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.

 Galas wrote:
I'm sad we haven't encounter any old classical Communist yet

I don't think you'd really ever get any for several reasons.

First, communism is so poorly understood that most people really can't define it. In part that's also because an absurd number of wildly different governments and movements have been labelled as such that they're impossible to actually reconcile.

Second, even going back to the basic Marxist concept, it's a dead movement. Utopian communism, much like unrestricted Randian/unbridled laissez-faire capitalism, just doesn't work on large scales, and has been abandoned by all but the tiniest irrelevant lunatic fringes in most nations.

Third, the questions really are very modern US centric, and aren't really the kind of questions that would identify such. Hell, for the same reasons I don't think they'd even really give you an accurate view of what an actual "socialist" is, it's conflating government regulation with "socialism", as opposed to collective/state ownership and management of economic sectors. Essentially the questions are going to tell people where they are along a "centrist US" range.

 Verviedi wrote:

False by all measures.

Social liberalism, at its core, is renamed libertarianism. Essentially, do what you will, as long as it doesn't harm others.

That's... not what the wikipedia article suggests.

 daedalus wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:

False by all measures.

Social liberalism, at its core, is renamed libertarianism. Essentially, do what you will, as long as it doesn't harm others.

That's... not what the wikipedia article suggests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism wrote: Social liberalism is a political ideology that believes individual liberty requires a level of social justice. Like classical liberalism, social liberalism endorses a market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights and liberties, but differs in that it believes the legitimate role of the government includes addressing economic and social issues such as poverty, health care, and education.Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual. Social liberal policies have been widely adopted in much of the capitalist world, particularly following World War II. Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left.

 Verviedi wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I'm sad we haven't encounter any old classical Communist yet

By this, do you mean Marxist anarcho-communism, or Mao/Lenin/Stalinist authoritarian communism?

Not anarcho, but the original Marxist Communism, yeah. But it was a pseudo joke, not need to do of it more that my original intention
Has Vaktathi said, Communism is DOA, even if I believe the critizism of Marx to the Capitalist system was very correct. (Basically, he was good analizing it, but not so good at offering a viable alternative)

 Selym wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:

False by all measures.

Social liberalism, at its core, is renamed libertarianism. Essentially, do what you will, as long as it doesn't harm others.

That's... not what the wikipedia article suggests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism wrote: Social liberalism is a political ideology that believes individual liberty requires a level of social justice. Like classical liberalism, social liberalism endorses a market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights and liberties, but differs in that it believes the legitimate role of the government includes addressing economic and social issues such as poverty, health care, and education.Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual. Social liberal policies have been widely adopted in much of the capitalist world, particularly following World War II. Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left.

 daedalus wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:

False by all measures.

Social liberalism, at its core, is renamed libertarianism. Essentially, do what you will, as long as it doesn't harm others.

That's... not what the wikipedia article suggests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism wrote: Social liberalism is a political ideology that believes individual liberty requires a level of social justice. Like classical liberalism, social liberalism endorses a market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights and liberties, but differs in that it believes the legitimate role of the government includes addressing economic and social issues such as poverty, health care, and education.Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual. Social liberal policies have been widely adopted in much of the capitalist world, particularly following World War II. Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left.

Indeed...

In one way or another basically "all" Western countrys fuction in some degrees of Social Liberalism. Ones are more of the social part, others are more in the economical liberal part.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 zedmeister wrote:
Equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?

Love that differentiation. I support equality of opportunity, but my mother did once point out a flaw in my logic.

Let's say you were at a football game, but the stands had been removed for repairs. Everyone crowds around the pitch, trying to watch the game. Everyone's opportunity is equal, the floor is level so nobody gets a systemic advantage, and people are not able to distinguish between one spot or point of entry and another. But people have different heights, and now that everything's equal, some people can't see the game.

Can these people pull themselves up by the bootstraps? Nopesicles. What's the solution?

For her, it was preferential treatment for the incapable by giving them boxes to stand on.

For me, this just reeks of Harrison Bergeron. (for you that don't know the short story, look it up, good read). Let's says I have my heart set on being a prima ballerina. Let's not let my 6'5", 330 pound ogre of a figure get in the way. I demand some kind of genetic enhancement, or at the very least everyone else be forced to wear lead vests to limit their maximum performance to match mine.

Well, this isn't like a black or white situations. Hyperbole is a little useless here. For example:

Why put cement ramps for disabled people? What are they, some kind of speciall snowflakes? Are they entitled to have those kind of privileges?
In fact, why should we give them whellchairs? Use those arms that evolution provided you with!

Other option is to broken the legs of everyone else so we can emphatize better with them.

EDIT: But this is offtopic, I'll drop the argument here!

When it comes to certain topics, I'm middle ground. Other topics, I'm pretty liberal. Other topics, I'm pretty conservative.


I supported Gay marriage, support anti-discrimination laws, pro animal-rights, support legalizing polygamy and prostitution.

I'm also pro-gun, anti-abortion, against affirmative action, pro-hunting, and pro-free speech.

Even on certain issues I am torn between extremes. I'm an totally in support of trans persons and their rights to access the facilities of their choice, with the sole exception of pre-op people using communal showers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
Well, this isn't like a black or white situations. Hyperbole is a little useless here. For example:

Why put cement ramps for disabled people? What are they, some kind of speciall snowflakes? Are they entitled to have those kind of privileges?
In fact, why should we give them whellchairs? Use those arms that evolution provided you with!

Other option is to broken the legs of everyone else so we can emphatize better with them.

EDIT: But this is offtopic, I'll drop the argument here!

As a side note, is the cartoon itself racist? It appears to assume that Brown people are too poor for an actual seat and will resort to looking through a fence.

The sportsmans are too black people so probably the guy that draw that cartoon was just black. (Or from a Southamerican country, I have seen people from Venezuela and Colombia with a skin with that colour)

Pitcher and batter are brown as well.

Might just be a packed game in the Dominican Republic!

 Galas wrote:
The sportsmans are too black people so probably the guy that draw that cartoon was just black. (Or from a Southamerican country, I have seen people from Venezuela and Colombia with a skin with that colour)

My brother is Colombian and he's fairly pale. Gotta break those stereotypes, man.

 cuda1179 wrote:
When it comes to certain topics, I'm middle ground. Other topics, I'm pretty liberal. Other topics, I'm pretty conservative.


I supported Gay marriage, support anti-discrimination laws, pro animal-rights, support legalizing polygamy and prostitution.

I'm also pro-gun, anti-abortion, against affirmative action, pro-hunting, and pro-free speech.

If I'm reading you right, you are writing that free speech is more conservative than liberal.
I thought it was entirely within liberal values to support free speech.

Ignoring the Liberal/Authoritarian axis;

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Galas wrote:
The sportsmans are too black people so probably the guy that draw that cartoon was just black. (Or from a Southamerican country, I have seen people from Venezuela and Colombia with a skin with that colour)

My brother is Colombian and he's fairly pale. Gotta break those stereotypes, man.

Could even be British - we have black people too!

 Selym wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
When it comes to certain topics, I'm middle ground. Other topics, I'm pretty liberal. Other topics, I'm pretty conservative.


I supported Gay marriage, support anti-discrimination laws, pro animal-rights, support legalizing polygamy and prostitution.

I'm also pro-gun, anti-abortion, against affirmative action, pro-hunting, and pro-free speech.

If I'm reading you right, you are writing that free speech is more conservative than liberal.
I thought it was entirely within liberal values to support free speech.

Don't tell that to the Antifa groups, Feminist groups, or many other forms of college protestor/rioter these days.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Galas wrote:
The sportsmans are too black people so probably the guy that draw that cartoon was just black. (Or from a Southamerican country, I have seen people from Venezuela and Colombia with a skin with that colour)

My brother is Colombian and he's fairly pale. Gotta break those stereotypes, man.

Yeah, theres many variety n those countries, I wasn't saying that EVERYBODY was of that skin colour


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Selym wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
When it comes to certain topics, I'm middle ground. Other topics, I'm pretty liberal. Other topics, I'm pretty conservative.


I supported Gay marriage, support anti-discrimination laws, pro animal-rights, support legalizing polygamy and prostitution.

I'm also pro-gun, anti-abortion, against affirmative action, pro-hunting, and pro-free speech.

If I'm reading you right, you are writing that free speech is more conservative than liberal.
I thought it was entirely within liberal values to support free speech.

This is because in USA they have Liberal=Progressive=Social Left, when in Europe we call Liberals to the Economical Liberals, that where the left in the French Revolution(Because in that age they goed against the old regime) but now are considered from the economical right. USA was founded by liberals afterall. True Liberals believe in totally free market without intervention of the state, open borders for goods and people, etc (Basically a mix of Social Left with Economical Right)... the extreme of Liberalism is Anarco-Capitalism.
But free-speech is not a conservative value.
But at the same time free spech goes more in the "Autoritarism-Personal Freedom" axis than in Progression-Tradition one. Theres have been Autoritarian states that supressed free spech both from the social and economical left and right. So Free Speech is not inherently a Left/Right social/economical value.

 cuda1179 wrote:
For me, this just reeks of Harrison Bergeron. (for you that don't know the short story, look it up, good read). Let's says I have my heart set on being a prima ballerina. Let's not let my 6'5", 330 pound ogre of a figure get in the way. I demand some kind of genetic enhancement, or at the very least everyone else be forced to wear lead vests to limit their maximum performance to match mine.

That's not what it shows, at all. The tallest person is not being brought down to the level of the shortest person so that nobody can see the game, the shortest person is being brought up to the level of the tallest person so that everyone can see the game. Nobody is endorsing the absurd Harrison Bergeron-style idea of crippling everyone who might succeed so that everyone is equally awful.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Don't tell that to the Antifa groups, Feminist groups, or many other forms of college protestor/rioter these days.

As opposed to the many conservative groups who want to censor "obscenity", ban flag burning, demand that anyone who says anything unpatriotic should be fired, etc? Aside from Nazi-punching (which should be considered your patriotic duty regardless of your political alignment) the things you're complaining about are essentially people using their free speech to say "I don't like this, and you shouldn't either".

Don't you know Pereigrine, free speech means that people must politely and quietly listen to people talking about racial cleansing, not complain and give them a place to do it. Otherwise it's *censorship*

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
For me, this just reeks of Harrison Bergeron. (for you that don't know the short story, look it up, good read). Let's says I have my heart set on being a prima ballerina. Let's not let my 6'5", 330 pound ogre of a figure get in the way. I demand some kind of genetic enhancement, or at the very least everyone else be forced to wear lead vests to limit their maximum performance to match mine.

That's not what it shows, at all. The tallest person is not being brought down to the level of the shortest person so that nobody can see the game, the shortest person is being brought up to the level of the tallest person so that everyone can see the game. Nobody is endorsing the absurd Harrison Bergeron-style idea of crippling everyone who might succeed so that everyone is equally awful.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Don't tell that to the Antifa groups, Feminist groups, or many other forms of college protestor/rioter these days.

As opposed to the many conservative groups who want to censor "obscenity", ban flag burning, demand that anyone who says anything unpatriotic should be fired, etc? Aside from Nazi-punching (which should be considered your patriotic duty regardless of your political alignment) the things you're complaining about are essentially people using their free speech to say "I don't like this, and you shouldn't either".

Who do you think had to stack those boxes, the little person? LOL

People can protest anything they want. That's more than fine by me, and that goes both ways. I'm fine with picketing Anarchists or Westboro Baptist Church. When access to others wanting to express themselves is blocked, fights are instigated, fire alarms are pulled illegally, stages are overtaken, assaults with deadly weapons happen, or looting happens.... well I draw the line there.

Don't began with the sarcasm and all of that We can discuss as honest adults.

 Galas wrote:
Don't began with the sarcasm and all of that We can discuss as honest adults.

I mean one person isn't really giving and honest argument to begin with, so I'm not really taking it too seriously.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Don't you know Pereigrine, free speech means that people must politely and quietly listen to people talking about racial cleansing, not complain and give them a place to do it. Otherwise it's *censorship*

Dude...


Lets keep it nice and civil

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Don't you know Pereigrine, free speech means that people must politely and quietly listen to people talking about racial cleansing, not complain and give them a place to do it. Otherwise it's *censorship*

Racial cleansing? Bit and an exaggeration? How about men's groups that can't meet to talk about men-centric diseases, our substandard treatment in family courts, or workplace regulations to harm us? It's hard to talk about even the possibility that "privilege" is overstated hyperbole.

We're straying pretty far off topic here - let's not turn this into a US politics thread (or other OT issues thread) or it will have to be locked...

Edit: Several posts while I wrote that - seriously, back on topic or we'll just have to close this!

 cuda1179 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 zedmeister wrote:
Equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?

Love that differentiation. I support equality of opportunity, but my mother did once point out a flaw in my logic.

Let's say you were at a football game, but the stands had been removed for repairs. Everyone crowds around the pitch, trying to watch the game. Everyone's opportunity is equal, the floor is level so nobody gets a systemic advantage, and people are not able to distinguish between one spot or point of entry and another. But people have different heights, and now that everything's equal, some people can't see the game.

Can these people pull themselves up by the bootstraps? Nopesicles. What's the solution?

For her, it was preferential treatment for the incapable by giving them boxes to stand on.

For me, this just reeks of Harrison Bergeron. (for you that don't know the short story, look it up, good read). Let's says I have my heart set on being a prima ballerina. Let's not let my 6'5", 330 pound ogre of a figure get in the way. I demand some kind of genetic enhancement, or at the very least everyone else be forced to wear lead vests to limit their maximum performance to match mine.

Think of it more as "let those of means that can contribute without significant detriment (in this case, not losing their ability to view the ballgame) do so in a manner that allows those who are not of means to have at least some minimum similar quality of life level" (in this case, being able to see over the fence)

If you have one dude with $100,000/yr income and some other dude only has $2 but needs $5 for rent and only makes $4 a month, well, the $100k dude isn't meaningfully affected by the loss of $3, while the two dollar dude gains substantially (and his money fuels immediate economic activity with a higher velocity, as opposed to sitting in savings doing very little as far as the greater economy is concerned, while also reducing incentive to resort to crime on the two dollar dude's part). You generate a vast amount of social good for a relatively irrelevant cost. Now, this has limits, obviously you can't take from the $100k dude until he's dry, and at some point you reach the acceptable minimum quality of life for the recipients, but the basic concept works.

With respect to your ballerina example, nobody is saying that you are entitled to wild success and acclaim as a ballerina, that's not realistic and different people are fit for different things. Nobody is going to ask that other people wear heavy weights (as then, in the above fence example, they would lose the ability to see over the fence), in a case like that, the cost imposed on others doesn't actually improve anything, so nobody would do that. However, if the 6'5" ogre wants to make a go of it, at least let him attend class and put on a tutu

Yeah, my example was extreme. My personal plan for society (expressed in a parallel to this cartoon) would be to let the short person have the box near the giant gaping whole in the fence. That way one meets the minimum standard to see the game without adding any major cost to anyone else.


Actually, I take that back. To make things totally equitable I think all three should be escorted off stadium property for not paying for a seat and "stealing" a view. LOL

 Vaktathi wrote:
I don't think you'd really ever get any for several reasons.

First, communism is so poorly understood that most people really can't define it. In part that's also because an absurd number of wildly different governments and movements have been labelled as such that they're impossible to actually reconcile.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Second, even going back to the basic Marxist concept, it's a dead movement. Utopian communism, much like unrestricted Randian/unbridled laissez-faire capitalism, just doesn't work on large scales, and has been abandoned by all but the tiniest irrelevant lunatic fringes in most nations.

Utopian socialism is a label used to define the first currents of modern socialist thought as exemplified by the work of Henri de Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, Étienne Cabet, and Robert Owen.[1] Utopian socialism is often described as the presentation of visions and outlines for imaginary or futuristic ideal societies, with positive ideals being the main reason for moving society in such a direction. Later socialists and critics of utopian socialism viewed "utopian socialism" as not being grounded in actual material conditions of existing society, and in some cases, as reactionary. These visions of ideal societies competed with Marxist-inspired revolutionary social democratic movements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopian_socialism

Socialism/communism is indeed poorly understood

 cuda1179 wrote:
My personal plan for society (expressed in a parallel to this cartoon) would be to let the short person have the box near the giant gaping whole in the fence. That way one meets the minimum standard to see the game without adding any major cost to anyone else.

In that case why not just knock the fence down altogether?
I can't see how in the example of the simple cartoon having the tallest person give their box to the shortest person counts as a major cost? Is it because they no longer have something that somebody else does? Is that a cost?
Now if the tallest fellow gave up their box and then had to spend the rest of the game standing on tip toes to see it - yes there would be a cost, and that's a nuance that should be appropriately discussed, but that's not this scenario.

The simplicity of the cartoon also doesn't allow for the added benefits of equity to the person giving up their box - without context it could be seen as one person having something that belongs to them taken away and given to someone else without receiving anything in return. But what if this is a father and his two sons. By giving up his box the father teaches his sons multiple lessons in cooperation, tightens the strength of the family unit and gets some peace and respite from nagging kids (happy kids = happy wife). Or he'd have to pick the shortest kid up and have him on his shoulders all game. There are advantages to equity that go beyond the simplistic view of having to give free stuff to other people.

And someone mentioned affirmative action before and being against it. Imagine this scenario with people of all the same height with everyone needing a box to see the game, except one of the people is pushed into a hole by the other people and even with a box can't see the game.