|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Brainiac Five posted:It's interesting how many socialists reject the idea that violence can be used to achieve positive political goals. Under this formulation, guillotines are nothing more than a poison that will destroy any socialist society in the cradle, yet you cling to the rhetoric of using them. We could look at the historical effects of adopting this quite absolutist pacifism, but of course you don't think in terms of ideas and are squalling against your paranoid fantasies of people justifying the Iraq War. Boy, this is a bizarre conclusion to draw from people saying that we shouldn't invade Ukraine/Russia.
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 23:00 |
|
|
Majorian posted:Boy, this is a bizarre conclusion to draw from people saying that we shouldn't invade Ukraine/Russia. That is not what VitalSigns said, nor what you have said. I'd suggest limiting yourself to concrete statements using words of no more than two syllables if you want to avoid saying things you don't mean, but I suspect your incompetence is too great for even that restriction for help.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:That is not what VitalSigns said, nor what you have said. We certainly didn't say that we fundamentally reject violence to achieve political goals.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:i would unironically be down to have 2020's election bar anyone who voted for Trump or Clinton in the last election from participating I also believe the franchise should extend only to those who I agree with but ironically.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
We should have boots on the ground in the Ukraine though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:It's interesting how many socialists reject the idea that violence can be used to achieve positive political goals. What positive goals would actually be accomplished by forming an alliance with Nazis or Wahhabists?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
Majorian posted:We certainly didn't say that we fundamentally reject violence to achieve political goals. That is an obvious implication of VitalSigns's post if you take it as an attempt to communicate ideas. Now, is it crueler to treat his post as the meaningless vomit it actually is, or pretend he has a point? For that matter, is it crueler to treat your posts as the platitudinous fluff they are, or pretend you have thought for more than ten seconds about the subject you're posting about?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:What positive goals would actually be accomplished by forming an alliance with Nazis or Wahhabists? noted left wing groups who use violence try again please
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:We should have boots on the ground in the Ukraine though. Well, you're more than welcome to be first: https://www.goarmy.com/
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:What positive goals would actually be accomplished by forming an alliance with Nazis or Wahhabists? I mean, shouldn't this, going back to the original post that I made, apply to the USA too, then? Shouldn't the presence of white nationalist and Christian nationalist organizations among the proletariat forestall any socialist or left-wing efforts until they have been completely purged? Well, longer than usual before you declared that you won't be having any of this discussion nonsense, nosir.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:That is an obvious implication of VitalSigns's post if you take it as an attempt to communicate ideas. Is this true, VitalSigns? Because I have a slight suspicion that it isn't. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Is this true, VitalSigns? Because I have a slight suspicion that it isn't. Do you not know what implication means? I guess Master's in Nuclear Terrorism programs probably don't have many English prerequisites.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Do you not know what implication means? I guess Master's in Nuclear Terrorism programs probably don't have many English prerequisites. It doesn't take a Masters to spot when you're strawmanning that blatantly, Eff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
Effectronica, you don't have to do this to yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Is this true, VitalSigns? Because I have a slight suspicion that it isn't. No it is not true of course. Accusing everyone who doesn't fully support the latest drumbeat to war of wanting to disband the military and let Russian tanks crash through our precious precious gated communities unopposed is the standard neocon drivel Effectronica shits out constantly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No it is not true of course. The Cuban involvement in the Angolan civil war: neoconservatism. Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia: neoconservatism. The United States Army arming Benito Juarez: neoconservatism. Majorian posted:It doesn't take a Masters to spot when you're strawmanning that blatantly, Eff. Perhaps you should have taken Communications 101 instead of Clancy 101. rudatron posted:Effectronica, you don't have to do this to yourself. Why would you think that any decent human being would take your disapproval as anything other than a sign they're on the right path, rudatron?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Perhaps you should have taken Communications 101 instead of Clancy 101. Nah, seeing through your half-assed trolling doesn't exactly require a course. You goofball. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Nah, seeing through your half-assed trolling doesn't exactly require a course. You goofball. I'm sorry I took away your "special time" where you dress up a realdoll as Hillary Clinton, Majorian.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I'm sorry I took away your "special time" where you dress up a realdoll as Hillary Clinton, Majorian. You're a creepy dude, Eff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:We should have boots on the ground in the Ukraine though. This is a joke, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
Violence can be used by the Left to achieve positive political goals. The United States is not the Left, and is not run by leftists. B5 go home.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I mean, shouldn't this, going back to the original post that I made, apply to the USA too, then? Shouldn't the presence of white nationalist and Christian nationalist organizations among the proletariat forestall any socialist or left-wing efforts until they have been completely purged? You are of course correct that socialist and left-wing groups shouldn't align themselves with ethno-nationalists or wannabe-theocrats. You are of course being disingenuous by equivocating the ruling political faction of one nation-state (in this case, the neo-Nazis and Nazi-whitewashing ultra-right in Ukraine) with the presence of ethno-religious nationalists among the non-ruling class in another. And at any rate, American ethno-religious and nationalist organizations are almost universally anti-protalitarian in their politics, so their presence threatens American left organizing anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Violence can be used by the Left to achieve positive political goals. The United States is not the Left, and is not run by leftists. B5 go home. isn't this thread ostensibly about fixing the dems and aren't you a trump voter shouldn't you go home, you centrist
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
I didn't vote for Trump. I'm a registered dem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:You are of course correct that socialist and left-wing groups shouldn't align themselves with ethno-nationalists or wannabe-theocrats. You are of course being disingenuous by equivocating the ruling political faction of one nation-state (in this case, the neo-Nazis and Nazi-whitewashing ultra-right in Ukraine) with the presence of ethno-religious nationalists among the non-ruling class in another. And at any rate, American ethno-religious and nationalist organizations are almost universally anti-protalitarian in their politics, so their presence threatens American left organizing anyways. Heh, "protalitarian". Anyways, your argument seems to be the following: 1) It is impossible to support Ukrainian independence without supporting fascism. 2) It is necessary to completely purge rightist elements from the proletariat before pursuing socialist politics. Because, let me be clear, at no point have I endorsed any particular plan for the Ukrainian situation. I am interested in the theoretical underpinnings, because I do not believe, as many leftists appear to, that leftism is solely a collection of contingent statements with no principles or theory involved. These arguments against particular plans are thus literally strawman arguments, which is kind of ironic, but they are also irrelevancies that suggest that the person making them does not distinguish between goals and means used to approach those goals, and that they are one and the same. Which is a dangerous way of thinking, to my mind. Also, I disagree with the implicit assertion that we need to have a purified proletariat before pursuing socialist politics, but I assume you misspoke. The Kingfish posted:Violence can be used by the Left to achieve positive political goals. The United States is not the Left, and is not run by leftists. B5 go home. I was hoping we'd get back to magical thinking, where it's totemic symbolism that determines whether something is effective or not. I guess materialism is neoconservative liberalism now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 05:38
|
|
|
stone cold posted:isn't this thread ostensibly about fixing the dems It is indeed. Effectronica likes to derail it, though. Also pretty much everyone else who is spooked at the thought of moving left on economic issues.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It is indeed. Effectronica likes to derail it, though. Are you going to go back to posting about how colorblind policies are antiracist? Because that's always extremely funny and sad at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
A pretty important aspect of this argument, and where it ties most directly into the supposed subject of this thread (as opposed to the real subject of performing clinical depression in response to some article you read) is that the supposed "leftist" politics is still extremely limited in its scope. What people have to offer is a purely ad hoc politics built around reactions, without any kind of broader ideological perspective beyond inane fantasies about bloodless vengeance on bankers and technocratic sloganeering. Instead of proposing a moral basis for foreign policy as an alternative to the current ideologies on display, the arguments are don't intervene, except to force government change in Honduras, and intervention means invasion, except when it means any kind of military involvement, except when it also means what most people would call "intervention" as opposed to isolation. The idea that this horseshit is going to displace existing foreign policy except through annihilating violence that would more or less destroy any ability to implement foreign policy while the neo-State Department reinvents the wheel repeatedly- well, it's contemptible. And this extends to all areas of policy, because the idea that morally vacuous slogans or empty promises of bloodshed will displace existing beliefs about what is right and wrong which are fundamentally capitalistic is an obscenity. It's purely reactionary, built around the idea that people are beasts that are easily led by the nose. Principles are an important part of politics. People's lesson from the British General Election seems to be that all you have to do is say you're a leftist and people will all vote for you, which is wrongheaded on a number of levels, and one of the most important ones is that Corbyn's Labour offered up politics based around principles instead of politics that exists solely as contingencies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Are you going to go back to posting about how colorblind policies are antiracist? Because that's always extremely funny and sad at the same time. is this the part where you tell us that Obamacare is better for poor people and minorities than single-payer
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 07:30
|
|
|
 This is exactly what I meant by not being able to trust the Democratic party. For all the talk about protecting minority rights, they are perfectly willing to claim that a box on the census means that racism against Arabs doesn't exist (or that it's existence "is arguable.")
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 07:39
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Are you going to go back to posting about how colorblind policies are antiracist? Because that's always extremely funny and sad at the same time. I'd have to have posted about that once for me to "go back to it." I don't think I've ever made such an assertion, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
Majorian posted:We certainly didn't say that we fundamentally reject violence to achieve political goals. So I just think there's probably a difference between that, and rolling into Davos 100,000 strong and screaming "off with their heads". Which I do support.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 07:56
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:A pretty important aspect of this argument, and where it ties most directly into the supposed subject of this thread (as opposed to the real subject of performing clinical depression in response to some article you read) is that the supposed "leftist" politics is still extremely limited in its scope. What people have to offer is a purely ad hoc politics built around reactions, without any kind of broader ideological perspective beyond inane fantasies about bloodless vengeance on bankers and technocratic sloganeering. Instead of proposing a moral basis for foreign policy as an alternative to the current ideologies on display, the arguments are don't intervene, except to force government change in Honduras, and intervention means invasion, except when it means any kind of military involvement, except when it also means what most people would call "intervention" as opposed to isolation. The idea that this horseshit is going to displace existing foreign policy except through annihilating violence that would more or less destroy any ability to implement foreign policy while the neo-State Department reinvents the wheel repeatedly- well, it's contemptible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 08:05
|
|
|
RedSpider posted:is this the part where you tell us that Obamacare is better for poor people and minorities than single-payer Death is liberating.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 08:23
|
|
|
Effectronica, I don't know what your life is like. I can only assume it's not that great. The reason I have to assume that, is that you seem to see, in everything, the absolute worst possible case. People expressing caution of US interventions itt, in your mind, are all secret reactionaries, without principles (nevermind the contradiction there), dreaming in their minds of what they can say to cynically exploit the masses. You arrive at this conclusion on the basis of...what, exactly?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 09:04
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:of course you don't think in terms of ideas and are squalling against your paranoid fantasies of people justifying the Iraq War. Yeah Effectronica, where on earth would I get the idea that you're an ultra insane neocon still desperately justifying the loving Iraq War like you're the second coming of Dick Cheney, years after even the regular insane neocons have sheepishly retreated from the public eye to guiltily agonize over their souls on mattresses stuffed with war profits. Effectronica posted:If you think it's leftist to support the Ba'ath Party of Iraq, which purged all of its leftists before Saddam took power, you may be a jackass in politico's clothing. If you think it's just to believe that removing a mass-murderer and tyrant that had repeatedly invaded other nations was an inherently immoral action, you may be a crass rear end in a top hat. If you've the opinion of many cod-leftists, that having done the wrong thing once, nations/the USA should never do anything again, you've all the brainpower of a particularly stupid amoeba. Effectronica posted:How are democratic and open governmental systems to be established without removing the authoritarian and closed systems that currently exist? What is the means by which the USA, or I guess if you're particularly intelligent for a vulgar leftist, the Global North, is incapable of fostering said governments? Effectronica posted:I'm glad that so many supposed leftists and liberals think that Vladimir Putin's government should remain in power, and that the house of Saud should forever rule over the people of Saudi Arabia as an absolute monarchy, and that the coup in Thailand will only do good as it eliminates western nonsense like the freedom of speech and elections. "I'm not a neocon! I'm not a neocon! The neocons dreamed too small, I want to declare war on the whole world, not just Iraq and Iran!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 09:21
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:People's lesson from the British General Election seems to be that all you have to do is say you're a leftist and people will all vote for you, which is wrongheaded on a number of levels, and one of the most important ones is that Corbyn's Labour offered up politics based around principles instead of politics that exists solely as contingencies. Hey there's an interesting topic. It would be more correct to say that people voted for their own material well being (and the idea that labour would honor what they said, because of their principles), and also because the latest Tory government is seen as bumbling and has overseen austerity measures as well as being responsible for Brexit. If we're gonna deep dive into political underpinnings, what is yours? "Principles", "moral basis", "morally vacuous". Is it fair to say you have a morality based political philosophy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 09:28
|
|
|
Please seek help Efftronica.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 09:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 23:00 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah Effectronica, where on earth would I get the idea that you're an ultra insane neocon still desperately justifying the loving Iraq War like you're the second coming of Dick Cheney, years after even the regular insane neocons have sheepishly retreated from the public eye to guiltily agonize over their souls on mattresses stuffed with war profits. Well, I'm glad that your vision of leftism is a Pontius Pilatic one. The revolution will NOT be exported, socialism in one country!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 13:04
|
|