Author Topic: The Politics Thread v2  (Read 181145 times)

Offline Samwise

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #460 on: November 24, 2015, 02:48:59 PM »
You've been asked the same question by multiple people as nobody else has any idea what the fuck you're referring to. It shouldn't take more than two sentences to clarify.

No, I've had multiple people shriek that "compensation" for years of "oppression" is not "special privileges.
That clearly indicates that they are well aware of what I mean when I use the term "special privileges", otherwise they wouldn't leap to such a justification for endorsing them.
Of course not having anything to say beyond that, the demand is now changed to requiring a specific list of what is being referred to. This a typical tactic of "progressives" when they are incapable of sustaining their arguments - they seek to change the focus of the discussion, attempting to overload any opponent with a mass of digressions. Sadly for you, I am experienced with that, and see no reason to indulge you.
If you want to make a specific list of what you consider "just compensation", I will gladly tear them down one at a time. You present your specifics since you are so confident in them. If you are not, then you confess you know they are not justifiable, and will have to find yet another way to change the subject in an attempt to prove that your "progressive" dystopia is better than actual freedom.

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #461 on: November 24, 2015, 02:58:28 PM »
Strangely enough, no I don't, because the specifics referred to tend to be about parts of a country on another fucking continent. And got drowned out in the dick-waving contest about who's got more claim to not being a bigot.

Offline Samwise

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #462 on: November 24, 2015, 03:02:53 PM »
So you acknowledge that government and taxation are theft then? :eh

Nope.  :D
Certain forms of government and taxation are theft,  that is true.
But it is not a universal absolute.

Eh, it's a start.

Dude . . . "we" (people who believe in the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the structure of the Constitution, and the explanation of the Constitution in The Federalist), "started" that over 200 years ago.

Quote
Really? Got some evidence to support that?

I wouldn't be overly surprised considering how absolutely full of shit the media is, but if you're gonna' cry conspiracy you'd better have something to back it up.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/11/does-trump-actually-want-a-muslim-database.html

First link my engine through up that reviews the whole thing, and in what is a reasonably neutral manner.
Summary: Trump didn't say it, but he still hasn't unequivocally not said it.

Quote
That's why I separated the two terms by a slash. I was categorizing, not equating. Call it lazy typing. ;)

Fair enough. I just wanted to be sure. :)

Quote
While we're dropping knowlege: the term "Libertarian" was originally a synonym for "Anarchist", but has been co-opted more recently by the modern "Libertarian" party to mean something rather different.

Last I heard it was pulled in to replace the "liberal" part of "classical liberal" after the same was usurped by the "progressives". It certainly doesn't represent classical liberalism anymore either.
Which is why I've told others I'm a flippity-floppity-floopitarian. (South Park reference.)

Jumping into replies to others again:
Quote
Well, that explains some of our differences in perspective. Age doesn't necessarily correlate to outlook or personal experience, but I did have much more faith in the system when I was your age. Took a lot of hard lessons to peel back all that dogma we get indoctrinated with. :tongue

Though we clearly went different routes, I agree completely.

Quote
It's not, but there's only so much time in the day. Why waste it doing something pointless?

...is what I try to remind myself every time I get the urge to post something here. :D

Indeed.  :cool

Offline Samwise

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #463 on: November 24, 2015, 03:12:52 PM »
Are you just ignoring other people to try and work in insults now? I know this is a politics thread, but you don't need to put that much effort into avoiding the question. Posts that consist entirely of broken-up quotes with a sentence between them are not a clear resource to try and work out the hell these special privileges are. Insulting everyone else for not being able to find it doesn't cover for the mess this style of posting leaves. :eh

No, those are just for Bhu, who made it quite clear he wanted to be personally and exclusively obnoxious to me. Since I'm an accommodating fellow who likes to give people what they want, I am returning his venom to him.

Quote
Strangely enough, no I don't, because the specifics referred to tend to be about parts of a country on another fucking continent. And got drowned out in the dick-waving contest about who's got more claim to not being a bigot.

Which is why I've already suggested breaking off another thread where I'll be happy to answer specific, direct, questions regarding specific, direct issues.

You are right, the thread has become a complete and total mess, and it is difficult to find past references. I'm not going to argue against something so obvious. Equally, I'm not going to fight something so obvious by throwing more responses into the maelstrom where they will get lost and you will demand I repeat them a page or two later.

Offline MrWolfe

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 376
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #464 on: November 24, 2015, 05:33:19 PM »
Dude . . . "we" (people who believe in the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the structure of the Constitution, and the explanation of the Constitution in The Federalist), "started" that over 200 years ago.

Yeah, a nation founded on slavery and genocide totally holds those particular truths to be self-evident. Man, you really have been drinking the kool-aid. :rolleyes

The U.S. has never lived up to the philosophy espoused by the Declaration of Independence. Frankly, I find it a little mind boggling that Jefferson had the balls to put those words down on paper while owning slaves, but hey--it's still a good set of ideals to try and live by.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/11/does-trump-actually-want-a-muslim-database.html

First link my engine through up that reviews the whole thing, and in what is a reasonably neutral manner.
Summary: Trump didn't say it, but he still hasn't unequivocally not said it.

Hmm, not the best source in the world but it's about as much evidence as the other side has--which is to say just the word of some journalist. I do find it a little funny when you see a story like this though:

"News articles are full of lies--you can trust me, I'm a news article!"

Quote
While we're dropping knowlege: the term "Libertarian" was originally a synonym for "Anarchist", but has been co-opted more recently by the modern "Libertarian" party to mean something rather different.

Last I heard it was pulled in to replace the "liberal" part of "classical liberal" after the same was usurped by the "progressives". It certainly doesn't represent classical liberalism anymore either.
Which is why I've told others I'm a flippity-floppity-floopitarian. (South Park reference.)

Eh, I've never paid too much attention to labels like that. I know about the libertarianism/anarchism connection because I've studied anarchism in detail, and that bit of history came up. Beyond that, titles should be secondary to ideals. They're only important insofar they distinguish different philosophies and enable discussion--which is why I get so cheesed off when someone misuses a term like "anarchism": it muddies the water and forces you to argue the definition instead of the ideals.

Jumping into replies to others again:
Quote
Well, that explains some of our differences in perspective. Age doesn't necessarily correlate to outlook or personal experience, but I did have much more faith in the system when I was your age. Took a lot of hard lessons to peel back all that dogma we get indoctrinated with. :tongue

Though we clearly went different routes, I agree completely.

In my experience, time tends to bring either clarity or a deeper attachment to rhetoric. It's rather hard to tell which one you got from the inside, so I make it a point to question and analyze my beliefs on a regular basis. Part of why I seek out dissenting opinions as well. It's not perfect, but it's the best you can do when the whole of your experience takes place inside your own skull.

Thus far, anarchism still makes the most sense to me.

Quote
It's not, but there's only so much time in the day. Why waste it doing something pointless?

...is what I try to remind myself every time I get the urge to post something here. :D

Indeed.  :cool

Hey, at least we agree on something. ;)
A little madness goes a long way...

Offline awaken_D_M_golem

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7639
  • classique style , invisible tail
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #465 on: November 24, 2015, 05:54:29 PM »
"Gotcha" journalism gets practiced on all sides.

Trying to "gotcha" Trump by Implication, is a waste of time.
He's more than willing to supply what normally would be
gotcha's of himself.  It's his use of average 4th grade level
language that's furrowed the ground ahead of all that.
He'll speak even more plainly if he wants to.

None (!) of his real estate deals could be done with 4th grade only-ism.
Politics though ...
Your codpiece is a mimic.

Offline bhu

  • Uncle Kittie
  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16306
  • Fnord bitches
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #466 on: November 24, 2015, 06:06:35 PM »
I've been quite direct. I have no idea if your intellectual corruption is a result of genetic defect or not.

You have been anything but direct my dear cow.

Quote
I put no effort into fibbing as, unlike you, I have no need to.
  So you're a lazy liar.  That doesn't really help your position.

Quote
You are barely cognizant of what you're doing; how could you be cognizant of what I'm doing?
  Because you're more transparent than you believe basket weaver.

Quote
Yes there is. And you are a drone shouting racist because you have nothing else to say to sustain your position.
  All of your posts and continued participation in this exercise confirm my position  :p

Quote
Your ignorance is not my responsibility, something that applies to pretty much every bit of stupidity you've blathered.
  Ignorance and stupidity are not the same thing.  Learn the definitions of words before you use them.

Quote
No, just most of them.
As for a search of a term as corrupted by "progressives" as "right wing", of what use would it be? I'm sure it would include someone like Father Coughlin, a proud "progressive" and racist.
  Willful ignorance does not set well on you basket weaver.

Quote
That's because your idea of civility is participation in the echo chamber. Since I actually believe in something antithetical to your exclusionary and dehumanizing ideology, you naturally define any such expressions as being impolite, no matter how civil they actually are.
As with your ignorance, I am also not responsible for your bigotry.

You have never asked me what ideology I profess nor have I ever given it beyond poking you for being a racist asshole.  I define you as being impolite because you have been.  Being impolite to someone who wallows in impoliteness is not bigotry, it's giving him what he's expecting.

I look forward to your predictable reply with glee.

Offline bhu

  • Uncle Kittie
  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16306
  • Fnord bitches
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #467 on: November 24, 2015, 06:17:24 PM »
Strangely enough, no I don't, because the specifics referred to tend to be about parts of a country on another fucking continent. And got drowned out in the dick-waving contest about who's got more claim to not being a bigot.

Not really dick waving on my part.  He only calls me a bigot because I called him one and it's a nice way to avoid serious discussion.  He's been evasive and misleading in his statements, and in general been kind of an asshat.  I'm just treating him the way he treats others.  I don't really care what he believes, so long as he's honest about it and can be less of a troll.  Look through his past statements and you'll notice a pattern of him being deliberately misleading or behaving in the same manner he accuses others of.  It's classic trolling.  You're best off just ignoring him because your participation is what he wants.  He's just posting what he can in order to get a rise from people, it's not like he believes in it at all.  He just wants to make himself feel better at your expense. 

In other news Turkey shot down a Russian jet and then killed the pilot mid-air.  Could be dicey.

Edit: News is now saying fate of pilots unknown.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2015, 06:50:56 PM by bhu »

Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #468 on: November 24, 2015, 08:09:06 PM »
Quote
And where, praytell, did you gain this superior understanding of anarchism?

Anarchy is opposed to rulers, it's right there in the root of the word. Whether they rule through force, economic power, or perceived authority is immaterial.

Tell me, where in that definition you gave does it say "peaceful" or "non-violent" or anything like that?  Call it rulers, government, whatever.  Just because your brand of it is peaceful and non-violent (even anti-violent), doesn't mean that others are.

On the Trump database thing, here is the video of him answering the question "should there be a database of Muslims" with "there should be even more than that, beyond databases".  So....yeah.....the whole "Trump said it" crowd has a bit more evidence than that....like, video evidence....
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #469 on: November 24, 2015, 08:13:01 PM »
And on a UK note, the Chancellor's autumn spending review is pretty much finalised (simply waiting to be listed tomorrow). After managing to annoy various factions of basically the entire party recently AND every other political entity in the UK, and with the health secretary still picking a fight with most of the NHS...

He's including a 20% cut to police funding. Because running a budget surplus (despite what that actually means) is such an important move. Genius.

... then again, guy has a history degree and has never had a proper job, so I'm not really surprised.

Offline SolEiji

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3045
  • I am 120% Eiji.
    • View Profile
    • D&D Wiki.org, not .com
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #470 on: November 24, 2015, 08:51:13 PM »
In other news Turkey shot down a Russian jet and then killed the pilot mid-air.  Could be dicey.

Edit: News is now saying fate of pilots unknown.

Hoo boy.  Turkey is like... main pro-ISIS nation...

Russia v Turkey, with everyone else mucking it up as well ahoy.
Mudada.

Offline stanprollyright

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 248
  • The Looks
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #471 on: November 24, 2015, 10:13:52 PM »
1. Not everyone believes that statism is bad, and yes I've noticed changes when presidents change.  And when congressional control changes.  And when my governor changes.  Take a look around: we're no longer at war with Iraq and Afghanistan, gay marriage is legal, weed is becoming legal, the economy is marginally better, and more people have health insurance.

Not everyone believes the earth is round either. :eh

And thank you for making my point: Who sits in the Oval Office has very little impact on policy if the rest of the political apparatus, from senators and congressmen on down to cops and file clerks, does not change. As other people have already pointed out, those issues you mention are not nearly as resolved as you seem to think they are. Honestly, who gets to be president is probably one of the least important things you could vote for.

I also vote for senators and congressmen and city council members when I vote for president.  And those other people change in reaction to the president.  Further, the Supreme Court actually does have a huge amount of power in this day and age, and they are appointed by the president.

2.  Since we have two diametrically opposed parties, if one uses underhanded tactics the other cries foul.  In a way, they cancel each other out.  Also, if voting doesn't matter, why would advertising and gerrymandering matter?  Those are both ways to get votes where you want them.  Ohio just passed an anti-gerrymandering law and will have its districts redrawn soon, and other states are doing the same.

Someone already tackled that "diametrically opposed parties" bit, so I'll let it slide.

Advertising and gerrymandering are part of why voting doesn't matter. Even if you try to vote, most people's opinions are more heavily influenced by the campaigns and their party affiliation, rather than actual fact. And for that rare voter who actually took the time to sort through all the BS and develop an informed opinion on the issue, their voice will likely be drowned out anyway--whether by the masses who didn't bother to think for themselves or simply by the way their district lines have been drawn.

Those people have the same number of votes as you.  You are giving them the power to "drown you out" by abstaining.  Again, you're creating a self-fulfilling prophesy of defeatism.

3. Which more effective ways do you speak of?

Education, for a start. ;)

Education only matters if votes do.

1.) Bernie Sanders' policies are overall the best as a Presidential candidate.  The question is whether or not he will live up to his policies, but he's a far shot better than Hillary.

Spoiler alert: He won't. They never do, partly because a president does not have the authority to enact whatever changes they feel like, and partly because most candidates lie out their ass to get the job and then cease to give a fuck.

If you researched Bernie Sanders you'd realize that you are absolutely wrong.  He's been walking the walk for decades.  He also has a tendency to increase voter turnout wherever he goes, which affects other elections around him.  And, as I mentioned before, even if appointing Supreme Court justices and federal circuit court judges were the only thing the president had the power to do it would be huge.  And that's definitely NOT the only thing the president has the power to do.
Goats are like mushrooms
If you shoot a duck I'm scared of toasters

Offline Samwise

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #472 on: November 24, 2015, 10:57:04 PM »
Yeah, a nation founded on slavery and genocide totally holds those particular truths to be self-evident. Man, you really have been drinking the kool-aid. :rolleyes

Yeah . . . nice rhetoric, but complete and utter nonsense in terms of actual history. Stop guzzling the revisionist kool-Aid.

Quote
The U.S. has never lived up to the philosophy espoused by the Declaration of Independence. Frankly, I find it a little mind boggling that Jefferson had the balls to put those words down on paper while owning slaves, but hey--it's still a good set of ideals to try and live by.

Riiight, because the U.S. never went to war to end slavery, or stop dictatorships, or spend multiples of its GDP to rebuild other nations.

As for Jefferson . . . he was able to completely ignore The Terror of the French Revolution as an "inconvenient truth". Sometimes I wonder if his managing to get the DOI written was simply an accident of providence. (And then I have really nasty things to say about him.)

Quote
Hmm, not the best source in the world but it's about as much evidence as the other side has--which is to say just the word of some journalist. I do find it a little funny when you see a story like this though:

"News articles are full of lies--you can trust me, I'm a news article!"

My current favorite commentary on the press:
http://www.archive.org/stream/americandemocrat00coop#page/128/mode/2up
Or, as I like to paraphrase:
"The biggest lie the media ever told was convincing the public it was a neutral commentator."

You click two pages/chapters back for more on the subject, and another chapter for this awesome phrase due to shift in definitions:
Quote
It renders all more respectable, besides making intercourse more intelligible, safer, and more agreeable.

Quote
Eh, I've never paid too much attention to labels like that. I know about the libertarianism/anarchism connection because I've studied anarchism in detail, and that bit of history came up. Beyond that, titles should be secondary to ideals. They're only important insofar they distinguish different philosophies and enable discussion--which is why I get so cheesed off when someone misuses a term like "anarchism": it muddies the water and forces you to argue the definition instead of the ideals.

You mean like people confusing the principles of the Founding Documents of the U.S. with post-modern interpretations, completely distorting the structure and context?
Yeah, I know what you mean.

Quote
In my experience, time tends to bring either clarity or a deeper attachment to rhetoric. It's rather hard to tell which one you got from the inside, so I make it a point to question and analyze my beliefs on a regular basis. Part of why I seek out dissenting opinions as well. It's not perfect, but it's the best you can do when the whole of your experience takes place inside your own skull.

Thus far, anarchism still makes the most sense to me.

I was a Corporatist, now I'm a . . . flippity-floppity-floopitarian.
I've gone over the history multiple times, and it still comes off as both subjectively and objectively superior in intent and outcome.

Quote
Hey, at least we agree on something. ;)

Actually, I think that makes two things:
1. the value of regular re-examination and self-challenge;
2. the beau geste of arguing about it


Offline Samwise

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #473 on: November 24, 2015, 11:01:15 PM »
"Gotcha" journalism gets practiced on all sides.

Trying to "gotcha" Trump by Implication, is a waste of time.
He's more than willing to supply what normally would be
gotcha's of himself.  It's his use of average 4th grade level
language that's furrowed the ground ahead of all that.
He'll speak even more plainly if he wants to.

None (!) of his real estate deals could be done with 4th grade only-ism.
Politics though ...

I've been waiting for him to go the full Perot since the beginning.
No matter how well he plays the media, he just never struck me as having the personal staying power needed.

As for politics:
Quote
NO DOUBT but ye are the People-your throne is above the King's.
Whoso speaks in your presence must say acceptable things:
Bowing the head in worship, bending the knee in fear-
Bringing the word well smoothen-such as a King should hear.

Hoo boy.  Turkey is like... main pro-ISIS nation...

Russia v Turkey, with everyone else mucking it up as well ahoy.

A few years ago I suggested to an analyst that a better comparison of certain moves in that region was the Crimean War, with Russia battling Turkey, then England and France intervening with England getting Cyprus and France getting privileges in Lebanon.

Well . . .

Russia has made a deal with Cyprus, and may yet "buy" Greece with debt relief, while gaining influence in Syria.
Turkey has now "volunteered" to be a target of Russia, France is up for bombing Syria thoroughly, and England is caught up in internal issues that may leave it just taking its ball and going home.
That leaves the current U.S. administration facing a choice between sucking up to Turkey or sucking up to Russia.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2015, 11:12:54 PM by Samwise »

Offline MrWolfe

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 376
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #474 on: November 25, 2015, 12:58:18 AM »
Those people have the same number of votes as you.  You are giving them the power to "drown you out" by abstaining.  Again, you're creating a self-fulfilling prophesy of defeatism.

Individually? Yes.
Collectively? No.

Sadly, advertising is a very effective tool for swaying mass opinion. With the promotional resources of the two major U.S. political factions, most people are going to be convinced to go with "Brand A" or "Brand B." The independent voter who does the research themselves and decides that Brand Y is the better option doesn't have much of a chance in the face of A and B's popularity.

Hell, my brand usually isn't even on the ballot.

Education only matters if votes do.

Education always matters, regardless of how your political system functions.

If you researched Bernie Sanders you'd realize that you are absolutely wrong.  He's been walking the walk for decades.  He also has a tendency to increase voter turnout wherever he goes, which affects other elections around him.  And, as I mentioned before, even if appointing Supreme Court justices and federal circuit court judges were the only thing the president had the power to do it would be huge.  And that's definitely NOT the only thing the president has the power to do.

Yes, he's successfully pandered to a previously under-tapped demographic. Best case scenario? He actually means half the stuff he says, and spends his entire term butting heads with congress and the rest of the government, getting fuck all done. We've already seen this under Obama, who was by no means as far from the political mainstream as Sanders is making himself out to be. How bad do you think it's going to be with both major parties fighting you every step of the way?

Seriously, we did this whole "hope & change--this new guy will make everything better" dance already. Matter of fact, most elections tend to follow that cycle. Yet we've still been blowing up other countries, criminalizing recreational substance use, and fighting tooth and nail for basic civil rights far longer than I've been alive.

Yeah, a nation founded on slavery and genocide totally holds those particular truths to be self-evident. Man, you really have been drinking the kool-aid. :rolleyes

Yeah . . . nice rhetoric, but complete and utter nonsense in terms of actual history. Stop guzzling the revisionist kool-Aid.

"Actual history?"

As opposed to well documented facts? :lmao

Quote
And where, praytell, did you gain this superior understanding of anarchism?

Anarchy is opposed to rulers, it's right there in the root of the word. Whether they rule through force, economic power, or perceived authority is immaterial.

Tell me, where in that definition you gave does it say "peaceful" or "non-violent" or anything like that?  Call it rulers, government, whatever.  Just because your brand of it is peaceful and non-violent (even anti-violent), doesn't mean that others are.

I'm sorry, I'm not qualified to act as an English tutor. Please attain fluency in the language and try again. ;)
A little madness goes a long way...

Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #475 on: November 25, 2015, 01:13:53 AM »
I'm extremely confused as to what you mean by that.  You used the word "force", yes, but in the context of a ruler.  You don't need to be a ruler to use force.  No where in that definition, nor in the accepted definition, of anarchism is "non-violent" a part of the definition.  Therefore, it is perfectly valid to say "no true anarchist is violent" falls under the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Offline bhu

  • Uncle Kittie
  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16306
  • Fnord bitches
    • View Profile

Offline Samwise

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #477 on: November 25, 2015, 01:57:24 AM »
Education always matters, regardless of how your political system functions.

Yep.

Quote
"Actual history?"

As opposed to well documented facts? :lmao

Nope.

Documentation is not the same as facts.
Just because someone writes a lie down 5 billion times does not make it true.
The Liberty Valance Principle is great for media, bad for history.

So yes, actual history, the study of events in context - top down, bottom up, sideways, inside out, and more - rather than the study of some revisionist inversion (although knowing the attempted revisionist inversions is critical as well).

The problem with learning from history is learning the lessons it makes available, not the lessons you want to support your ideology.
If all you look for is examples of people getting things wrong, then you will certainly find them. You will also most certainly get an absolutely wrong conclusion.

But tell you what, apply that to oh say . . . the history of Anarchism. If we just look for incidents of violent Anarchists we can find more than enough to fill several tomes. Yet you insist they were not "true" Anarchists, or acting in accordance with "proper" Anarchist principles and theory.
Does that mean we get to dismiss Anarchism the same way you dismiss American Republicanism?
You sure you don't want to reconsider that?

Offline MrWolfe

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 376
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #478 on: November 25, 2015, 04:28:00 AM »
I'm extremely confused as to what you mean by that.  You used the word "force", yes, but in the context of a ruler.  You don't need to be a ruler to use force.  No where in that definition, nor in the accepted definition, of anarchism is "non-violent" a part of the definition.  Therefore, it is perfectly valid to say "no true anarchist is violent" falls under the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

Anarchy is opposed to violence because it is a form of domination. Not because domination is necessarily violent.

We've been over this before: By using violence one attempts to assert their will or desires over the rights of another--whether it's to control the victim's actions or simply to inflict pain or injury. Thus, as a logical consequence, Anarchy is opposed to violence.

http://www.highexistence.com/george-orwell-on-the-7-ways-politicians-abuse-language-to-deceive-you-and-how-to-make-it-stop/  nifty read

That it is. Interesting to see the linguistic tricks the author uses while discussing linguistic tricks. Sort of a "spot the example" kind of thing. Will have to finish reading it tomorrow, when I'm less tired.

Education always matters, regardless of how your political system functions.

Yep.

Well, I just got someone to reverse their previously stated position--on the internet. Do I win a prize?

Quote
"Actual history?"

As opposed to well documented facts? :lmao

Nope.

Documentation is not the same as facts.
Just because someone writes a lie down 5 billion times does not make it true.
The Liberty Valance Principle is great for media, bad for history.

So yes, actual history, the study of events in context - top down, bottom up, sideways, inside out, and more - rather than the study of some revisionist inversion (although knowing the attempted revisionist inversions is critical as well).

The problem with learning from history is learning the lessons it makes available, not the lessons you want to support your ideology.
If all you look for is examples of people getting things wrong, then you will certainly find them. You will also most certainly get an absolutely wrong conclusion.

You're throwing around a lot of buzzwords here, but not making much of an argument.

Yes, documentation is different from actual history. That's why people study this stuff to determine as best we can what actually transpired. Technically, we can't be 100% certain this isn't all some mad dream or a matrix simulation--but under the circumstances we have to do the best we can with the evidence we have.

According to that evidence, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves while penning the words:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Again, according to the best evidence we have, he wrote this while depriving some men of those very same rights he held to be "self-evident."

Do you deny that this is "actual history?"

If so, on what basis?

But tell you what, apply that to oh say . . . the history of Anarchism. If we just look for incidents of violent Anarchists we can find more than enough to fill several tomes. Yet you insist they were not "true" Anarchists, or acting in accordance with "proper" Anarchist principles and theory.
Does that mean we get to dismiss Anarchism the same way you dismiss American Republicanism?
You sure you don't want to reconsider that?

We can certainly find incidents of people either calling themselves anarchists or being called anarchists participating in violence--particularly since politicians and newspapers are quick to slap that label on anyone who commits violent acts against the government--but that is not the same as finding actual incidents of violent Anarchists. You can also find plenty of examples of people referring to tomatoes as a "vegetable," but common misconception doesn't change the fact that tomatoes are a fruit.

"Anarchist" means "someone who follows the philosophy of Anarchism", not "anyone who's ever been called that before." If that was how labels worked, I could call someone a brainless wanker and they'd have no grounds to refute it.

And obviously, you can dismiss anarchism if you choose. Nothing I can say from behind my keyboard has any bearing on your ability to do so, and I suspect you already have. Most people are taught to dismiss anarchy from an early age by those same talking heads that wrongly treat "anarchy" as being a synonym for "violent disorder."

However, I don't recall dismissing the philosophy espoused by the founding fathers in documents such as the Declaration of Independence. In fact I expressed my admiration for those words and the ideals they represent, along with my astonishment at the hypocrisy of the men who wrote them.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2015, 04:31:09 AM by MrWolfe »
A little madness goes a long way...

Offline Libertad

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3618
    • View Profile
    • My Fantasy and Gaming Blog
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #479 on: November 25, 2015, 03:30:35 PM »
"All Lives Matter!" shouts Warlord Trump as his scythe cleaves through the Army of Light.  "No soul is too unworthy or beneath notice to feed dread Cthulhu's maw!  Ia!  Ia!"