Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

He's typing from inside a rhino. The coward! The fool!

Orkeosaurus wrote:He's typing from inside a rhino. The coward! The fool!

No, thats a metal box.

Persecution was never assumed. You guys are cool. I think what we are talking about is why and who these people are in the first place. Disect the population and we get the resultant answer.

Guitardian wrote: Disect the population and we get the resultant answer.

Persecution was never assumed. You guys are cool.

Why does that make me this insular demon you seem to think I am?

I see, you're getting all up in my mental mind.

Guitardian wrote:Disect the population and we get the resultant answer.

Dissection of a movement generally involves statistical evidence, not opinion. Granted, there isn't a whole lot of statistical evidence about the Tea Party, but that doesn't imply that we should make judgments with what lies at hand.

dogma wrote:

Guitardian wrote:Disect the population and we get the resultant answer.

Dissection of a movement generally involves statistical evidence, not opinion. Granted, there isn't a whole lot of statistical evidence about the Tea Party, but that doesn't imply that we should make judgments with what lies at hand.

Can we, uh, dissect them literally instead?

I was going to say vivisection but you beat me to it.

Commissar Molotov wrote:

dogma wrote:

Guitardian wrote:Disect the population and we get the resultant answer.

Dissection of a movement generally involves statistical evidence, not opinion. Granted, there isn't a whole lot of statistical evidence about the Tea Party, but that doesn't imply that we should make judgments with what lies at hand.

Can we, uh, dissect them literally instead?

You'll need this.

Is that a game controller?

I use it for paintball games...

dogma wrote:Is that a game controller?

Yeah, it was a resident evil 4 limited edition controller.

I used em in doom but in the real world, the noise is hellish. (but it did a heckuva job knocking out 2 acres of trees in a day!) Okayyyy then: new concept: are socialists self serving, society serving BY being self serving? Are populists really just out for their own good and finding other people who are equally out for their own different good? All the 'isms' become confusing. Libertarianism has become meaningless because nobody wants to pay a parking ticket yet everyone wants roads. I'm so confused when I see these FoxNews and MSNBC shows. I can't even remember who is mad at who any more as far as name dropping, just that I don't like old rich selfish people barring my girlfriend's dad from having it. Maybe that makes me a jerk but I have to watch him die because someone else wants to be taxed less, but still play golf or whatever random thing they do with their excess money. I just watched a bunch of news guys argueing over the difference between socialism and communism to the point where I became confused myself. I think within 10 years we won't have dems versus pubs we'll have socialists versus populists, just as a redefining of roles in society... just needs to get a new word for it or whatever you legally define, the real issue is greedy versus selfish? Or do people actually care about other people's greediness versus selfishness?

Communism clearly rejects the formation of classes, socialism does not.

.... All I can say is I hope the Teabaggers do unto the Republicans as Ralph Nader did unto the Democrats.


That said... when you vote, Vote No to any government at all with the weapon of your choice! Anarchy Forever!

I think within 10 years we won't have dems versus pubs we'll have socialists versus populists, just as a redefining of roles in society...

I'm pretty sure that won't bear out true.

Anarchy Forever!

Ahh the privilege of upper class white kids.

Isn't that self serving too though? Classes exist for the benefit of the people who belong to them, at the expense of the people who belong underneath them. It never goes backwards (except maybe for cats, who get worshipped despite being formidably dumb from time to time)

Reversely, forming classes is a reward system that, ideally, respects the most able and their contribution to society, while giving a pat on the head and a shortbus to the unable contributors just so they can feel better about themselves when they hit the sack, all the while wondering why the big brothers bother.

Neither seems like a good system of morality to me. I guess the problem is in the need to babysit a neighbors kid (which I have which I have wished a chainsaw upon in missions earlier in life), thinking that it is for the greater good, but then wondering what you get out of the greater good.... Yay, five bucks to plug back into a system I thought was dumb in the first place... yet still contribute to because I live in it... but when III need something from the taxing system etc I just get a parking fine so I can pay my local cops to act like dicks to me, or a legal fee for needing a lawyer cuz some other stupid user-of-the-system who ran me over but had good insurance, or, or, pick your dilemma, right?

I want to love people, but I want them to love me too, and it has to be a two way exchange... but, paradoxically, it doesn't have to be a two way exchange if you love somebody regardless (hence the existance of the Shortbus) so you get all complicated about who is worth loving... and then government steps in and says you're worth loving if you're 65, or have golf clubs and friends, or etc.... While everyone under the bridge just wonders why and get mad that they don't have things their nextdoor neighbor do. (hmmm... I have a chainsaw, he has a leafblower... but to his advantage he has short conservative hair and a 'regular' job and a brother on the small town police force, so I doubt if my efforts would get far.... If not, who are we? Even Jesus got pissed when he heard Creed for the first time.

BaronIveagh wrote:That said... when you vote, Vote No to any government at all with the weapon of your choice! Anarchy Forever!

ANARCHY!

Classes exist for the benefit of the people who belong to them, at the expense of the people who belong underneath them.

Classes do not have an inherent value scale, and in most class based societies in history there have been multiple classes of roughly equivalent social status.

what, like slaves and such? I'm pretty sure if you asked a medieval self who was in charge he'd point at the big golf course looking thing on the mountain nearby.

Guitardian wrote:what, like slaves and such? I'm pretty sure if you asked a medieval self who was in charge he'd point at the big golf course looking thing on the mountain nearby.

And if I asked a Kshatriya in the 12th century india who was of a higher caste, he or a vaishyas he would likely have the opposite answer as the vaishya. If I asked an ancient persian merchant who was of higher standing, he or the local priest I would find the same issue. Not all forms of governance is feudalism.

Guitardian wrote:Okayyyy then: new concept: are socialists self serving, society serving BY being self serving? Are populists really just out for their own good and finding other people who are equally out for their own different good?

The reasons people believe in one or more of the wide variety of political beliefs broadly grouped together as socialism are as varied as the number of people who espouse those views. A person might believe in socialism because he wants a greater distribution of society’s wealth, he might believe it because he believes the guy over the road deserves a higher standard of living, he might believe it because he really hates his boss.

All the 'isms' become confusing.

Politics is science of analysing how the six billion people on the planet share power. It’s complicated by necessity.

I'm so confused when I see these FoxNews and MSNBC shows. I can't even remember who is mad at who

I would recommend you don’t watch those shows. They won’t help you understand politics at all. They exist by having members of the two major parties come out and give their talking points. There is little effort given to examine the reasons for candidate’s position, no exploration of solutions outside of those chosen by the major parties, and no examination of the situation on the ground, to review if the policies of either party actually make any sense. All that stuff would be hard work.

any more as far as name dropping, just that I don't like old rich selfish people barring my girlfriend's dad from having it. Maybe that makes me a jerk but I have to watch him die because someone else wants to be taxed less, but still play golf or whatever random thing they do with their excess money. I just watched a bunch of news guys argueing over the difference between socialism and communism to the point where I became confused myself.

Communism, in really simple terms, refers to a state controlled economy, where the means of production (farm land, factories etc) are owned by the state. Contrary to popular myth, the individual can still own private property, and different people can earn different amounts based on how valuable they are. But there would be no private enterprise, all business would be state owned.

Socialism refers to a wide variety of beliefs, all of which argue to a greater or lesser extent in government involvement redistributing wealth. Every developed nation on Earth, including the US, is socialist, as they all have programs such as welfare and progressive taxes. A nation without some measure of socialism isn’t actually sustainable for very long.

It doesn’t make any sense to charge someone else with being socialist for arguing for progressive social reform (such as universal healthcare) as it’s very unlikely the attacker himself rejects all socialism. Its safe to assume they don’t know what they’re talking about, or don’t care they’re spouting nonsense.

I think within 10 years we won't have dems versus pubs we'll have socialists versus populists,

It’s important to remember a populist is someone who frames the political debate in terms of the people vs the elites (obviously taking the side of the people). There are few politicians that aren’t populists. Whether you cast the elites as the wealthy, as government, or as the Illuminati, populism has been political gold for centuries.

But people hardly ever admit to being populists, unless they’re Glenn Beck and they don’t know what the word means.

sebster wrote:Communism, in really simple terms, refers to a state controlled economy, where the means of production (farm land, factories etc) are owned by the state. Contrary to popular myth, the individual can still own private property, and different people can earn different amounts based on how valuable they are. But there would be no private enterprise, all business would be state owned.

Are you sure about this? My understanding of it is that what you are describing as Communism is really (idealized) Marxist socialism. "Communism" being a post-socialist stateless society where the means of production are owned by the people directly.

Socialism refers to a wide variety of beliefs, all of which argue to a greater or lesser extent in government involvement redistributing wealth. Every developed nation on Earth, including the US, is socialist, as they all have programs such as welfare and progressive taxes. A nation without some measure of socialism isn’t actually sustainable for very long.

To say that every nation is socialist because it contains some socialism is misleading; the word isn't usually used that way, or at least it isn't to my knowledge. It would be like saying that every person is old, because every person has aged to some degree; or that an orangish-yellow paint is red because it contains red pigment (pun unintended). Whether or not a nation is socialist becomes a matter of degree, rather than a fact.

It doesn’t make any sense to charge someone else with being socialist for arguing for progressive social reform (such as universal healthcare) as it’s very unlikely the attacker himself rejects all socialism. Its safe to assume they don’t know what they’re talking about, or don’t care they’re spouting nonsense.

This too, I disagree with. Socialist is a matter of degree here as well, and to accuse someone of socialism isn't to accuse them of ever favoring any sort of socialization, but rather of favoring a great degree of socialization.

Of course, the issue with calling someone a socialist in the United States is that there's no debate over the merits of "socialism"; socialism has become so synonymous with evil (or at least huge inefficiency) that instead of judging the merits of a socialist policy, the merits of the policy are judged, and it then becomes "socialist" if found wanting. Which leads to a lot of running around and pointing fingers, and (probably) a lot of annoyance by those who still call themselves socialists.

To say that every nation is socialist because it contains some socialism is misleading; the word isn't usually used that way, or at least it isn't to my knowledge. It would be like saying that every person is old, because every person has aged to some degree; or that an orangish-yellow paint is red because it contains red pigment (pun unintended). Whether or not a nation is socialist becomes a matter of degree, rather than a fact.

When taken outside of an absolute context the term socialism loses all meaning. It's not a term that withstands varying degrees. Note that everyone using it in modern times uses it wrong and typically either derisively or faux philosophically. It's modern use is little different than that of populisms, the difference however is that socialism actually had a meaning.

Socialist is a matter of degree here as well, and to accuse someone of socialism isn't to accuse them of ever favoring any sort of socialization, but rather of favoring a great degree of socialization.

Relative terminology when used in a derisive aspect is a race to the bottom with little substance or meaning. A serial killer could refer to a conservative as a socialist (to kill without purpose for ones self is purely against the ideals of socalism) but that doesn't mean the comment makes sense. Not all words should be relative, and the common usage of a term, while pervasive, is not always correct, nor should it be defended as such.

I want to join the Optimist party.

Who's white? Or even middle class?

And I like the sound of the nukes melting down. Now that's karma. Millions would die their much deserved excruciating deaths. With fewer people, this world would be a better place.

BaronIveagh wrote:Who's white? Or even middle class?

And I like the sound of the nukes melting down. Now that's karma. Millions would die their much deserved excruciating deaths. With fewer people, this world would be a better place.

You know you have complete control over at least one of those lives. You could do your part.

I want to join the Optimist party.

What's your parties stance on abortion and harsh interrogation methods? Also how does your party plan to deal with a nuclear north korea?

ShumaGorath wrote:

I want to join the Optimist party.

What's your parties stance on abortion and harsh interrogation methods? Also how does your party plan to deal with a nuclear north korea?

Om nom nom. Popcorn.

Iron_Chaos_Brute wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I want to join the Optimist party.

What's your parties stance on abortion and harsh interrogation methods? Also how does your party plan to deal with a nuclear north korea?

Om nom nom. Popcorn.

That sounds like the fat party.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Iron_Chaos_Brute wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I want to join the Optimist party.

What's your parties stance on abortion and harsh interrogation methods? Also how does your party plan to deal with a nuclear north korea?

Om nom nom. Popcorn.

That sounds like the fat party.

Not if you hit the gym twice a day