|
|
|
United States41984 Posts
You should download a spelling and grammar plugin so it doesn’t look like you dictated that post, in which you explain that you’re not an idiot, to a stupid child.
|
On May 14 2020 12:04 JimmiC wrote:
You are just salty because you keep attacking me in the exact same manor for months and months, and now I'm doing it back and you are ignoring me. Basically it seems like my change in strategy is working.
Imagine actually posting this and being serious.
|
|
|
United States41984 Posts
On May 14 2020 12:28 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 12:20 KwarK wrote:
You should download a spelling and grammar plugin so it doesn’t look like you dictated that post, in which you explain that you’re not an idiot, to a stupid child. I intentionally write as I would speak because this is not a formal writing course. I really don't care about spelling and grammar on the threads the same way you clearly don't care about logical consistency, we all of things that we value differently than others. The bonus of things is when I want too, I can and as you kindly point out there is programs and apps I can use. Sadly I can not offer you the same advice as I don't think they have yet to solve ignorance. Or as Churchill said "I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly."
Are you doing this deliberately? It’s like the child outsourced typing your posts to a stupider child.
|
|
|
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. 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.
Thanks neb <3
There's a couple of reasons i post less now..
One is that i mostly enjoyed sparring with danglars etc. but also i grew a little tired of what i felt was my growing animosity towards internet right wingers and centrists. I really hate that about my online persona. IRL I am good friends with right wingers, anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists etc. and i find their points of view interesting and often intellectually challenging, but on the internet i succomb to that attitude i hate about many leftists, which can be snobbish and elitist (like the contrapoints anarchist cat lol).
Also I feel pressure to be right about stuff and i had started getting irrational when people proved me wrong about something instead of taking it as i should.
On May 14 2020 12:04 JimmiC wrote:
Nope. I am saying we should complain about the actual people who are doing the wrong things and then talk about actual ways to curtail it. "capitalist elites" is a nebulous group that can mean any number of people from Putin to Maduro to the local coffee shop owner. If someone was to say we need to create a wealth tax so that Bezos does not have the power he currently wields. Or talk about the evil of the Koch brothers and their misinformation campaigns I'm all on board. But otherwise it is just populist jargon that is generally used to distract people from all the grift they are actually doing. Well Cuban's Venezuelan's, Ukrainian, Russian, North Korean, Croatian Chinese and so on people starve to death by the millions and live in abject poverty over the last 100 years it has been the capitalist elite, but somehow the leaders of those countries were all able to live amazing luxury.
Discussing how socialism, and socialist policy within a democracy can help lower the ceiling and raise the floor is very valuable. When you start talking about bloody revolution and defend the despots that have killed their own people in horrible ways to protect their power and wealth you are not dealing with reality.
The problem with scapegoating is that somehow no matter how much power and wealth this person who is going to fight the "capitalist elites" or "globalists" gets they can never defeat them, at least not in a way that helps their people.
This seems like a relatively arbitrary way of defining the phrase. I would say that when people refer to capitalist elites, or globalists, its understood that this is shorthand for a group that doesn't contain the local coffee shop owner. Sure, you can say that the phrase 'could' include the local coffee shop owner, but that isn't what it generally means.
Generally people are talking about a class of people who use money to make themselves invulnerable and powerful, who are above the law, who hoard resources and power at others' expense etc.
In fact there's a simple way to find out if someone should be called part of the 'capitalist elite'. Just ask them, if they think they are, they probably are, and it would probably worth trying to cut off their source of power. And this is the foundation of what should be the socialist agenda, cutting off the power you get for being part of the capitalist elite, the power to protect yourself against the law and the people. I don't think this is scapegoating at all, its simply using shorthand.
|
|
|
United States41984 Posts
On May 14 2020 12:44 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 12:32 KwarK wrote:On May 14 2020 12:28 JimmiC wrote:On May 14 2020 12:20 KwarK wrote:
You should download a spelling and grammar plugin so it doesn’t look like you dictated that post, in which you explain that you’re not an idiot, to a stupid child. I intentionally write as I would speak because this is not a formal writing course. I really don't care about spelling and grammar on the threads the same way you clearly don't care about logical consistency, we all of things that we value differently than others. The bonus of things is when I want too, I can and as you kindly point out there is programs and apps I can use. Sadly I can not offer you the same advice as I don't think they have yet to solve ignorance. Or as Churchill said "I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly." Are you doing this deliberately? It’s like the child outsourced typing your posts to a stupider child. Now you're not even trying, how disappointing. I was expecting some incredible British wit, and instead I get a weaker version of the last set of insults. And as a side note, I am on lots of various pills for nerve pain that never goes away and likely never will, my next surgery is being further delayed by the whole COVID thing which obviously sucks for me but is understandable. In the evenings I tend to lose even a little more care, which is just another reason why I care so little about grammar and spelling especially here. I don't think less of you for these insults as you did not know, nor do I care. But it is just another example of you being ignorant while feeling superior. I do find one thing that you, GH and Neb all hold in common is you all really care that people think you are very smart, and like to talk down to other people based on it. I think you would all have equal chances at that town hall, thought I don't picture you in a edgy Che Guevara T-shirt. I half expect XMZ to show up and insult my balls.
I don’t write “have” when I mean “have” and avoid the possessive apostrophe when trying to make something plural because of some need to prove my intelligence to people, it’s just my default state as a literate adult. The reverse also applies, you’re not writing the way you are because of some lofty disinterest in spelling, you’re doing it because you can’t spell.
All I’m saying here is that if you want to go on a rant about how smart you are you might wish to make it look like the rant wasn’t written by an idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
On May 14 2020 12:58 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 12:35 Jockmcplop wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Thanks neb <3 There's a couple of reasons i post less now.. One is that i mostly enjoyed sparring with danglars etc. but also i grew a little tired of what i felt was my growing animosity towards internet right wingers and centrists. I really hate that about my online persona. IRL I am good friends with right wingers, anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists etc. and i find their points of view interesting and often intellectually challenging, but on the internet i succomb to that attitude i hate about many leftists, which can be snobbish and elitist (like the contrapoints anarchist cat lol). Also I feel pressure to be right about stuff and i had started getting irrational when people proved me wrong about something instead of taking it as i should. On May 14 2020 12:04 JimmiC wrote:
Nope. I am saying we should complain about the actual people who are doing the wrong things and then talk about actual ways to curtail it. "capitalist elites" is a nebulous group that can mean any number of people from Putin to Maduro to the local coffee shop owner. If someone was to say we need to create a wealth tax so that Bezos does not have the power he currently wields. Or talk about the evil of the Koch brothers and their misinformation campaigns I'm all on board. But otherwise it is just populist jargon that is generally used to distract people from all the grift they are actually doing. Well Cuban's Venezuelan's, Ukrainian, Russian, North Korean, Croatian Chinese and so on people starve to death by the millions and live in abject poverty over the last 100 years it has been the capitalist elite, but somehow the leaders of those countries were all able to live amazing luxury.
Discussing how socialism, and socialist policy within a democracy can help lower the ceiling and raise the floor is very valuable. When you start talking about bloody revolution and defend the despots that have killed their own people in horrible ways to protect their power and wealth you are not dealing with reality.
The problem with scapegoating is that somehow no matter how much power and wealth this person who is going to fight the "capitalist elites" or "globalists" gets they can never defeat them, at least not in a way that helps their people.
This seems like a relatively arbitrary way of defining the phrase. I would say that when people refer to capitalist elites, or globalists, its understood that this is shorthand for a group that doesn't contain the local coffee shop owner. Sure, you can say that the phrase 'could' include the local coffee shop owner, but that isn't what it generally means. Generally people are talking about a class of people who use money to make themselves invulnerable and powerful, who are above the law, who hoard resources and power at others' expense etc. In fact there's a simple way to find out if someone should be called part of the 'capitalist elite'. Just ask them, if they think they are, they probably are, and it would probably worth trying to cut off their source of power. And this is the foundation of what should be the socialist agenda, cutting off the power you get for being part of the capitalist elite, the power to protect yourself against the law and the people. I don't think this is scapegoating at all, its simply using shorthand. The coffee shop owner was asked about and was included. They were a parasite to their workers.
The coffee shop owner is a capitalist. Obviously he doesn't have the same power as Bezos or anyone in the elite.
That particular owner that we were discussing (Biff and me) was unwilling to work at the coffee shop unless he had the capacity to exploit workers. If there was a democracy there, he would not be willing to have a shop. Exploiting others was required for him to participate in the coffee shop experience. That makes him a parasite, yes. And being an owner makes him a class enemy.
Of course most coffee shop owners and small business owners overall in the real world do a lot of the work themselves, and if their shop was democratic instead, their life would change very little. The majority of them probably wouldn't mind being compensated for their labor rather than their ownership because that's 80-90% already what they're doing.
The issue is that we're not talking about the coffee shop owner because we're concerned about their well-being, we're talking about them because we want to shield capitalism from criticism and they are more sympathetic than Bezos is. Because they function as a placeholder, they are given reactions that they wouldn't have, that would make them unsympathetic. If coffee shop owners hired people to do all the work for them while they sat on their asses getting the profits and were horrified at the thought of working for their coffee shop, they wouldn't elicit the sympathy that they do.
|
United States41984 Posts
On May 14 2020 13:01 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 12:53 KwarK wrote:On May 14 2020 12:44 JimmiC wrote:On May 14 2020 12:32 KwarK wrote:On May 14 2020 12:28 JimmiC wrote:On May 14 2020 12:20 KwarK wrote:
You should download a spelling and grammar plugin so it doesn’t look like you dictated that post, in which you explain that you’re not an idiot, to a stupid child. I intentionally write as I would speak because this is not a formal writing course. I really don't care about spelling and grammar on the threads the same way you clearly don't care about logical consistency, we all of things that we value differently than others. The bonus of things is when I want too, I can and as you kindly point out there is programs and apps I can use. Sadly I can not offer you the same advice as I don't think they have yet to solve ignorance. Or as Churchill said "I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly." Are you doing this deliberately? It’s like the child outsourced typing your posts to a stupider child. Now you're not even trying, how disappointing. I was expecting some incredible British wit, and instead I get a weaker version of the last set of insults. And as a side note, I am on lots of various pills for nerve pain that never goes away and likely never will, my next surgery is being further delayed by the whole COVID thing which obviously sucks for me but is understandable. In the evenings I tend to lose even a little more care, which is just another reason why I care so little about grammar and spelling especially here. I don't think less of you for these insults as you did not know, nor do I care. But it is just another example of you being ignorant while feeling superior. I do find one thing that you, GH and Neb all hold in common is you all really care that people think you are very smart, and like to talk down to other people based on it. I think you would all have equal chances at that town hall, thought I don't picture you in a edgy Che Guevara T-shirt. I half expect XMZ to show up and insult my balls. I don’t write “have” when I mean “have” and avoid the possessive apostrophe when trying to make something plural because of some need to prove my intelligence to people, it’s just my default state as a literate adult. The reverse also applies, you’re not writing the way you are because of some lofty disinterest in spelling, you’re doing it because you can’t spell. All I’m saying here is that if you want to go on a rant about how smart you are you might wish to make it look like the rant wasn’t written by an idiot. See again you missed the point. It is not that I am saying that I that smart, I'm saying you are not smarter. It is a subtle difference and hard for a person like yourself who considers himself so smart to understand, the arrogance makes you think I'm saying I'm smart because I'm on your level. Were both dummies, that is why we are arguing on the internet. I just have some self realization, and you just think you are marvelous 
To misquote Michael Palin, this is abuse, not an argument.
I prefaced my first response with my total disinterest in arguing this with you and offered you abuse instead. For some reason you took the dismissal of your inane point as an invitation to debate over a new topic; whether or not you were an idiot who was beneath debate.
I responded to that by again declining to argue and only offering you more abuse. I can assure you that I will not be baited. If I wished to argue about dumb shit I would go to the political arguments topic. I do not.
This isn’t an argument, it’s just you coming back for more abuse over and over.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe people are just bored of it being the Trump show all the time? I know I post primarily for my own amusement, time permitting (ok, that second one is a big factor ). Along with time considerations, talking about the latest thing and how it makes Trump bad gets boring.
People have things to do, so perhaps not every discussion can/should be about the road to utopia or have a too-strong philosophical bent, but even "smaller" issues can be interesting without requiring us to pull out our Tocqueville. There must be other issues to discuss... maybe I'm just projecting my feeling about political discourse in the USA onto this discussion, but I think it would be healthy to talk about things besides Trump and the Revolution. Even talking about the basic politics of this or that could be enjoyable (I find it fun, at least). But even today in the thread there were posts about trump bad and how could anyone support him, the entire GOP is guilty etc, etc. I dare say a little of that famed left-wing open-mindedness is in order 
Edit: I very narrowly agree with farv's point in the main thread from earlier (and it's one I've tried to make before). Politics in this country has always been a blood sport; some historical perspective would be both calming and enlightening. And I say this as a grouchy conservative.
|
On May 14 2020 14:11 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 13:08 Nebuchad wrote:On May 14 2020 12:58 JimmiC wrote:On May 14 2020 12:35 Jockmcplop wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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. Thanks neb <3 There's a couple of reasons i post less now.. One is that i mostly enjoyed sparring with danglars etc. but also i grew a little tired of what i felt was my growing animosity towards internet right wingers and centrists. I really hate that about my online persona. IRL I am good friends with right wingers, anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists etc. and i find their points of view interesting and often intellectually challenging, but on the internet i succomb to that attitude i hate about many leftists, which can be snobbish and elitist (like the contrapoints anarchist cat lol). Also I feel pressure to be right about stuff and i had started getting irrational when people proved me wrong about something instead of taking it as i should. On May 14 2020 12:04 JimmiC wrote:
Nope. I am saying we should complain about the actual people who are doing the wrong things and then talk about actual ways to curtail it. "capitalist elites" is a nebulous group that can mean any number of people from Putin to Maduro to the local coffee shop owner. If someone was to say we need to create a wealth tax so that Bezos does not have the power he currently wields. Or talk about the evil of the Koch brothers and their misinformation campaigns I'm all on board. But otherwise it is just populist jargon that is generally used to distract people from all the grift they are actually doing. Well Cuban's Venezuelan's, Ukrainian, Russian, North Korean, Croatian Chinese and so on people starve to death by the millions and live in abject poverty over the last 100 years it has been the capitalist elite, but somehow the leaders of those countries were all able to live amazing luxury.
Discussing how socialism, and socialist policy within a democracy can help lower the ceiling and raise the floor is very valuable. When you start talking about bloody revolution and defend the despots that have killed their own people in horrible ways to protect their power and wealth you are not dealing with reality.
The problem with scapegoating is that somehow no matter how much power and wealth this person who is going to fight the "capitalist elites" or "globalists" gets they can never defeat them, at least not in a way that helps their people.
This seems like a relatively arbitrary way of defining the phrase. I would say that when people refer to capitalist elites, or globalists, its understood that this is shorthand for a group that doesn't contain the local coffee shop owner. Sure, you can say that the phrase 'could' include the local coffee shop owner, but that isn't what it generally means. Generally people are talking about a class of people who use money to make themselves invulnerable and powerful, who are above the law, who hoard resources and power at others' expense etc. In fact there's a simple way to find out if someone should be called part of the 'capitalist elite'. Just ask them, if they think they are, they probably are, and it would probably worth trying to cut off their source of power. And this is the foundation of what should be the socialist agenda, cutting off the power you get for being part of the capitalist elite, the power to protect yourself against the law and the people. I don't think this is scapegoating at all, its simply using shorthand. The coffee shop owner was asked about and was included. They were a parasite to their workers. The coffee shop owner is a capitalist. Obviously he doesn't have the same power as Bezos or anyone in the elite. That particular owner that we were discussing (Biff and me) was unwilling to work at the coffee shop unless he had the capacity to exploit workers. If there was a democracy there, he would not be willing to have a shop. Exploiting others was required for him to participate in the coffee shop experience. That makes him a parasite, yes. And being an owner makes him a class enemy.
Of course most coffee shop owners and small business owners overall in the real world do a lot of the work themselves, and if their shop was democratic instead, their life would change very little. The majority of them probably wouldn't mind being compensated for their labor rather than their ownership because that's 80-90% already what they're doing.
The issue is that we're not talking about the coffee shop owner because we're concerned about their well-being, we're talking about them because we want to shield capitalism from criticism and they are more sympathetic than Bezos is. Because they function as a placeholder, they are given reactions that they wouldn't have, that would make them unsympathetic. If coffee shop owners hired people to do all the work for them while they sat on their asses getting the profits and were horrified at the thought of working for their coffee shop, they wouldn't elicit the sympathy that they do. And that was not what Biff was saying either
He said so specifically: "Actually, suddenly, what's the point of working your ass off to open that nice coffee shop? None. It won't be yours the moment you employ someone."
If there is no one to exploit, there would be no point to opening a coffee shop.
For contrast, allow me to show you what a misattribution looks like:
On April 28 2020 01:42 JimmiC wrote:
What is currently stopping you from starting a co-op of your own? There are no rules against it, you know that the people will work harder because they will share in the wealth. Then if there are issues you can see them and try to fix them. Like a pilot project. There are existing co-op's you can look to for guidance. There is no requirement of bloody revolution, you can simply out compete the capitalist class. And then you can use that wealth to move the political needle.
Here, in this post clearly addressed to me because I'm talking about coops and GH is not around, you explain to me that there is no requirement of "bloody revolution" in order to start a co-op, a position that I've never held.
On May 14 2020 08:45 JimmiC wrote:
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.
Gaslighting x1000.
|
|
|
Wow I really don't think anyone could describe the problems with the thread these days better then just showing this page and the one before.
I gotta be honest is there really any reason to keep it open at this point? Everyone is just so hateful and bitter towards even the approaches to discussion. What positive experience can anyone get at this point?
|
On May 14 2020 15:18 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 14:52 Nebuchad wrote:On May 14 2020 14:11 JimmiC wrote:On May 14 2020 13:08 Nebuchad wrote:On May 14 2020 12:58 JimmiC wrote:On May 14 2020 12:35 Jockmcplop wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Thanks neb <3 There's a couple of reasons i post less now.. One is that i mostly enjoyed sparring with danglars etc. but also i grew a little tired of what i felt was my growing animosity towards internet right wingers and centrists. I really hate that about my online persona. IRL I am good friends with right wingers, anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists etc. and i find their points of view interesting and often intellectually challenging, but on the internet i succomb to that attitude i hate about many leftists, which can be snobbish and elitist (like the contrapoints anarchist cat lol). Also I feel pressure to be right about stuff and i had started getting irrational when people proved me wrong about something instead of taking it as i should. On May 14 2020 12:04 JimmiC wrote:
Nope. I am saying we should complain about the actual people who are doing the wrong things and then talk about actual ways to curtail it. "capitalist elites" is a nebulous group that can mean any number of people from Putin to Maduro to the local coffee shop owner. If someone was to say we need to create a wealth tax so that Bezos does not have the power he currently wields. Or talk about the evil of the Koch brothers and their misinformation campaigns I'm all on board. But otherwise it is just populist jargon that is generally used to distract people from all the grift they are actually doing. Well Cuban's Venezuelan's, Ukrainian, Russian, North Korean, Croatian Chinese and so on people starve to death by the millions and live in abject poverty over the last 100 years it has been the capitalist elite, but somehow the leaders of those countries were all able to live amazing luxury.
Discussing how socialism, and socialist policy within a democracy can help lower the ceiling and raise the floor is very valuable. When you start talking about bloody revolution and defend the despots that have killed their own people in horrible ways to protect their power and wealth you are not dealing with reality.
The problem with scapegoating is that somehow no matter how much power and wealth this person who is going to fight the "capitalist elites" or "globalists" gets they can never defeat them, at least not in a way that helps their people.
This seems like a relatively arbitrary way of defining the phrase. I would say that when people refer to capitalist elites, or globalists, its understood that this is shorthand for a group that doesn't contain the local coffee shop owner. Sure, you can say that the phrase 'could' include the local coffee shop owner, but that isn't what it generally means. Generally people are talking about a class of people who use money to make themselves invulnerable and powerful, who are above the law, who hoard resources and power at others' expense etc. In fact there's a simple way to find out if someone should be called part of the 'capitalist elite'. Just ask them, if they think they are, they probably are, and it would probably worth trying to cut off their source of power. And this is the foundation of what should be the socialist agenda, cutting off the power you get for being part of the capitalist elite, the power to protect yourself against the law and the people. I don't think this is scapegoating at all, its simply using shorthand. The coffee shop owner was asked about and was included. They were a parasite to their workers. The coffee shop owner is a capitalist. Obviously he doesn't have the same power as Bezos or anyone in the elite. That particular owner that we were discussing (Biff and me) was unwilling to work at the coffee shop unless he had the capacity to exploit workers. If there was a democracy there, he would not be willing to have a shop. Exploiting others was required for him to participate in the coffee shop experience. That makes him a parasite, yes. And being an owner makes him a class enemy.
Of course most coffee shop owners and small business owners overall in the real world do a lot of the work themselves, and if their shop was democratic instead, their life would change very little. The majority of them probably wouldn't mind being compensated for their labor rather than their ownership because that's 80-90% already what they're doing.
The issue is that we're not talking about the coffee shop owner because we're concerned about their well-being, we're talking about them because we want to shield capitalism from criticism and they are more sympathetic than Bezos is. Because they function as a placeholder, they are given reactions that they wouldn't have, that would make them unsympathetic. If coffee shop owners hired people to do all the work for them while they sat on their asses getting the profits and were horrified at the thought of working for their coffee shop, they wouldn't elicit the sympathy that they do. And that was not what Biff was saying either He said so specifically: "Actually, suddenly, what's the point of working your ass off to open that nice coffee shop? None. It won't be yours the moment you employ someone." If there is no one to exploit, there would be no point to opening a coffee shop. There is nothing there about exploiting workers.
Of course there is. I am using the marxist definition of exploitation, which you and Biff both know because Biff criticizes me for doing it on the same page. "There's no point opening that nice coffee shop if I can't employ someone" means the same thing as "There's no point opening that nice coffee shop if I can't exploit someone". You are lying.
You then make up a bunch of stuff that Biff didn't say about the owner being worried for his capital and treating his employees fairly. Cool.
On May 14 2020 15:18 JimmiC wrote:
I am not attributing that you have the position of a bloody revolution being required. I'm simply pointing out that what you want does not require it.
I see, that makes a lot of sense that you would tell me that something I've never brought up as being necessary is not necessary. I guess that's also what you were doing here, in this post again clearly addressed to me based on context:
On April 30 2020 09:14 JimmiC wrote:
Those Americans need to get out and vote because sadly not enough did or do. Way to much tweeting not nearly enough action!
I feel it should also be said that if someone wishes to keep the morale high ground that they should also realize that advocating for a bloody revolution is advocating for a heck of lot more innocents to be killed. Along with wanting to kill all billionaires, which would also be likely impossible without killing innocents as they too would surround themselves with innocents (their kids, workers, servants and so forth) to protect themselves.
I'm all for being against violence, so I find what Obama did in the name of "war on Terror" disturbing. And this is why I advocate for democratic solutions. The mental gymnastics it must take to be simultaneous so against killing of innocents while promoting of killing all billionaires and a bloody revolution to overthrow the capitalist elite is really hard for me to believe that anyone could think both things simultaneously and talk down to others who are considering voting is really mind boggling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
