?
  1. Yes

    1 vote(s)
    4.8%
  2. No

    17 vote(s)
    81.0%
  3. No Opinion

    3 vote(s)
    14.3%
  1. osaka35

    osaka35 Instructional Designer
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,007
    Country:
    United States
    Which is fine when you're making the argument and limiting the argument to the scope of that definition (rather than using the definition to make an argument that is the entire scope). But you're talking about someone else's definition. Which definition are they using? And what word would you use in its place which has the same meaning/implication that they're trying to convey?
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2019
  2. cots

    OP cots Banned
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,533
    Country:
    United States
    Thanks for bringing these to my attention. Trump recently became a Republican. Most of his adult life he was a Democrat. If he's truly embracing the Republican way of life he's probably learned that what he's done in the past was wrong. As for his Presidency. I've yet to see any of the acts of racism he's been accused of being actually racist (per the non-Marxist definition). Though, this post isn't about the fact that there are racist Republicans. The Republican party was founded around freeing the black slaves and much hasn't changed. Policies that encourage people to get off of welfare or things that would stop illegal immigration are not racist. Sure, minorities may be effected by them, but the policies aren't rooted or motivated by ones race. There's a lot of white people on welfare that have been kicked off due to recent policy changes and it's pretty racist to think that anyone trying to sneak into the country is going to be a certain race or that protecting our borders and citizens has anything to do with ones skin color. If Canada was a shit hole and tens of thousands of its citizens were trying to illegally cross the border only a monthly basis with a lot of them bringing drugs, children sex slaves or were coming over with no intention on helping our county and only wanted free handouts do you think we'd care if the majority of Canadian citizens are white (most of their country are white natives, English, French, Scottish, etc...). I bring these two issues up because the Liberal Democrats benefit from keeping people on welfare and populating sanctuary cities. This provides them votes while at the same time cheap labor (and if you read any Liberal message boards on a daily basis like I do you'll see how they really value and brag about said labor).

    — Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

    When it comes to the Liberal Democrats in the USA most are using the Marxist definition. When it comes to the Tweets in this post or the left leaning main stream media they are using the Marxist definition. The thing is they aren't being honest about using the Maxrist definition. They're trying to imply that people are actually racist per the agreed upon definition, which like you pointed out leads to confusion. Normal citizens taught the normal definition of school hear the word "racism" and think it's based on ones race or skin color and then feel negative emotional impact when being accused of it. If they realized it was the Marxist definition then they'd just be like "oh, so I'm not actually hurting anyone and I'm not actually racist, I just don't support socialism". I suppose if you wanted to nail down "the Liberal Marxist definition of racism used to establish socialism" into a single word I've have to create one and use that as its definition. libopression ? LOL. I dunno. I'm not qualified to make up words, though I'm sure it would be easy enough to go create a Wikipedia page if I were to create a new word to back myself up : )
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2019
  3. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2019
    Messages:
    255
    Country:
    United States
    So now you present an article, Freedomoutpost.com yea ok If you weren't already so far off I'd jest at you about your source, but given how rare it is for you to provide one I'll read it and see if we can find anything worthwhile (Although still no quotes from democratic leadership like I requested, its almost like you don't know what you are talking about and can't back up your claim?!).

    Well Norman Mattoon Thomas wasn't even directly named. This author is a moron who forces people to have to go look up information to follow along in his assertion. Also keep in mind this is a strategic partisan hit piece on Hillary Clinton as it was written a year before the election and she is the constant example presented. Thankfully he linked this as his source:
    https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/organizations/democratic-party-dp/

    So now we are looking at George Soros and shadow party... ... ... sigh, you are one of those boogeyman people to the core.

    https://www.mediamatters.org/david-horowitz/guide-david-horowitzs-discoverthenetworks

    Yea a metric ton of assertions with no proof. Great we have a conspiracy site that is being used as a source for an author who is supposed to inform me the Liberal's secret plan.

    Anyways, I've heard Norman Thomas's quote before but the context matters, he was a six-time candidate of the Socialist Party of America who lost every time. I guess its like a Libertarian thinking by joining the Republican party they now own it. How'd that Libertarian movement work out again? Oh right. It didn't. Sorry @cots this is just not sufficient. I'll continue but a 75 yr quote doesn't cut the mustard. I've done enough, if you are so lazy to not even provide a single quote of a current democratic leadership as requested then I'll take that as an admission of the bolded text I wrote above.

    ------------------

    @cots Since I've given ample opportunities for you to present your argument better, I decided I'll bring a source to help clear up a potential conflation. See you use socialism and I presume you believe democratic socialism as the same thing. Except, it is not.

    Since you yourself so eloquently stated:

    https://time.com/5422714/what-is-democratic-socialism/

    ---
    How is democratic socialism different from socialism and communism in the former Soviet Union and other countries abroad?
    The simple answer is that democratic socialists believe in a democracy, while communist forms of government are not democracies.

    “Democratic socialists believe in elections, the First Amendment — [they] want ordinary people to have more power in a more democratic system,” Kazin says. “In communist countries, the state controls everything and a small group of people control the state, a tyrannical system.”
    ---

    It would be disingenuous to conflate the two yet here we are. I'm going to keep quoting you to remind you of reality when it comes to democrats and republicans regarding social programs or the proposed expansion of these pre-existing programs.

    Thanks @cots that summed it up exactly! Right on target!

    — Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

    So you are probably wrong, but no one can be sure as we aren't able to have a discussion with them. Hence why you misrepresenting liberals by using a few cherry picked tweets (that for all we know are people who worked on Kamela's campaign) is a problem. It might fit a forced narrative of yours, but it isn't rooted in reality.

    These aren't the democratic leaders, these aren't statistical polls, these are a few people on the street who happened to tweet something. Again if you want to go that route we could find tweets from everyday republicans who say incorrect or misleading statements and try to assert that as an entire agenda behind the party. Doing such would be stupid and illogical.
     
  4. J-Machine

    J-Machine Self proclaimed Pog champion
    Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    781
    Country:
    Canada
    those are some conspiracy level connections you are making bud. stretch it any more and you might hurt yourself
     
    D34DL1N3R likes this.
  5. osaka35

    osaka35 Instructional Designer
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,007
    Country:
    United States
    What does marxism have to do with current definitions of racism? beyond that...from your first post, about defining racism as a system of power. It should be noted that if you move into a different system of power, then the label can be applied differently. For example, if there was a country of one particular group of non-white individuals in power supporting the system and whites were in the historical minority and still systematically ignored/oppressed, then whites wouldn't be "racist" under that definition, not in the way they are in the states. So it's less a "anti-white" oriented definition and more of a "anti-oppression" oriented definition. It just happens that much of the world happens to have been oppressed by Britian, France, Russia, and the rest of Europe :P.

    The usage you have issue with reserves the use of "racism" to only mean at a systems level. Or basically it boils down to: "Does this action or event positively, negatively, or neutrally effect the current uneven power dynamic?". It's a very useful definition when you're trying to address issues with such a large system with many moving parts. It's a goal and result oriented definition, aimed at changes at a systems level. If your goal is to create a fair system which doesn't oppress people, it's a brilliant definition. It tends to be more helpful to describe particular actions as racist when using this definition, rather than individuals. Thing is, being completely immune to being racist because you are being oppressed is a bit of an odd sentiment. You can easily be a part of the problem. Say a white senator is pushing amazingly brilliant anti-racist legislation, but someone from an oppressed class which will benefit from the legislation argues against it for whatever reason. Is that not racism by this definition? I'm still fuzzy on this, so would love for someone to clarify this for me (if you've the time/knowledge to help).

    If you want a word which applies from a person to another person, rather than to a system, then a better word might be "bigot" or "reprehensible" or "hateful" or whatever word you'd like. This is where you deal with things like intent, desire, perception, and the like. Problem is, even if absolutely everyone was no longer a bigot, if we still used the same systems we currently use, there would still be oppression. So we've got to work at it at both the personal level AND the systems level. Crossover is going to happen, especially when folks aren't 100% clear on the difference.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2019
  6. cots

    OP cots Banned
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,533
    Country:
    United States
    This would almost be acceptable if the end goal wasn't to replace the current system with socialism and discard democracy. We saw how well that turned out for Venezuela. So you "tore apart" some random page I linked to that I didn't even read. I picked 1 out of 100 or so results (though I noticed you didn't touch Hillary). At least I got you to read one of the results. Maybe I should just copy and paste the entire list if that would "help" you out. I already told you - I gave you a list of stuff to read. You don't like it that's fine. You want to make it look like "oh there's no Liberal agenda to push socialism on the country and I can prove it because @cots doesn't want to go dig up quotes of stuff he's been reading for years". I guess the majority of the Conservative media have it all wrong. Must be some big conspiracy. Hell, even the Liberal sites promoting socialism or the Liberals that comment on a daily basis on various forums that claim socialism is the only way we're going to survive must be "in on it".
     
  7. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2019
    Messages:
    255
    Country:
    United States
    I can keep asking for sources, you provided one. I'm not surprised you 'didn't even read it' as you never read any sources others provide so I don't expect you to do the due diligence to read your own. I mean if anything @cots you are consistent in that regard.

    'I'm lazy and I don't want to go through the trouble of having to defend what I assert with actual proof' @cots 2019. Maybe put that as a disclaimer any shit post you put on this forum? Provide quotes from democratic leadership or this is a bust. Hillary Clinton was no socialist. She didn't want to even expand social programs. She just wanted to be the first woman president and had an extreme lackluster senate career, I can't recall a single bill she authored during her term in the senate. I'm no fan of this individual but if you call her a socialist because a few people she knew in life said something or she wrote something in college decades ago but never had any op-eds or modern statements that reinforced that position then you are a fool. I associate with people of all types of beliefs throughout my life.

    Burden of proof is on the accuser and you've done a piss poor job. Thank goodness you don't author political articles for a living.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2019
    D34DL1N3R and monkeyman4412 like this.
  8. cots

    OP cots Banned
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,533
    Country:
    United States
    I'll answer this then I'm going to try to sleep and will address the rest of your comments tomorrow. The "Marxist" definition of racism is the definition of racism that's being used to justify the implementation of socialism (Karl Marx is the father of modern socialism, hence the name). An overview of it is covered under Colloquial Definition Two: “Racism = Prejudice + Power” on this site. As far as I know it was created by a group of sociologists who supported Marx for the sole purpose of pushing socialism on countries. If you have some time read the Communist Manifesto, which outlines a generic model on how to subvert a system and implement socialism as a way of Government. If you're familiar with the way things have been going recently in the USA you can see some clear links between what's been happening and the methods in the manifesto. Once you realize why the Marxist definition was created and how it's being used you'll understand why people that don't support socialism dislike it. By the way - the last Democratic Presidential Candidate who ran in 2016 in the USA and lost was obsessed with Marx and the manifesto.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2019
  9. cracker

    cracker Nyah!
    Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,473
    Country:
    United States
    Identity politics are bullshit. Most of the candidates — no matter what their race — are in it for themselves and their rich friends. Good riddance to another corporate Dem (though not as bad as others in the race).
     
    cots likes this.
  10. chrisrlink

    chrisrlink Intel Pentium III Hamster inside
    Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2009
    Messages:
    3,049
    Country:
    United States
    any country besides canada willing to take asylum from the US if shit goes south i'm seriously done with the corrupt usa government any (non terrorist) country is better at this point

    — Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

    i've been thinking the Philipines at least it's christan run and english is used too
     
    CallmeBerto likes this.
  11. cots

    OP cots Banned
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,533
    Country:
    United States
    Identity politics are a tool used by the Liberal Left to push socialism on the country (see the pro-socialism site http://socialismtoday.org). Not only is this not good, but there's also inherit problems with identity politics not related to socialism (see https://www.barcelonas.com/what-is-wrong-with-identity-politics.html). So I do agree with you. All the Democrats want to do is become our lords and under socialism - once we spend all of the rich peoples money we'll be all left fighting over scraps.

    — Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

    Canada criticizes the USA's immigration crisis yet doesn't want to help by allowing people South of their border to immigrate very easily and doesn't permit illegal immigration either.
     
  12. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2019
    Messages:
    255
    Country:
    United States
    But who? who in the democratic leadership has supported anything of this nonsense? and how have they done so? When did they do it? You assert this is the goal of the liberals but can't identify the specific leadership members pushing this? And you expect us to just believe you?

    Who, what, when, why, how? @cots Anything substantive? Or is this one of your 'feelings' again that you validated by going to more conspiracy sites to confirm a bias?

    This linked article also appears to me to be a botched understanding of institutionalized (systemic) racism, or if I'm being generous, an analysis of what it can be interpreted as what is observed when claims of institutional racism are used by bad actors to push an agenda. My position on those who distort was already discussed on one of my first few posts on this thread so I'll just quote myself.

    Now, lets actually examine Marxist racism from something more substantive than a shit web article shall we.

    To just explain why i call it a shit article - it is essentially a blog that lists no sources in how he derives his conclusions. Furthermore while he is actually talking about two different types of racism he isn't understanding that they are specifically two different types and have specific names. Now other people conflate the two and that is a problem. But he's just as much as complicit because he isn't providing the clarity when he presents this information to his readers. Let's look at one of the comments from his readers to highlight this further:

    ----
    "So many arguments on the topic boil down to semantic confusion: people not realizing they’re using the same word to talk about two distinct things as if they’re the same thing. They both identify distinct things that exist, so it’s not a matter of one definition being right or real and the other wrong or fake; that’s a false dilemma. The structural group power dynamic exists, but so does individual bias regardless of that dynamic.

    Thus, when someone operating with R(1) hears, “Reverse racism isn’t a thing” or “Black people can’t be racist”, they may misinterpret that to mean, “Blacks are incapable of racial bias,” which is absurd, rather than what was meant in the R(2) sense, “People of color have hardships imposed on them due to skin color in a pervasive, systemic way that white people are exempt from by default.

    One sees the forest; the other only sees the trees — each because that’s how they primarily experience it in their own lives."
    ----

    The R(1) is racism (individual racism) and R(2) is supposed to be an explanation of institutional (systemic) racism. This comment I quoted above essentially nails what I've been saying all along! Conflation of the two by not keeping them separate breeds confusion and some people, like @cots, use that conflation to assert absurdities.

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/800145?seq=1

    CAN MARXISM EXPLAIN AMERICA's RACISM 1980

    This isn't the full journal article but it is a sufficient preview to gain enough context of what Marxism racism is rooted in when people attempt to refer or define it:

    -------
    "The Marxist interpretation of the black experience in America has always had difficulty explaining various non-economic aspects of racism and the presence of racism within the working class. With the development of post-World War II capitalism, Marxism seems unable to concede and intellectually incorporate an economics of uselessness in which large numbers of blacks are permanently unemployed. Many blacks who are also highly critical of capitalism have come to reject a class analysis which blames capitalists for the racism within the white working class. Yet, by understanding more fully the labor process within capitalism, it is possible to incorporate an explanation of working-class racism within another type of class analysis"

    Marx's central contention is that social relations flow out of the economic forms of production (i.e. how people relate to one another is a function of how material goods are produced.)

    The United States - to restate a Marxist line of argument familiar but crucial - is a capitalist society because labor prevails as a market commodity subject to the vicissitudes of property interest bent upon the extraction of surplus value from human labor.

    Such treatment of labor is a form of economic exploitation because any value in excess of production costs accrues to business owners rather than to the workers. Upon this fundamental economic principle, a specific form of class system emerges with divergent and incompatible economic imperatives: the upper (or ruling capitalist) class focuses upon production to extract profits from labor; the working (or proletariat) class necessarily copes with working conditions and the scale of pay in the form of wages.

    Capitalism is responsible, various types of Marxist scholars generally maintain, for the fate of black people in this country. "Racism," writes Perlo, "is a specific product of capitalism and a universal feature of capitalism. According to Aptheker, racism ".... is a distinctly modern phenomenon and comes into being as capitalism develops and moves toward the subjugation and colonization of the darker peoples of the world". Capitalists need racial inferiority to cheapen the cost of labor. "White employers,"
    Nearing asserted in 1929, "are taking advantage of the Negroes - using them to force down wages, to break strikes". Racism emerged and flourishes for capitalists, themselves white in color, because of its economic utility. Blacks receive wages lower than white workers to enhance profit making for capitalists. The differential pay scale along racial lines means white employees cannot demand wages much in excess of the prevailing rate capitalists establish for black laborers. By this racial tactic all laboring people suffer from suppressed wages; capitalists gain since lower wages reduce production costs, and, consequently, expand surplus value. White workers can be readily intimidated by their employers should they resort to strikes in an effort to force concessions from capitalists because black workers can be recruited to replace the striking white employee. In short, racism is primarily an effective strategy for capitalists to restrain economic demands from a recalcitrant labor force. As Reich succinctly states the case:

    "Wages of white labor are lessened by racism because the fact of a cheaper and underemployed Black labor supply in the area is invoked by employers when labor presents its wage demands. Racial antagonisms on the shop floor deflect attention from labor grievances related to working conditions."
    -------

    I conveniently retyped this whole excerpt so that if anyone desires to quote from it to discuss further they have the ability to do so.

    My understanding of Marxism racism is a specific subset of institutional racism that focuses on the labor power and economic standing of one race over another in a given location. It is important that we all agree on this definition or explanation as this will allow further discussion. I have seen people in democratic leadership discuss the conflicts in our nation regarding racism and institutional racism.

    TLDR:
    But I've never seen any leadership on either political spectrum use what I bolded above (Marxism Racism) to push to replace our democratic republic with Socialism. I've repeatedly requested the OP @cots to present evidence of such as he asserted this is true but he has been unwilling to provide anything of substance.

    This is likely due to his lazy or deceptive nature of not properly sourcing his assertions when entering discourse with others as he has habitually refused to do so during the past few weeks of interaction on this forum.
     
  13. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2019
    Messages:
    255
    Country:
    United States
    You'd think if that was true you'd find modern evidence of that instead of resorting to associates from when she was in college and her college papers from decades and decades ago.

    You are such a hypocrite. Trump was a democrat and he was for abortion and everything else 'liberals' want until about the late 2000's. Modern evidence shows he switched to republican thought on many issues and is absolved from his past thinking to any normal, rational individual. Clinton fought against sanders in the democratic primary over expansion of social programs yet she is your evidence of a candidate pushing socialism? She is a fucking capitalist through and through.

    Look through her senate record or modern quotes and show me her pushing socialism otherwise take your conspiracy boogeyman shit elsewhere. You may not realize this but you are just embarrassing yourself by spouting crackpot theories.

    Here is a quote from clinton from 2019, (although I guarantee you if you looked anywhere from 2015-2017 you would find much harsher words for social program expansion.) My evidence I present is still more than sufficient, even during the height of grassroot movement w/ candidates like Warren or Sanders - this is Clinton:
    ---
    Capitalism, said Clinton, has been growing more "predatory" and "free of any kind of check and balance" since the 1960s and 1970s. But, she continued, a "well-regulated capitalist system is good in the long run. I'd like to see us move away from the shareholder mania...and see it accelerate to a stakeholder capitalism."

    The discussion, she said, needs to happen, because "I think capitalism is the greatest generator of jobs and opportunities, and we need to figure out how it doesn't consume itself or our democracy."
    ---

    And I actually agree with her statement. Regulation of things like banks/real-estate were needed because of the 2009 crash. Nothing she is saying is pushing socialism or calling to replace our democratic republic with socialism. Just trying to get capitalism to help the worker class as well. Oh the terror, oh the inhumanity!

    But seriously, how we move forward to achieve such a goal is debatable. Everyone may have their own approach and it is up to us Americans to find what is the best. This comes back to the 'Adults left in the room' will have to figure out how to move forward, people like @cots can either continue believing in the boogeyman conspiracies used for cheap scare-tactic fundraising or join us and find solutions that work for our nation.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2019
  14. cots

    OP cots Banned
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,533
    Country:
    United States
    The majority of the time the main stream media posts stuff or the Democrats or Liberal Democrats claim someone is being racist is based on the Marxist definition (your supposed specific subset of institutional racism). It's not based on the dictionary definition. It would be nice if they would inform the public that's what they're doing as it does indeed cause confusion, especially among the people that don't know about socialism or don't want anything to do with it. If someone called you a racist and they were using the Marxist definition then it would have basically no impact compared to you actually being called racist because of someones skin color/race (as the majority of the population learned just the dictionary definition during their education). Being called a racist because you're being discriminate to someone based on someones actual race is cause for alarm. So being called a racist by a Liberal is nothing to even get concerned about. So you see why I needed to bring up there's a definitive difference when Liberals call you racist compared to actually being racist.

    Hillary's and the current 2020 Democratic candidates behaviors - such as the policies they want to implement is what I was referring to when I was saying they openly admit to wanting to push socialism on the country. You tried to justify it claiming "oh, its only a socialist democracy they're after". Just like Bernie tries to defend identifying as a "Democratic Socialist" while downplaying the word "Socialist". The thing is the plan is to implement one policy at a time and chip away at the Constitution until nothing is left. Just like gun control laws - "We'll pass this restriction and that'll be it - the problem will be solved, we promise!". Well, it never ends like that, because what comes out of these peoples mouth can never be trusted. Soon they're be another fake emergency (a simple situation blown out of proportion by the liberal media) come up to require more laws and more restrictions. You demanded quotes when I was referring to how their actions speak for themselves. I gave you a search term that provided tons of information related to how their actions and their platforms are based on pushing socialism on the country (in one form or another). I gave you what you asked for. Just in case you wanted another search query term here's one https://duckduckgo.com/?q=democratic+2020+candidates+socialism . Simply put - actions speak louder than words. You got your proof.

    You can try to confuse me with the intention to make me look stupid to discredit what I'm saying, but even if you are successful in nitpicking specifics there's the other hundreds of millions of Conservatives, Independents, Moderate Republicans/Democrats you're going to have to play mind games with, because what I'm basically doing is relating what they've been discussing (and they've been discussing it for many years now). This is why I gave you the terms I knew would bring up results backing up the general consensus. There's really no way to hide behind the fact that the Liberal Democrats want socialism in the USA. I've convinced you know this and would possibly just like to make the readers think it's not the case because you're attacking me from multiple angles on every single sentence I type in some futile attempt to discredit something that's not even a theory (as it's just what the Liberals want and are after) or you're just enjoying trying to give me a hard time. Regardless of your motivations all the reader would have to do is use the search terms I gave them as a starting point to see that you're wrong and I'm right. Those terms bring up hundreds of results and a lot are results that are from Liberal leaning sites. There should really be no argument about this issue so I'm done with it.

    As per that I'll be ignoring your replies from now on. I'm humored you and your attacks long enough.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2019
  15. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2019
    Messages:
    255
    Country:
    United States
    There are indeed bad actors on both sides, people who don't use terminology appropriately, either out of ignorance or to push an agenda. Again you are one of them by evidence of your own posts. That's the problem with your 'independent' but only support far-right republican narratives (I guess you must be 'independent' because too many moderate republicans aren't going far enough to the right for you?). You think that main stream media (fox included) misuse and conflate racism vs institutional racism? Yes, they do it for VIEWS and MONEY. It is also everyday joes who tweet, evidence by your own starting thread post, but they aren't the majority of the party. And I'm not aware of people using it to push socialism, ie replacing our democratic republic with socialism. They certainly aren't the leaders of a political party. Or at least I haven't seen any evidence and you certainly haven't provided any beyond a conspiracy site and a search engine query, but you expect people to take you seriously?

    I'm dismantling your rationale because it is flawed and predicated on a bias against liberals. I'm pointing out logical fallicies that you are presenting as reality to others. You aren't supporting your argument sufficiently with evidence to convince me and likely anyone else who didn't already share your bias. You can't even provide something as simple as this modern democrat leader specifically stated X. I'm not saying it doesn't exist because I can't prove a negative. But the burden of proof falls on you and you are only showing me duckduckgo searches. I followed the information you provided but nothing supports your claim you made here.

    I'll continue asking, to anyone. Where is the evidence of the bolded statements you asserted? After all its their leaders that are pushing socialism and end goal of ripping up the constitution and implement socialism, its out in the open. It should be easy to find. I haven't been made aware of it and I'm someone who feels I am more attentive to politics then the average voter, much less the average citizen. You @cots made this assertion and I'm asking for proof. After all you went through all this trouble of making a thread stating such I figured you would be the best person on this forum to ask for proof. You have demonstrated thus far that you don't have any by your lack provision of a quote or specific policy proposal. It's out in the open so why would you have any trouble providing such from a leader of the democrat party?

    I've expected this to turn into a bash on the Warren and Sanders policy proposals for expansion of pre-existing social programs. Sanders does call himself a democratic socialist but that is markedly separate from socialism as anyone who is familiar with the terms. I've already outlined that difference in an earlier post on this thread. I also discussed that there is much looming debate on how best to handle such a proposal of expansion when the time comes. But why should I continue explaining, when in fact, you said it best:

    What I didn't expect was you to use Hillary Clinton as your shinning example and then couldn't provide anything that wasn't decades old. I pointed out the logical fallacies in using that as your main source of evidence. *Note* you never even quoted anything she directly stated either, just posted an article written by an author who sourced a conspiracy theory site and made outlandish claims with no supporting evidence as well. I even went further to point out modern quotes where she specifically discussed her preference for capitalism. But sure, @cots don't have to respond due to my admonishment and sarcasm as you have no obligation to do so.

    I've made my point that without the evidence like I requested, this assertion is just as ridiculous as someone saying: 'The boogeyman exists, please believe me. Look my duck duck go query leads to sites that say so.'
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2019
  16. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2019
    Messages:
    255
    Country:
    United States
    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/this-is-why-millennials-favor-socialism_b_58ed0feae4b0145a227cb8d3

    This is the article you linked in your last post. Did you read it or just the headline? I'm asking geniuinely because if you did the only thing that was said:
    ---
    Yet, a full 25% of the youthful vote went to Bernie Sanders, who captured more of the millennial vote than both Trump and Clinton.
    ---

    It then goes to say because of that they support socialism and desire socialism from other countries like 'free education'. Except, what is currently provided in our nation is a government funded public education which is paid by taxes. Sanders proposed to expand that social program of public education to include more than k-12. That isn't the same as embracing socialism. This article is yet another example of people misusing terms, whether knowingly or not, to push a narrative. It would be appropriate for the author to know the difference and instead correctly label it an expansion of a a pre-existing social program. Medicare for all is another example of that.

    I can't tell if I'm getting off topic but this article didn't even have a single quote from Sanders. I'm not surprised this is the case either. I'll cease and desist. There's little point in continuing when you have no desire to provide evidence as I requested.
     
  17. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    3,138
    Country:
    United States
    You maybe could make an argument against institutionalized racism (as in 'still part of the societal backdrop at large') - but then the main flaw of the argument at hand is pitching imagined fractions against each other. And apparently seeing so clearly, that this is the root of all evil.

    So you proclaim - all needed to understand whats wrong with society - is an understanding of

    Liberals x Conservatives
    Black x White
    Capitalism x Socialism

    Then you crosssection those proclamations, and end up at "white democrats racism culture will ensure socialism war damaged buldings and people hungry in the streets, while preventing democracy" and add ' of course they fear loosing the next election now. Because we godloving non racist republican capitalists are the backbone of our society and.. Vote cots ©2019

    And then you should realize, that none of this is how it works - except if you are cots.

    And yes this is trolling.

    Because if you artificially intersect three of the most divisive zero or one social opposites in history. That are all btw. straight up made up as political concepts. As in its all attribution, and none of them is actually real. (Except if you'd want to harken back to race science days.) And then start to attribute - all the now socially attributed as 'bad' parts to one fraction - which still is an entirely made up political construct - well, this only leaves open two possible conclusions.

    A.: You are a troll
    B.: You are socially inapt not very bright person

    Even in theory. You wont get a discussion on the intricacy of any of those concepts started if you group them like that and then proclaim, this is the issue of most of whats wrong in society.


    Now we get into the public disclaimer part.


    If someone told you that (as in tought you, to think along those lines) - simply - run. They are playing with you. They are playing with social constructs. They are playing with emotionality. They are playing with irrationality. And they are playing with all the issues that come from simplifying theoretical concepts. They are playing with the concept of 'historic guilt'. And inherited guilt.

    They are the lowest of the low. They are so far removed from post enlightenment concepts ('everything can be bettered with logic'), it hurts. And they themselves are still not stupid enough to believe in any of that - if they've constructed that argument. Meaning, they are devious as well.
    -

    Short pointers.

    Democrats often rightly get blamed for selling out their ideals, when in power. Here is how that works.
    You have two factions. Bigger societal changes are only possible if both of them agree. So there is always a pattern that all meaningful change that goes against values on the democrats side was actually enacted, while democrats were in power. And vice versa. Because 'not acting' on one of those issues would have benefited them more, if they were in opposition to the ruling fraction at the time. Meaning they would have been less likely to politically agree in principal. And therefore it would have been less likely for those big changes too happen in that 'configuration'.

    I'm not saying that this is where 'racism laws in the south' started. I'm no american, I'm no historian. I don't want to whitewash. But whenever someone is selling you - that "the other fraction" is historically evil, because they say something, and do something thats opposite to their value corset - this is where this gambit originates from.

    Neglecting all - seen as needed - at the time - drive for change, and pitching it against a larger historical backdrop, of 'this is what your values should have been' - according to your own fractions morality.

    In the end this is populism, or childs play as well.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2019
  18. cots

    OP cots Banned
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,533
    Country:
    United States
    Nah, you got the first two all wrong;

    American Liberals vs Normal People
    Racists vs The Rest of the World
    Capitalism x Socialism - You got this one correct.

    1 out of 3 isn't too bad

    After kicking Liberalism (that I had no choice in adopting - the schools indoctrinated me) I went to Conservatism. Well, they're like the opposite side of the coin. While American Liberals embrace most of what's wrong with society (and is considered sinful or evil) the Conservatives (while embracing mostly honesty and valuing hard work) still didn't see eye to eye with me. If I had to chose between the two I'd pick Conservatives, but luckily I can tell both parties "to go get fucked". I don't see the world like Liberals do (that it's People of Color vs Whites) as that's actual racism. I see evil vs good and it's not limited to anyone's race. Sorry, but I'm not going to hate a person because they are old, white or happen to be a man.

    So to explain the first two points on the list.

    (1) It's the sinful evil American Liberal minority party against the rest of society.
    (2) It's racists, like the American Liberal minority against people that could care less about your skin color.

    I hope that sums it up for you.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2019
  19. J-Machine

    J-Machine Self proclaimed Pog champion
    Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    781
    Country:
    Canada
    not being aware that you are dealing with identity politics when ousting an entire side... hoo boi. Everybody has a "us vs them" mentality. let's not think politics are special or even an exception. the right has it as well. What is interesting though is that people seem to believe things like free healthcare, education and livable wages are evil. When more than 60% of a countries population is living in a "one slip up and you're done" scenario, they don't tend to do well. When every decision they make feels like they are the atlus of thier own world... They shoulder a burden that affects every aspect of thier life and it starts in elementary school. they don't eat right growing up and are pressured to know what they want to do as an adult before middle school. They are doomed to failure from the start. Either side is messed up and It is disengenuous to somehow believe that despite most of the developed world having these fancy "socialist" programs in place are ranked higher than america in many aspects of quality of life and they don't have ridiculous amounts of debt for it.
     
  20. AmandaRose

    AmandaRose Do what I do. Hold tight and pretend it’s a plan
    Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    6,055
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    It blows my mind when Americans think those things are evil. Here in Scotland we have totally free health care. We have totally free education and we are paid the living wage. Scotland is also one of the most tolerant countries in the world to the LGBT community. We have very little racism ect ect. Yep having all those things for free has totally made Scotland and the Scottish people evil.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted
Loading...

Hide similar threads Similar threads with keywords - Candidates, Democrats, Concerned