Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,770
3,511
118
Country
United States of America

Hmmm, strange.

I think that the current separation you employ is a coping mechanism to distance your ideology from the sad history and legacy of the USSR and its proxies.
And their even sadder present? That's all capitalism, baybeeee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimson5pheonix

Iron

BOI
Sep 6, 2013
1,741
259
88
Country
Occupied Palestine

Hmmm, strange.



And their even sadder present? That's all capitalism, baybeeee.
Yes, the reason why there are 100ks of ballots with only Biden at the top are the fault of the Dem establishment. I am hopeful there will be a happening that will blow this open but as always, nothing ever happens.
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,129
2,362
118
Country
USA
Is there any possibility, at all, that the abandonment of the labor movements were as a result of the policies and rhetoric coming from those movements? i.e. some personal responsibility for their own failure?
"Personal responsibility" is a punchline. It's a talking point used by conservatives to justify their anti-human stance of no social safety nets.
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,934
802
118
I also think we need to make a distinction between "Western" leftism and "Eastern" Leftism as it pertains to Europe and the existence of the USSR. Communism in the USSR is very distinct from the largely social democratic socialism that gained traction in Western Europe. As I pointed out in the other thread, I struggle to really see the USSR as actual socialism or communism as it was an oligarchy or dictatorship for pretty much all of its existence. I can see how my analysis of the left is only really viable for Western Europe (and to some degree the USA), because Eastern Europe and large parts of Asia were under the yoke of the USSR and its oppressive system. They have an entirely different political trajectory.
I don't think that is a very good distinction. The eastern leftists as you call them were certainly socialist and communist and they did share pretty much the same goals with their western counterparts. Disagreements were about how to get there and even more, what they could do.

And yes, social democracy has been pretty successful where eastern block communism failed. Most leftists, east and west, have sen that and understand that and act accordingly. But not all.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,156
969
118
Country
USA
If I wanted to point to one distinct problem with the Left it is that it tends to want to think the best of people.
This is backwards.

Like, I have a lot of problems with the things you said in these couple posts. You think left wing policies caused the successes of the late 20th century and were abandoned, I'm confident the opposite happened, that conservative policies were successful and people embraced them. You think that when the poor become richer they abandon the left, but the left lives in the universities that are often the place to jump up a peg. Your views seem genuinely cut off from actual history, but....

That sentence is legitimately ridiculous. The line goes: "Republicans think Democrats are stupid, Democrats think Republicans are evil" and the further out you branch from there on the political spectrum the more extreme it gets. The anarcho-capitalists out way to one side believe so completely in the natural goodness of humanity that they think a world without laws would serve the people better and the rich will care for the poor without forcing them to, and the communists on the other side think so little of humanity that they believe ownership of property is too extreme a tool to trust people not to oppress one another. The right thinks the best of people. The left does not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cheetodust

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,129
2,362
118
Country
USA
Hence you can't compare or draw similarities between the communism in Hungary and the social democracy in Denmark, which means you need to keep them separate when discussing them historically.
On that note, I'm pretty sure capitalists would follow this same logic when arguing that fascism is not the same thing as capitalism. They share roots, but are different enough to be considered separate rather than merely synonyms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deleted20220709

Iron

BOI
Sep 6, 2013
1,741
259
88
Country
Occupied Palestine
The problem is that USSR style Communism has about as much in common with Social Democracy as Pinochet's form of capitalism has in common with US capitalism. They share the same root but are two very distinctly different political ideologies, even in what their end state is. Hence it is necessary to point out that in terms of trajectory the two are different, if not because they are ideologically different (which they are) then because they were separate due to the Cold War. Most social democrats in Europe distanced themselves from the USSR (though not from China ironically), whereas the communists kept close ties to the USSR. Hence I think the separation is important because communists have had a very limited influence on western Europe (except in terms of terrorism), whereas social democracy has had a major impact. Hence you can't compare or draw similarities between the communism in Hungary and the social democracy in Denmark, which means you need to keep them separate when discussing them historically.
You can be correct if only "social-democracy" isn't socialism and merely an attempt by liberalism to embrace social-programs in order to suppress the proletariat. A successful attempt in places like Denmark.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,156
969
118
Country
USA
I am not saying either of these is good, because the Left can be dangerously naive and the Right has a point in that you need to motivate people to change. But the left is the side of the spectrum that traditionally assumes that people will be responsible with public works like welfare, whereas the right is the side that assumes welfare will be a freeloaders paradise.
You mean the right is on the side that thinks people are capable of taking care of themselves and those around them, and the left thinks direct action of federal government is an absolute requirement to keep people from dying alone in a ditch.
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,129
2,362
118
Country
USA
You mean the right is on the side that thinks people are capable of taking care of themselves and those around them, and the left thinks direct action of federal government is an absolute requirement to keep people from dying alone in a ditch.
lol nope
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,934
802
118
Gethsemanis description is mostly true.

However the relation between socialist and social democrat was never really clear. Due to how charged the term "socialism" was, the same people sometimes embraced or rejected the term for the same stuff. And that gets even worse over various language barriers.
But people were pretty clear about where the difference between social democracy and communism was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deleted20220709

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,219
1,072
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
Or you can you know realise Sharia law is a bad thing that would target the people you claim to be on the side of and for once it's an issue Republicans also would like to see a law passed over so take the opportunity to protect people anyway and get the Republicans moving on to dealing with actual issues?

But no more important to dig in and fight over beliefs of what your opponents might do with this even though it's far more powerful and effective to let them keep it on the table and far more damaging to trying to actually get change.
Or, you could act like an adult and acknowledge that you are not as familiar with the subject matter as you presumed and as consequence have been relying on poorly thought out post-hoc rationalizations for an untenable position you're stubbornly holding onto past the point of reason. One need look no further than your inane "oh, but the First Amendment isn't sufficient because if a corporation passed a law it wouldn't apply" nonsense for that much to be patently obvious. And that you insist on "well under <increasingly implausible chain of circumstances> Sharia could be passed and we should ban it anyways (despite the fact that it's already functionally banned)" tips your hand more than I think you realize.

But since I don't seem to be getting through to you on how that's not some clever loophole but a stupid and nonsensical attempt at a 'gotcha', let me break it down for you:

You argue that corporations have been getting more powerful, which I can only reasonably assume is referencing the influence of lobbyists. Under this interpretation "corporations could bypass the First Amendment because it doesn't apply to them" is a case of 'the fool who thinks himself wise' because the extent of the corporations power with regards to legislation is their ability to influence the government into taking certain actions. It doesn't matter if the legislation is pushed because special interest groups want it, at the end of the day the government is still the only body that passes laws. There is no circumstance in which "well it wasn't the government who passed it" holds true with legislation that passed into law.

The alternative is that we presume that you meant that corporations are somehow gearing up to overthrow and replace the government, Shadowrun style, and that under those circumstances the First Amendment wouldn't stop them from passing whatever legislation they want. This is the alternative rather than the most likely interpretation because - frankly - it manages to be much stupider than the last option. For starters, it's a flight of fancy. While corporations are more than eager to expand their influence there are no indications that any of them are interested in overthrowing the governing body and replacing it with themselves, especially when that's likely impossible barring a coup d'etat which they could not win. Moreover, none of them want Sharia. So right out the gate the argument is predicated on a wholly fictitious Supercorporation that is both primed to overthrow the US government and - in contrast to even most American Muslims - desperately wants to codify Sharia into law, and moreover is functionally unopposed. But that's just the start.

The argument actually gets stupider when you think on it. Remember this is a circumstance wherein the US government is defunct and replaced by this fictitious Supercorporation...which is to say that this Supercorporation is the new government. So this means that we're assuming one of three things, all of which make the argument fall apart. Option A: The Supercorp is pulling the strings but still works through the traditional government...in which case we're back to the original bit wherein it's still the government passing the laws. Option B: The Supercorp simply replaces the government with minimal other changes. In this case the Supercorp is the government, so the First Amendment applies. Option C: The Supercorp implements a new regime entirely. In this case it doesn't matter what rules are on the books, as they are all equally defunct unless the new government explicitly decides to keep them. In no circumstance does this boogeyman you're fabricating work the way that you are implying. You might as well be arguing "well what if the First Amendment was revoked". Under those circumstances you're already assuming that the laws precluding the outcome you're trying to convince us of are being removed, which would presumably include the same law you're trying to convince us we need to pass.

You aren't arguing so much as you're throwing crap onto the wall and hoping something sticks and covers up the fact that you're speaking from a position of ignorance and swallowed the fearmongers' propaganda hook, line, and sinker. This is nothing more than you trying to find some way, any way that the demagoguery which took advantage of your ignorance could possibly be true, simply because it's the idea that you came into the thread believing.
 
Last edited:

ObsidianJones

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 29, 2020
1,118
1,442
118
Country
United States
So, Gethsemani's response and Satinavian's response actually can stop this once and for all.

We should just make a thread about Political Policies, Movements, and Forms of Government. Basically, we should ask everyone to freaking define what we individually think what socialism, republicanism, Social programs, and etc means. Then we can see who is based on the actuality of the definitions and how it's been put into place, and who has been listening to fear mongering pundits who just want you to 'Abhor The Other'.

And I fully understand that there will be fringes in every group. Yes, there are Islamic terrorists. But from this move, we can see if people are using the fringes or the minority to define the majority. Which, of course, is bias and we can just move on from there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Houseman

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,156
969
118
Country
USA
If you don't want to engage with or attempt to understand what I write that's fine, but please stop wasting my time by making nonsense replies if that's the case.
It's not nonsense. You're claiming that the people who chant "eat the rich" see the best in people.

Like, tangent, I get riled up when I see people talk about empathy when really they're only describing pity. Empathy can understand people independent of circumstances, pity doesn't have to understand, it just consoles anyone in a bad place without even trying to understand. You know why there are so many poor Republicans? It's not cause they're racists, put that out of your mind. It's not cause they imagine themselves as millionaires, put that out of your mind. It's because they want to take care of themselves, and they're tired of the pity from people who don't understand them.
 

Adam Jensen

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
354
333
68
“When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well,” he told the Senate in 1995. “I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans’ benefits. I meant every single solitary thing in the government. And I not only tried it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time.”
Joe Biden is not the DNC. Joe Biden is barely Joe Biden these days.
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,129
2,362
118
Country
USA
You know why there are so many poor Republicans? It's not cause they're racists, put that out of your mind. It's not cause they imagine themselves as millionaires, put that out of your mind. It's because they want to take care of themselves, and they're tired of the pity from people who don't understand them.
And here I thought it was because they weren't being paid what they're actually worth by the capitalist class.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheMysteriousGX
Status
Not open for further replies.