On May 15 2020 07:02 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2020 06:33 Nebuchad wrote:
I stopped answering you for months, you're still there answering most of my posts. It didn't work. Leave me alone, please. Posting to your posts on a public message board is not harassment, sorry bub. If you want me top stop talking about you in the feedback thread stop constantly talking about me, especially whenever GH is brought up. You are not him and he is not you, your are two unique individuals. Just because you cutely refer to each other as comrades does not mean that when people are speaking about him they are speaking about you and vice versa. In the last 24 hours how many times have you posted Because you have decided me and villain and won't even look into why I feel about GH the way I do, I don't feel particularly bothered to care enough to actively make an effort AGAIN to not post to you or GH. It has been tried by me and well many times what happens is GH responds to my post well quoting someone else then walks in here and plays victim again. Clearly the mods want us to figure out how to play nicely together, if the best way for you is to ignore me by all means do it. Just don't half ass it by ignoring me in the USpol thread, then be an ass to me in this thread and then get all emotional and play victim when I respond back. If you have a problem with a post in the regular thread report it and if it is inappropriate I'm sure I will be actioned. If you unaware of your jerkish posts about me here a selection of a few of them you have posted in the last 24 hours. + Show Spoiler +On May 14 2020 12:26 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +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. On May 14 2020 15:30 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 15:28 Sermokala wrote:
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? You saw Jimmi answer 75% of my posts with bile and nonsense for months while I was not engaging him and you didn't speak up, none of you did. I'm allowing myself one night of answering his BS. Let me have this, then I'll go back to ignoring him (and not post in the thread for a while). On May 14 2020 14:52 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +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:On May 14 2020 09:17 Nebuchad wrote:[quote] 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: Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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. On May 14 2020 15:29 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 15:18 JimmiC wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Show nested quote +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: Show nested quote +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. On May 14 2020 16:12 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 16:09 Sermokala wrote:On May 14 2020 15:40 JimmiC wrote:On May 14 2020 15:29 Nebuchad wrote:On May 14 2020 15:18 JimmiC wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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. No I'm not lying, you can be employed and not be exploited. When he says "no point of working your ass off" he is talking about getting the capital to start his own shop. When he says" it won't be yours the moment you employ someone " he is talking about losing that capital he worked to hard to obtain. He is stating that no one is going to Risk anything if there is not only very little chance of reward but also you are going to instantly lose a portion of it to each new employee. The problem is that I don't think you're accepting that they have a different definition of the word exploit then you do. You need to accept that they have a non inherently negative definition for the term. Anything less then full value for their labor is "exploitation". Unless you meet the serious "eat the rich" people they're going to accept that some explotation is inevitable as people can't approach business relationships like that equally. They aren't going to come out and say that they're political position ends at a compromise because that would be a show of weakness. You're never going to find the end of the rainbow in this discussion. The problem is that Jimmi lied about me misattributing a position to Biff that he clearly wrote, so he's now pretending he doesn't understand that all employment is exploitative in my view so that he doesn't have to admit that Biff said the thing I said he said. But please let's move on like you said :p Imagine starting with that incredibly condescending post and then accusing someone of lying and gas lighting because you don't agree with them. And then imagine them still imagining them self as the victim. You probably have not noticed because you are in the middle of your sulk but I have responded to each of your posts. If you want me to stop responding, stop posting to me. If you want me to continue, continue. You are in control, or at least you could be.
Please leave me alone.
|
EPT
