition of democracy/capitalism to socialism/mercantilism. That needs to be addressed in full before you make progress with some people. You seem to want to be a victim of sorts and I don't understand where that is coming from. I'm not coming down or talking down. I'm just saying if you're going to suggest socialism as a structure is better than the democracy the majority of the world practices, while taking into account all of it's failings as it's been practiced thus far, is best you need to provide something substantial for those people. But we were not talking about racism. At all. They brought it up. Is it really my responsibility to get the conversation back on the rails when they're derailing it? Are they non-player characters? I think both GH and I spend a lot of time talking about what socialism would improve and how it would improve it. It's just that people have unrealistic expectations, both in terms of how figured out our plans are (btw GH and I don't even have the same plan) and in terms of how perfect the result is supposed to be afterwards in order for the change to be worth it (hence, in my opinion, the talk of magic). And keep in mind that all the discussions about implementation that I have, I'm already having them against my will. I don't want people to follow my ideas, I'm not a leader, I'm not that smart. I don't even think having leaders is a good idea. The questions that you have, I would much rather we solve them together. But then people insisted that we should have a plan figured out for them before they even start the conversation, so I went and broadly checked out some plans. Yes. Plainly state that you only want to discuss the topics raised and stick to them. If they don't want to follow, then don't engage. It doesn't seem that hard, honestly. Or just don't respond (with an explicit statement of why you're not). And the discussions you have on implementation have been responded to by various people. Did you not find some of that food for thought? Are you not open to having your views challenged? I'd wager that most of us are the people who are on your side, but need further evidence that you're not just being idealistic and naive. To summarize and end the conversation, if you will, when you bring up socialism outside of the discussion and insist that it will be better because, provide substance. Don't tell us to go read the literature. We know where to find it. We want your thoughts. And if you have already given them, refer back to them. If people continue to hound you over it, then moderation (which includes you KwarK) should step in and get things back on track. I don't mind discussing socialism with you. I think you have some ideas. When I ask for how you see it as replacing a system that is ingrained and working rather well for the majority of the people (regardless of the conspiracy theories and aberrations), then please provide something I can work off of. Otherwise, we're going to be talking past each other while agreeing on the fundamentals. On May 14 2020 09:04 Nebuchad wrote:
Maybe if you hadn't spent the last few months answering 75% of the posts I made attributing positions to me that I don't hold, the same positions that you attribute to GH (and are also wrong when you attribute them to GH, it's a mystery how you don't get banned for posting this atrociously), just because you get a weird boner out of taunting me, or if Biff hadn't called me a leninist for expressing the very mild and necessary anticapitalist position that we shouldn't have capitalists, or if Zero wasn't also clearly annoyed with my posting in the thread, or if I couldn't tell obvious gaslighting when I saw it, then you'd have a point, Jimmi. Refer to above. I'm not annoyed. I just don't want discussions derailed into "socialism to the rescue!" without substance, when we are discussing policies that work within the structure we have to move us forward. Well, it's clear that you're not reading the conversations I'm having if you think most people are on my side. Which I understand given your reactions here, I wouldn't expect you to. In the last one I couldn't even get them to agree that democracy was the best system of governance. If people are not humanists they're not going to like socialism, that's logical. You just spent half a page telling me how I should improve my posting, can you at least agree that you have some issues with my posting? Please? Shockey, I don't think GH has called for a "bloody revolution", in my opinion that is Jimmi's formula, and he repeats it so often that you've forgotten he made it up. Let's verify this together: https://tl.net/forum/search.php?q="bloody revolution"&t=c&f=-1&u=Greenhorizons&gb=date&d=https://tl.net/forum/search.php?q="bloody revolution"&t=c&f=-1&u=JimmiC&gb=date&d=
People agree on the fundamental of what you post. It's the substance that people are in disagreement with (how is that not coming through clearly to you? This is legit as I want to know how better to communicate with you and others.).
And I'm sure I already stated that you do a good job until you start becoming a jerk, which you are kind of being right now. I'm trying to discern, along with you and others, how to keep the thread from being hijacked with the same 3 topics over and over. I'm honestly trying to understand what the issue is so that we can have a proper discussion in the pol thread proper, but it doesn't seem likely.
And GH has called for a bloody revolution in a roundabout way saying that it is inevitable and that the proles must be ready to defend themselves ala Malcolm X.
|
On May 14 2020 09:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 09:17 Nebuchad wrote:On May 14 2020 09:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 14 2020 08:36 Nebuchad wrote:On May 14 2020 08:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 14 2020 07:52 Nebuchad wrote:
Ok but in all seriousness, you're aware that neither GH nor I thinks socialism is going to solve things magically, right? So what am I to do with you posting that?
In the last discussion I had, at least three people attacked me because socialism won't solve racism, a claim nobody ever made on the forum.
Either this is a case of lacking some of that "interpretative charity" that was discussed earlier, or this is just about talking about socialism in general. I think the posters you're referring to meant for you to give an alternative to what we have that will help soften the issues. Nothing will solve racism. I also think that what was needed was for you to explicitly state that and move the conversation to how socialism as a structure would replace/enhance what is currently in place. The major issue is that you nor GH are taking into the transition of democracy/capitalism to socialism/mercantilism. That needs to be addressed in full before you make progress with some people. You seem to want to be a victim of sorts and I don't understand where that is coming from. I'm not coming down or talking down. I'm just saying if you're going to suggest socialism as a structure is better than the democracy the majority of the world practices, while taking into account all of it's failings as it's been practiced thus far, is best you need to provide something substantial for those people. But we were not talking about racism. At all. They brought it up. Is it really my responsibility to get the conversation back on the rails when they're derailing it? Are they non-player characters? I think both GH and I spend a lot of time talking about what socialism would improve and how it would improve it. It's just that people have unrealistic expectations, both in terms of how figured out our plans are (btw GH and I don't even have the same plan) and in terms of how perfect the result is supposed to be afterwards in order for the change to be worth it (hence, in my opinion, the talk of magic). And keep in mind that all the discussions about implementation that I have, I'm already having them against my will. I don't want people to follow my ideas, I'm not a leader, I'm not that smart. I don't even think having leaders is a good idea. The questions that you have, I would much rather we solve them together. But then people insisted that we should have a plan figured out for them before they even start the conversation, so I went and broadly checked out some plans. Yes. Plainly state that you only want to discuss the topics raised and stick to them. If they don't want to follow, then don't engage. It doesn't seem that hard, honestly. Or just don't respond (with an explicit statement of why you're not). And the discussions you have on implementation have been responded to by various people. Did you not find some of that food for thought? Are you not open to having your views challenged? I'd wager that most of us are the people who are on your side, but need further evidence that you're not just being idealistic and naive. To summarize and end the conversation, if you will, when you bring up socialism outside of the discussion and insist that it will be better because, provide substance. Don't tell us to go read the literature. We know where to find it. We want your thoughts. And if you have already given them, refer back to them. If people continue to hound you over it, then moderation (which includes you KwarK) should step in and get things back on track. I don't mind discussing socialism with you. I think you have some ideas. When I ask for how you see it as replacing a system that is ingrained and working rather well for the majority of the people (regardless of the conspiracy theories and aberrations), then please provide something I can work off of. Otherwise, we're going to be talking past each other while agreeing on the fundamentals. On May 14 2020 09:04 Nebuchad wrote:
Maybe if you hadn't spent the last few months answering 75% of the posts I made attributing positions to me that I don't hold, the same positions that you attribute to GH (and are also wrong when you attribute them to GH, it's a mystery how you don't get banned for posting this atrociously), just because you get a weird boner out of taunting me, or if Biff hadn't called me a leninist for expressing the very mild and necessary anticapitalist position that we shouldn't have capitalists, or if Zero wasn't also clearly annoyed with my posting in the thread, or if I couldn't tell obvious gaslighting when I saw it, then you'd have a point, Jimmi. Refer to above. I'm not annoyed. I just don't want discussions derailed into "socialism to the rescue!" without substance, when we are discussing policies that work within the structure we have to move us forward. Well, it's clear that you're not reading the conversations I'm having if you think most people are on my side. Which I understand given your reactions here, I wouldn't expect you to. In the last one I couldn't even get them to agree that democracy was the best system of governance. If people are not humanists they're not going to like socialism, that's logical. You just spent half a page telling me how I should improve my posting, can you at least agree that you have some issues with my posting? Please? Shockey, I don't think GH has called for a "bloody revolution", in my opinion that is Jimmi's formula, and he repeats it so often that you've forgotten he made it up. Let's verify this together: https://tl.net/forum/search.php?q="bloody revolution"&t=c&f=-1&u=Greenhorizons&gb=date&d=https://tl.net/forum/search.php?q="bloody revolution"&t=c&f=-1&u=JimmiC&gb=date&d= People agree on the fundamental of what you post. It's the substance that people are in disagreement with (how is that not coming through clearly to you? This is legit as I want to know how better to communicate with you and others.). And I'm sure I already stated that you do a good job until you start becoming a jerk, which you are kind of being right now. I'm trying to discern, along with you and others, how to keep the thread from being hijacked with the same 3 topics over and over. I'm honestly trying to understand what the issue is so that we can have a proper discussion in the pol thread proper, but it doesn't seem likely. And GH has called for a bloody revolution in a roundabout way saying that it is inevitable and that the proles must be ready to defend themselves ala Malcolm X.
Please tell them Kwark. Don't sugarcoat it either.
|
On May 14 2020 09:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 09:17 Nebuchad wrote:On May 14 2020 09:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 14 2020 08:36 Nebuchad wrote:On May 14 2020 08:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 14 2020 07:52 Nebuchad wrote:
Ok but in all seriousness, you're aware that neither GH nor I thinks socialism is going to solve things magically, right? So what am I to do with you posting that?
In the last discussion I had, at least three people attacked me because socialism won't solve racism, a claim nobody ever made on the forum.
Either this is a case of lacking some of that "interpretative charity" that was discussed earlier, or this is just about talking about socialism in general. I think the posters you're referring to meant for you to give an alternative to what we have that will help soften the issues. Nothing will solve racism. I also think that what was needed was for you to explicitly state that and move the conversation to how socialism as a structure would replace/enhance what is currently in place. The major issue is that you nor GH are taking into the transition of democracy/capitalism to socialism/mercantilism. That needs to be addressed in full before you make progress with some people. You seem to want to be a victim of sorts and I don't understand where that is coming from. I'm not coming down or talking down. I'm just saying if you're going to suggest socialism as a structure is better than the democracy the majority of the world practices, while taking into account all of it's failings as it's been practiced thus far, is best you need to provide something substantial for those people. But we were not talking about racism. At all. They brought it up. Is it really my responsibility to get the conversation back on the rails when they're derailing it? Are they non-player characters? I think both GH and I spend a lot of time talking about what socialism would improve and how it would improve it. It's just that people have unrealistic expectations, both in terms of how figured out our plans are (btw GH and I don't even have the same plan) and in terms of how perfect the result is supposed to be afterwards in order for the change to be worth it (hence, in my opinion, the talk of magic). And keep in mind that all the discussions about implementation that I have, I'm already having them against my will. I don't want people to follow my ideas, I'm not a leader, I'm not that smart. I don't even think having leaders is a good idea. The questions that you have, I would much rather we solve them together. But then people insisted that we should have a plan figured out for them before they even start the conversation, so I went and broadly checked out some plans. Yes. Plainly state that you only want to discuss the topics raised and stick to them. If they don't want to follow, then don't engage. It doesn't seem that hard, honestly. Or just don't respond (with an explicit statement of why you're not). And the discussions you have on implementation have been responded to by various people. Did you not find some of that food for thought? Are you not open to having your views challenged? I'd wager that most of us are the people who are on your side, but need further evidence that you're not just being idealistic and naive. To summarize and end the conversation, if you will, when you bring up socialism outside of the discussion and insist that it will be better because, provide substance. Don't tell us to go read the literature. We know where to find it. We want your thoughts. And if you have already given them, refer back to them. If people continue to hound you over it, then moderation (which includes you KwarK) should step in and get things back on track. I don't mind discussing socialism with you. I think you have some ideas. When I ask for how you see it as replacing a system that is ingrained and working rather well for the majority of the people (regardless of the conspiracy theories and aberrations), then please provide something I can work off of. Otherwise, we're going to be talking past each other while agreeing on the fundamentals. On May 14 2020 09:04 Nebuchad wrote:
Maybe if you hadn't spent the last few months answering 75% of the posts I made attributing positions to me that I don't hold, the same positions that you attribute to GH (and are also wrong when you attribute them to GH, it's a mystery how you don't get banned for posting this atrociously), just because you get a weird boner out of taunting me, or if Biff hadn't called me a leninist for expressing the very mild and necessary anticapitalist position that we shouldn't have capitalists, or if Zero wasn't also clearly annoyed with my posting in the thread, or if I couldn't tell obvious gaslighting when I saw it, then you'd have a point, Jimmi. Refer to above. I'm not annoyed. I just don't want discussions derailed into "socialism to the rescue!" without substance, when we are discussing policies that work within the structure we have to move us forward. Well, it's clear that you're not reading the conversations I'm having if you think most people are on my side. Which I understand given your reactions here, I wouldn't expect you to. In the last one I couldn't even get them to agree that democracy was the best system of governance. If people are not humanists they're not going to like socialism, that's logical. You just spent half a page telling me how I should improve my posting, can you at least agree that you have some issues with my posting? Please? Shockey, I don't think GH has called for a "bloody revolution", in my opinion that is Jimmi's formula, and he repeats it so often that you've forgotten he made it up. Let's verify this together: https://tl.net/forum/search.php?q="bloody revolution"&t=c&f=-1&u=Greenhorizons&gb=date&d=https://tl.net/forum/search.php?q="bloody revolution"&t=c&f=-1&u=JimmiC&gb=date&d= People agree on the fundamental of what you post. It's the substance that people are in disagreement with (how is that not coming through clearly to you? This is legit as I want to know how better to communicate with you and others.). And I'm sure I already stated that you do a good job until you start becoming a jerk, which you are kind of being right now. I'm trying to discern, along with you and others, how to keep the thread from being hijacked with the same 3 topics over and over. I'm honestly trying to understand what the issue is so that we can have a proper discussion in the pol thread proper, but it doesn't seem likely. And GH has called for a bloody revolution in a roundabout way saying that it is inevitable and that the proles must be ready to defend themselves ala Malcolm X.
It is coming clearly to me that you're saying that. I am answering that I don't think you are correct, and I've given you a reason why I don't.
|
On May 14 2020 09:57 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 09:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 14 2020 09:17 Nebuchad wrote:On May 14 2020 09:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 14 2020 08:36 Nebuchad wrote:On May 14 2020 08:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 14 2020 07:52 Nebuchad wrote:
Ok but in all seriousness, you're aware that neither GH nor I thinks socialism is going to solve things magically, right? So what am I to do with you posting that?
In the last discussion I had, at least three people attacked me because socialism won't solve racism, a claim nobody ever made on the forum.
Either this is a case of lacking some of that "interpretative charity" that was discussed earlier, or this is just about talking about socialism in general. I think the posters you're referring to meant for you to give an alternative to what we have that will help soften the issues. Nothing will solve racism. I also think that what was needed was for you to explicitly state that and move the conversation to how socialism as a structure would replace/enhance what is currently in place. The major issue is that you nor GH are taking into the transition of democracy/capitalism to socialism/mercantilism. That needs to be addressed in full before you make progress with some people. You seem to want to be a victim of sorts and I don't understand where that is coming from. I'm not coming down or talking down. I'm just saying if you're going to suggest socialism as a structure is better than the democracy the majority of the world practices, while taking into account all of it's failings as it's been practiced thus far, is best you need to provide something substantial for those people. But we were not talking about racism. At all. They brought it up. Is it really my responsibility to get the conversation back on the rails when they're derailing it? Are they non-player characters? I think both GH and I spend a lot of time talking about what socialism would improve and how it would improve it. It's just that people have unrealistic expectations, both in terms of how figured out our plans are (btw GH and I don't even have the same plan) and in terms of how perfect the result is supposed to be afterwards in order for the change to be worth it (hence, in my opinion, the talk of magic). And keep in mind that all the discussions about implementation that I have, I'm already having them against my will. I don't want people to follow my ideas, I'm not a leader, I'm not that smart. I don't even think having leaders is a good idea. The questions that you have, I would much rather we solve them together. But then people insisted that we should have a plan figured out for them before they even start the conversation, so I went and broadly checked out some plans. Yes. Plainly state that you only want to discuss the topics raised and stick to them. If they don't want to follow, then don't engage. It doesn't seem that hard, honestly. Or just don't respond (with an explicit statement of why you're not). And the discussions you have on implementation have been responded to by various people. Did you not find some of that food for thought? Are you not open to having your views challenged? I'd wager that most of us are the people who are on your side, but need further evidence that you're not just being idealistic and naive. To summarize and end the conversation, if you will, when you bring up socialism outside of the discussion and insist that it will be better because, provide substance. Don't tell us to go read the literature. We know where to find it. We want your thoughts. And if you have already given them, refer back to them. If people continue to hound you over it, then moderation (which includes you KwarK) should step in and get things back on track. I don't mind discussing socialism with you. I think you have some ideas. When I ask for how you see it as replacing a system that is ingrained and working rather well for the majority of the people (regardless of the conspiracy theories and aberrations), then please provide something I can work off of. Otherwise, we're going to be talking past each other while agreeing on the fundamentals. On May 14 2020 09:04 Nebuchad wrote:
Maybe if you hadn't spent the last few months answering 75% of the posts I made attributing positions to me that I don't hold, the same positions that you attribute to GH (and are also wrong when you attribute them to GH, it's a mystery how you don't get banned for posting this atrociously), just because you get a weird boner out of taunting me, or if Biff hadn't called me a leninist for expressing the very mild and necessary anticapitalist position that we shouldn't have capitalists, or if Zero wasn't also clearly annoyed with my posting in the thread, or if I couldn't tell obvious gaslighting when I saw it, then you'd have a point, Jimmi. Refer to above. I'm not annoyed. I just don't want discussions derailed into "socialism to the rescue!" without substance, when we are discussing policies that work within the structure we have to move us forward. Well, it's clear that you're not reading the conversations I'm having if you think most people are on my side. Which I understand given your reactions here, I wouldn't expect you to. In the last one I couldn't even get them to agree that democracy was the best system of governance. If people are not humanists they're not going to like socialism, that's logical. You just spent half a page telling me how I should improve my posting, can you at least agree that you have some issues with my posting? Please? Shockey, I don't think GH has called for a "bloody revolution", in my opinion that is Jimmi's formula, and he repeats it so often that you've forgotten he made it up. Let's verify this together: https://tl.net/forum/search.php?q="bloody revolution"&t=c&f=-1&u=Greenhorizons&gb=date&d=https://tl.net/forum/search.php?q="bloody revolution"&t=c&f=-1&u=JimmiC&gb=date&d= People agree on the fundamental of what you post. It's the substance that people are in disagreement with (how is that not coming through clearly to you? This is legit as I want to know how better to communicate with you and others.). And I'm sure I already stated that you do a good job until you start becoming a jerk, which you are kind of being right now. I'm trying to discern, along with you and others, how to keep the thread from being hijacked with the same 3 topics over and over. I'm honestly trying to understand what the issue is so that we can have a proper discussion in the pol thread proper, but it doesn't seem likely. And GH has called for a bloody revolution in a roundabout way saying that it is inevitable and that the proles must be ready to defend themselves ala Malcolm X. It is coming clearly to me that you're saying that. I am answering that I don't think you are correct, and I've given you a reason why I don't.
I can't answer for others. I'm referring only to myself in most cases. Apologies if that wasn't clear. And if I am wrong, then I'm wrong. I can live with that.
@GH: What are the issues? Stop speaking through proxies and say what's on your chest. (Kevin Hart)
|
On May 14 2020 10:01 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 09:57 Nebuchad wrote:On May 14 2020 09:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 14 2020 09:17 Nebuchad wrote:On May 14 2020 09:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 14 2020 08:36 Nebuchad wrote:On May 14 2020 08:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 14 2020 07:52 Nebuchad wrote:
Ok but in all seriousness, you're aware that neither GH nor I thinks socialism is going to solve things magically, right? So what am I to do with you posting that?
In the last discussion I had, at least three people attacked me because socialism won't solve racism, a claim nobody ever made on the forum.
Either this is a case of lacking some of that "interpretative charity" that was discussed earlier, or this is just about talking about socialism in general. I think the posters you're referring to meant for you to give an alternative to what we have that will help soften the issues. Nothing will solve racism. I also think that what was needed was for you to explicitly state that and move the conversation to how socialism as a structure would replace/enhance what is currently in place. The major issue is that you nor GH are taking into the transition of democracy/capitalism to socialism/mercantilism. That needs to be addressed in full before you make progress with some people. You seem to want to be a victim of sorts and I don't understand where that is coming from. I'm not coming down or talking down. I'm just saying if you're going to suggest socialism as a structure is better than the democracy the majority of the world practices, while taking into account all of it's failings as it's been practiced thus far, is best you need to provide something substantial for those people. But we were not talking about racism. At all. They brought it up. Is it really my responsibility to get the conversation back on the rails when they're derailing it? Are they non-player characters? I think both GH and I spend a lot of time talking about what socialism would improve and how it would improve it. It's just that people have unrealistic expectations, both in terms of how figured out our plans are (btw GH and I don't even have the same plan) and in terms of how perfect the result is supposed to be afterwards in order for the change to be worth it (hence, in my opinion, the talk of magic). And keep in mind that all the discussions about implementation that I have, I'm already having them against my will. I don't want people to follow my ideas, I'm not a leader, I'm not that smart. I don't even think having leaders is a good idea. The questions that you have, I would much rather we solve them together. But then people insisted that we should have a plan figured out for them before they even start the conversation, so I went and broadly checked out some plans. Yes. Plainly state that you only want to discuss the topics raised and stick to them. If they don't want to follow, then don't engage. It doesn't seem that hard, honestly. Or just don't respond (with an explicit statement of why you're not). And the discussions you have on implementation have been responded to by various people. Did you not find some of that food for thought? Are you not open to having your views challenged? I'd wager that most of us are the people who are on your side, but need further evidence that you're not just being idealistic and naive. To summarize and end the conversation, if you will, when you bring up socialism outside of the discussion and insist that it will be better because, provide substance. Don't tell us to go read the literature. We know where to find it. We want your thoughts. And if you have already given them, refer back to them. If people continue to hound you over it, then moderation (which includes you KwarK) should step in and get things back on track. I don't mind discussing socialism with you. I think you have some ideas. When I ask for how you see it as replacing a system that is ingrained and working rather well for the majority of the people (regardless of the conspiracy theories and aberrations), then please provide something I can work off of. Otherwise, we're going to be talking past each other while agreeing on the fundamentals. On May 14 2020 09:04 Nebuchad wrote:
Maybe if you hadn't spent the last few months answering 75% of the posts I made attributing positions to me that I don't hold, the same positions that you attribute to GH (and are also wrong when you attribute them to GH, it's a mystery how you don't get banned for posting this atrociously), just because you get a weird boner out of taunting me, or if Biff hadn't called me a leninist for expressing the very mild and necessary anticapitalist position that we shouldn't have capitalists, or if Zero wasn't also clearly annoyed with my posting in the thread, or if I couldn't tell obvious gaslighting when I saw it, then you'd have a point, Jimmi. Refer to above. I'm not annoyed. I just don't want discussions derailed into "socialism to the rescue!" without substance, when we are discussing policies that work within the structure we have to move us forward. Well, it's clear that you're not reading the conversations I'm having if you think most people are on my side. Which I understand given your reactions here, I wouldn't expect you to. In the last one I couldn't even get them to agree that democracy was the best system of governance. If people are not humanists they're not going to like socialism, that's logical. You just spent half a page telling me how I should improve my posting, can you at least agree that you have some issues with my posting? Please? Shockey, I don't think GH has called for a "bloody revolution", in my opinion that is Jimmi's formula, and he repeats it so often that you've forgotten he made it up. Let's verify this together: https://tl.net/forum/search.php?q="bloody revolution"&t=c&f=-1&u=Greenhorizons&gb=date&d=https://tl.net/forum/search.php?q="bloody revolution"&t=c&f=-1&u=JimmiC&gb=date&d= People agree on the fundamental of what you post. It's the substance that people are in disagreement with (how is that not coming through clearly to you? This is legit as I want to know how better to communicate with you and others.). And I'm sure I already stated that you do a good job until you start becoming a jerk, which you are kind of being right now. I'm trying to discern, along with you and others, how to keep the thread from being hijacked with the same 3 topics over and over. I'm honestly trying to understand what the issue is so that we can have a proper discussion in the pol thread proper, but it doesn't seem likely. And GH has called for a bloody revolution in a roundabout way saying that it is inevitable and that the proles must be ready to defend themselves ala Malcolm X. It is coming clearly to me that you're saying that. I am answering that I don't think you are correct, and I've given you a reason why I don't. I can't answer for others. I'm referring only to myself in most cases. Apologies if that wasn't clear. And if I am wrong, then I'm wrong. I can live with that.
I mean you just said "people agree on the fundamental of what you post" ^^'
But let's drop that. I haven't talked to you in the thread in a while. It is true that my general view of you is that you are more of a liberal than a leftist. If I'm wrong and we do share fundamentals, then that's one more leftist. Excellent. I'll try and keep that in mind the next time we talk in the thread, which won't be for a while probably.
And for the record, I think there's a ton of leftists in the thread now, especially compared to 2015 when I started. This gives me hope. Farv is a leftist. Acro is a leftist. Jock is a leftist (and a great person, who doesn't like compliments but will have to take this one anyway because he should post more :p), Mohdoo is a leftist, Zambrah is a leftist, brian is a leftist, Gahlo is a leftist, Nevuk is a leftist, Drone is a leftist, Wombat is a leftist, Logo is a leftist, Artisreal is a leftist, Simberto is a leftist, dave is a leftist, IgnE is a leftist, KwarK maaay be a leftist (or we'll keep working on that :p), I shouldn't have started this because now I'm feeling bad for the people I'm sure I've forgotten. It's just that I don't end up talking to them a lot when these types of conversations start.
|
On May 14 2020 10:04 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 10:01 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 14 2020 09:57 Nebuchad wrote:On May 14 2020 09:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 14 2020 09:17 Nebuchad wrote:On May 14 2020 09:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 14 2020 08:36 Nebuchad wrote:On May 14 2020 08:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 14 2020 07:52 Nebuchad wrote:
Ok but in all seriousness, you're aware that neither GH nor I thinks socialism is going to solve things magically, right? So what am I to do with you posting that?
In the last discussion I had, at least three people attacked me because socialism won't solve racism, a claim nobody ever made on the forum.
Either this is a case of lacking some of that "interpretative charity" that was discussed earlier, or this is just about talking about socialism in general. I think the posters you're referring to meant for you to give an alternative to what we have that will help soften the issues. Nothing will solve racism. I also think that what was needed was for you to explicitly state that and move the conversation to how socialism as a structure would replace/enhance what is currently in place. The major issue is that you nor GH are taking into the transition of democracy/capitalism to socialism/mercantilism. That needs to be addressed in full before you make progress with some people. You seem to want to be a victim of sorts and I don't understand where that is coming from. I'm not coming down or talking down. I'm just saying if you're going to suggest socialism as a structure is better than the democracy the majority of the world practices, while taking into account all of it's failings as it's been practiced thus far, is best you need to provide something substantial for those people. But we were not talking about racism. At all. They brought it up. Is it really my responsibility to get the conversation back on the rails when they're derailing it? Are they non-player characters? I think both GH and I spend a lot of time talking about what socialism would improve and how it would improve it. It's just that people have unrealistic expectations, both in terms of how figured out our plans are (btw GH and I don't even have the same plan) and in terms of how perfect the result is supposed to be afterwards in order for the change to be worth it (hence, in my opinion, the talk of magic). And keep in mind that all the discussions about implementation that I have, I'm already having them against my will. I don't want people to follow my ideas, I'm not a leader, I'm not that smart. I don't even think having leaders is a good idea. The questions that you have, I would much rather we solve them together. But then people insisted that we should have a plan figured out for them before they even start the conversation, so I went and broadly checked out some plans. Yes. Plainly state that you only want to discuss the topics raised and stick to them. If they don't want to follow, then don't engage. It doesn't seem that hard, honestly. Or just don't respond (with an explicit statement of why you're not). And the discussions you have on implementation have been responded to by various people. Did you not find some of that food for thought? Are you not open to having your views challenged? I'd wager that most of us are the people who are on your side, but need further evidence that you're not just being idealistic and naive. To summarize and end the conversation, if you will, when you bring up socialism outside of the discussion and insist that it will be better because, provide substance. Don't tell us to go read the literature. We know where to find it. We want your thoughts. And if you have already given them, refer back to them. If people continue to hound you over it, then moderation (which includes you KwarK) should step in and get things back on track. I don't mind discussing socialism with you. I think you have some ideas. When I ask for how you see it as replacing a system that is ingrained and working rather well for the majority of the people (regardless of the conspiracy theories and aberrations), then please provide something I can work off of. Otherwise, we're going to be talking past each other while agreeing on the fundamentals. On May 14 2020 09:04 Nebuchad wrote:
Maybe if you hadn't spent the last few months answering 75% of the posts I made attributing positions to me that I don't hold, the same positions that you attribute to GH (and are also wrong when you attribute them to GH, it's a mystery how you don't get banned for posting this atrociously), just because you get a weird boner out of taunting me, or if Biff hadn't called me a leninist for expressing the very mild and necessary anticapitalist position that we shouldn't have capitalists, or if Zero wasn't also clearly annoyed with my posting in the thread, or if I couldn't tell obvious gaslighting when I saw it, then you'd have a point, Jimmi. Refer to above. I'm not annoyed. I just don't want discussions derailed into "socialism to the rescue!" without substance, when we are discussing policies that work within the structure we have to move us forward. Well, it's clear that you're not reading the conversations I'm having if you think most people are on my side. Which I understand given your reactions here, I wouldn't expect you to. In the last one I couldn't even get them to agree that democracy was the best system of governance. If people are not humanists they're not going to like socialism, that's logical. You just spent half a page telling me how I should improve my posting, can you at least agree that you have some issues with my posting? Please? Shockey, I don't think GH has called for a "bloody revolution", in my opinion that is Jimmi's formula, and he repeats it so often that you've forgotten he made it up. Let's verify this together: https://tl.net/forum/search.php?q="bloody revolution"&t=c&f=-1&u=Greenhorizons&gb=date&d=https://tl.net/forum/search.php?q="bloody revolution"&t=c&f=-1&u=JimmiC&gb=date&d= People agree on the fundamental of what you post. It's the substance that people are in disagreement with (how is that not coming through clearly to you? This is legit as I want to know how better to communicate with you and others.). And I'm sure I already stated that you do a good job until you start becoming a jerk, which you are kind of being right now. I'm trying to discern, along with you and others, how to keep the thread from being hijacked with the same 3 topics over and over. I'm honestly trying to understand what the issue is so that we can have a proper discussion in the pol thread proper, but it doesn't seem likely. And GH has called for a bloody revolution in a roundabout way saying that it is inevitable and that the proles must be ready to defend themselves ala Malcolm X. It is coming clearly to me that you're saying that. I am answering that I don't think you are correct, and I've given you a reason why I don't. I can't answer for others. I'm referring only to myself in most cases. Apologies if that wasn't clear. And if I am wrong, then I'm wrong. I can live with that. I mean you just said "people agree on the fundamental of what you post" ^^' But let's drop that. I haven't talked to you in the thread in a while. It is true that my general view of you is that you are more of a liberal than a leftist. If I'm wrong and we do share fundamentals, then that's one more leftist. Excellent. I'll try and keep that in mind the next time we talk in the thread, which won't be for a while probably.
Yes. The fundamental that democratic socialism is the best way forward. There are of course disagreements as to how to achieve those outcomes. But the fundamental that shit needs to change is there with a lot of people. Those that disagree, I can't speak for.
And yeah, I look forward to the next exchange in the thread proper as well. I think it'll be a lot smoother going forward. ^_-
|
On May 14 2020 10:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 10:04 Nebuchad wrote:On May 14 2020 10:01 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 14 2020 09:57 Nebuchad wrote:On May 14 2020 09:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 14 2020 09:17 Nebuchad wrote:On May 14 2020 09:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 14 2020 08:36 Nebuchad wrote:On May 14 2020 08:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 14 2020 07:52 Nebuchad wrote:
Ok but in all seriousness, you're aware that neither GH nor I thinks socialism is going to solve things magically, right? So what am I to do with you posting that?
In the last discussion I had, at least three people attacked me because socialism won't solve racism, a claim nobody ever made on the forum.
Either this is a case of lacking some of that "interpretative charity" that was discussed earlier, or this is just about talking about socialism in general. I think the posters you're referring to meant for you to give an alternative to what we have that will help soften the issues. Nothing will solve racism. I also think that what was needed was for you to explicitly state that and move the conversation to how socialism as a structure would replace/enhance what is currently in place. The major issue is that you nor GH are taking into the transition of democracy/capitalism to socialism/mercantilism. That needs to be addressed in full before you make progress with some people. You seem to want to be a victim of sorts and I don't understand where that is coming from. I'm not coming down or talking down. I'm just saying if you're going to suggest socialism as a structure is better than the democracy the majority of the world practices, while taking into account all of it's failings as it's been practiced thus far, is best you need to provide something substantial for those people. But we were not talking about racism. At all. They brought it up. Is it really my responsibility to get the conversation back on the rails when they're derailing it? Are they non-player characters? I think both GH and I spend a lot of time talking about what socialism would improve and how it would improve it. It's just that people have unrealistic expectations, both in terms of how figured out our plans are (btw GH and I don't even have the same plan) and in terms of how perfect the result is supposed to be afterwards in order for the change to be worth it (hence, in my opinion, the talk of magic). And keep in mind that all the discussions about implementation that I have, I'm already having them against my will. I don't want people to follow my ideas, I'm not a leader, I'm not that smart. I don't even think having leaders is a good idea. The questions that you have, I would much rather we solve them together. But then people insisted that we should have a plan figured out for them before they even start the conversation, so I went and broadly checked out some plans. Yes. Plainly state that you only want to discuss the topics raised and stick to them. If they don't want to follow, then don't engage. It doesn't seem that hard, honestly. Or just don't respond (with an explicit statement of why you're not). And the discussions you have on implementation have been responded to by various people. Did you not find some of that food for thought? Are you not open to having your views challenged? I'd wager that most of us are the people who are on your side, but need further evidence that you're not just being idealistic and naive. To summarize and end the conversation, if you will, when you bring up socialism outside of the discussion and insist that it will be better because, provide substance. Don't tell us to go read the literature. We know where to find it. We want your thoughts. And if you have already given them, refer back to them. If people continue to hound you over it, then moderation (which includes you KwarK) should step in and get things back on track. I don't mind discussing socialism with you. I think you have some ideas. When I ask for how you see it as replacing a system that is ingrained and working rather well for the majority of the people (regardless of the conspiracy theories and aberrations), then please provide something I can work off of. Otherwise, we're going to be talking past each other while agreeing on the fundamentals. On May 14 2020 09:04 Nebuchad wrote:
Maybe if you hadn't spent the last few months answering 75% of the posts I made attributing positions to me that I don't hold, the same positions that you attribute to GH (and are also wrong when you attribute them to GH, it's a mystery how you don't get banned for posting this atrociously), just because you get a weird boner out of taunting me, or if Biff hadn't called me a leninist for expressing the very mild and necessary anticapitalist position that we shouldn't have capitalists, or if Zero wasn't also clearly annoyed with my posting in the thread, or if I couldn't tell obvious gaslighting when I saw it, then you'd have a point, Jimmi. Refer to above. I'm not annoyed. I just don't want discussions derailed into "socialism to the rescue!" without substance, when we are discussing policies that work within the structure we have to move us forward. Well, it's clear that you're not reading the conversations I'm having if you think most people are on my side. Which I understand given your reactions here, I wouldn't expect you to. In the last one I couldn't even get them to agree that democracy was the best system of governance. If people are not humanists they're not going to like socialism, that's logical. You just spent half a page telling me how I should improve my posting, can you at least agree that you have some issues with my posting? Please? Shockey, I don't think GH has called for a "bloody revolution", in my opinion that is Jimmi's formula, and he repeats it so often that you've forgotten he made it up. Let's verify this together: https://tl.net/forum/search.php?q="bloody revolution"&t=c&f=-1&u=Greenhorizons&gb=date&d=https://tl.net/forum/search.php?q="bloody revolution"&t=c&f=-1&u=JimmiC&gb=date&d= People agree on the fundamental of what you post. It's the substance that people are in disagreement with (how is that not coming through clearly to you? This is legit as I want to know how better to communicate with you and others.). And I'm sure I already stated that you do a good job until you start becoming a jerk, which you are kind of being right now. I'm trying to discern, along with you and others, how to keep the thread from being hijacked with the same 3 topics over and over. I'm honestly trying to understand what the issue is so that we can have a proper discussion in the pol thread proper, but it doesn't seem likely. And GH has called for a bloody revolution in a roundabout way saying that it is inevitable and that the proles must be ready to defend themselves ala Malcolm X. It is coming clearly to me that you're saying that. I am answering that I don't think you are correct, and I've given you a reason why I don't. I can't answer for others. I'm referring only to myself in most cases. Apologies if that wasn't clear. And if I am wrong, then I'm wrong. I can live with that. I mean you just said "people agree on the fundamental of what you post" ^^' But let's drop that. I haven't talked to you in the thread in a while. It is true that my general view of you is that you are more of a liberal than a leftist. If I'm wrong and we do share fundamentals, then that's one more leftist. Excellent. I'll try and keep that in mind the next time we talk in the thread, which won't be for a while probably. Yes. The fundamental that democratic socialism is the best way forward. There are of course disagreements as to how to achieve those outcomes. But the fundamental that shit needs to change is there with a lot of people. Those that disagree, I can't speak for. And yeah, I look forward to the next exchange in the thread proper as well. I think it'll be a lot smoother going forward. ^_-
Do you want democratic socialism or do you want social democracy? Because like Neb, I'm under the impression it is the latter and to find out otherwise would be a revelation to myself as well.
|
United States42254 Posts
On May 14 2020 08:45 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 07:27 KwarK wrote:On May 14 2020 07:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 14 2020 07:06 KwarK wrote:
xDaunt got radicalized by white nationalists at some point around 2016. He went from a garden variety fuckstick who couldn’t make a point if his life depended on it to a crypto fascist who was stupid enough to think nobody could see through his extremely thinly veiled code. Those of us who were in the topic at the time saw, in real time, how he slowly abandoned the beliefs of the old Republican Party and replaced them with unsubstantiated Trumpisms. Love you KwarK. Never change. For real though. Regular fascism goes somewhat along the lines of The nation and the volk is under siege in a cultural war against a shadow foe, an international cabal that has no nation but controls banking, the media, and the political class, a cabal that hates us for our historical superiority and seeks to destroy all that made us great by dividing us with feminism and race mixing. They are enemies and must be destroyed under the guidance of the great leader. Whereas xDaunt cleverly mixed it up by explaining that while he believed that the nation and people were superior and were engaged in a shadow war against those enemies who he did believe were in control of banking, the media, and the political class and were trying to undermine the nation with feminism and talking about racial issues it was a completely different thing because the enemy he was concerned about were called globalists (because they were internationalists and had no nation). But the great leader should definitely brand them all as enemies and they should all be destroyed. It was a modern day enigma, breaking that code was damn near impossible. Is that different from the person we have who thinks there is enemies that are in control of the banking, the media, and the political class, and trying to undermine the nation by not letting them understand the class war they are in? It is fine to speak of killing them all. This seams to include big corporations but also small business owners who are parasites leaching off the workers. Where we have come down that basically it is a religion where every thing that is good is socialism and everything bad is capitalism. Socialists will have markets, but will do away with capitalist words like profit, revenue and expense.(????) How it will work does not matter and asking means you are not a true believer and there for should be talked down too and asked to read the sacred texts. It is completely different because they are called the "capitalist class" and are basically not human so discussing a violent revolution or killing them all is fine. Dems or Reps really does not matter because they are the same, evil members of the capitalist class and must be removed by force, democracy is OK but only if they agree with the sacred texts. And you can not talk ill of any country that names themselves socialist because anything that is going wrong there is either capitalist propaganda or the capitalists fault. All the rape, murder, oppression and re-education the fault of capitalism and the people it is happening too are the rich capitalist elites. Yes all those Cuban's risking their lives on rafts and they millions of Venezuelan's, the enemy without value. Both Globalist and "capitalist elite" end up sounding the same, and also end up being basically the same trope as the Jew's back in the day, nicer words not doubt. Oh and we also are fine to say that Israel should be wiped off the map or clearly they should go back where they came from. Because you can't discuss the incredible complexities of that actual situation instead you have to act as though the Palestinian's are Good and the Jews evil, black and white. Dare disagree prepare to be talked down too. For some reason we completely allow one brand of crazy conspiracy theory BS, including such greats as the second tower being a controlled explosion, but by who? Won't say, how did they know the timing to make it with the plane? Won't say. I also was pretty disappointed when you stopped him from going further on why North Korean's have it better than American's because it would show how deep the hate is and how far from reality it is. But for some reason you seem to want to keep him around but get rid Daunt. The only difference is one person was very direct and one person is extremely passive aggressive. I find the direct much more appealing as it does not create the whole issue that currently exists where many people assume the worst because that is often the case. At least with xDaunt it was completely clear who he thought was what. The other difference is one person participated in many threads in the site and one sticks pretty close to the politics thread, unless of course he doesn't like someone, then he follows him to any thread on any topic interesting to that person to fight with him then shows up here to play victim. (thank god the following has at least stopped). But I'm clearly biased (as we all are to one degree or another), I miss xDaunt and feel that their are other posters far more disingenuous, it seems that as long as people are passive aggressive instead of straight forward they can be as rude or ill informed as they like. It also seems to pay to complain about bans and actions as being unfair, rather than just accepting the punishment and moving on. It has some how created a myth of persecution instead of the reality that he has just pissed a lot of people off for a long time. I'd prefer it the other way around, but I have no power so I deal. Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 08:36 Nebuchad wrote:On May 14 2020 08:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 14 2020 07:52 Nebuchad wrote:
Ok but in all seriousness, you're aware that neither GH nor I thinks socialism is going to solve things magically, right? So what am I to do with you posting that?
In the last discussion I had, at least three people attacked me because socialism won't solve racism, a claim nobody ever made on the forum.
Either this is a case of lacking some of that "interpretative charity" that was discussed earlier, or this is just about talking about socialism in general. I think the posters you're referring to meant for you to give an alternative to what we have that will help soften the issues. Nothing will solve racism. I also think that what was needed was for you to explicitly state that and move the conversation to how socialism as a structure would replace/enhance what is currently in place. The major issue is that you nor GH are taking into the transition of democracy/capitalism to socialism/mercantilism. That needs to be addressed in full before you make progress with some people. You seem to want to be a victim of sorts and I don't understand where that is coming from. I'm not coming down or talking down. I'm just saying if you're going to suggest socialism as a structure is better than the democracy the majority of the world practices, while taking into account all of it's failings as it's been practiced thus far, is best you need to provide something substantial for those people. But we were not talking about racism. At all. They brought it up. Is it really my responsibility to get the conversation back on the rails when they're derailing it? Are they non-player characters? I think both GH and I spend a lot of time talking about what socialism would improve and how it would improve it. It's just that people have unrealistic expectations, both in terms of how figured out our plans are (btw GH and I don't even have the same plan) and in terms of how perfect the result is supposed to be afterwards in order for the change to be worth it (hence, in my opinion, the talk of magic). And keep in mind that all the discussions about implementation that I have, I'm already having them against my will. I don't want people to follow my ideas, I'm not a leader, I'm not that smart. I don't even think having leaders is a good idea. The questions that you have, I would much rather we solve them together. But then people insisted that we should have a plan figured out for them before they even start the conversation, so I went and broadly checked out some plans. I think it is strange that you think people have the same issues with you that they do with GH. For some reason you take complaints about him and his version of socialism as complaints against yours. As you point out they are very different. Most of us realize this so when we respond or ask GH a question and you answer it just muddies the water. When your not actively being a jerk, which is most of the time, I have not heard complaints about you. But for some reason when GH brings up a gripe or someone brings up a gripe against him all the sudden it is a "we". And you seem to have some strange delusion that their are teams or something and you are on GH's. Whereas I think the reality is that the people you think are on the opposite team, are not a team but rather individuals that have all come to a similar conclusion because of how they, or others are treated. TL-DR "Globalists" and "capitalist elites" are the same thing, scape goats created by populists to put put blame on because they have no actual solutions to the real and complicated problems in the world.
I just want to let you know that this is a stupid post and you should feel stupid for making it. Capitalists very much exist. Jeff Bezos is one of them, for example. What you're doing here is a weird whataboutism where you try to argue that because I'm saying A doesn't exist then surely I must concede B must also not exist or else be guilty of some kind of double standard. This is the feedback topic and I stopped reading the regular topic and debating this shit and I have no intention or desire to debate it with you but yeah, you should feel bad about yourself. I certainly felt bad on your behalf when I read it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
