|
T-man posted:lot of words to say "i think ethics is just branding" buddy The argument wasn't about actual ethics, you were discussing a sort of fake ethics that actually is just branding in disguise. Actions in context are subject to ethical judgment, but in the field of fake ethics, context is always intentionally obfuscated. Obama was branded an ethical person by bullshitting about what he did. Lenin was branded as an unethical person by bullshitting about what he did. The commonsense moral judgments that are thrown around in these kinds of discussions tend to be derived from what are essentially marketing campaigns. Arguing about them was intentionally designed to be a confusing waste of time that would just spread the message that the campaign wants to spread. Even like whether killing anarchists is bad, that can be argued about forever because the claim rejects all context, so who wins the argument has nothing at all to do with who makes ethical decisions.
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:16 |
|
|
the big thing is a (pointless, imo,) attempt to distinguish, say, the grandmother renting her spare room from the absentee landlord who owns 30 duplexes, even though they are both landlords one is not exactly deserving the electric chair
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 22:35
|
|
|
I think everyone should be afforded one or two chances to rehabilitate (unless they take up arms against the people). we should aim to be at least as lenient as the Inquisition imo
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 22:40
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:to add on Larry's point, I've been called a hypocrite for supporting prison abolition while being theoretically fine with labor camps for counter-revolutionaries or w/e after some kind of revolution. "you're just fine with violence if it's your team doing it," is logic I don't buy at all. I guess it also goes back to that "if you punch richard spencer you're a nazi too" drivel are you not fine with violence if and only if it's your team doing it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 22:42
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:why is “big” so common an adjective in left-wing writing? is it out if translation or a conscious effort to simplify language and try to increase its emotional impact? I generally see this in writing by Trotskyist and Maoists. Like, “big bourgeois compradors and big landlords” in that letter from the Maoists in the Phillipines posted above. I don’t really care to go to the effort to compute this but I’d say Trot writers use the word “big” possibly an order of magnitude times more than other leftist writers or mainstream media. Is this a real thing, a linguistic idiosyncrasy or is there an underlying logic to Big Writing? If I hadn’t seen the Maoists doing it, it would be ripe for a joke. I don't know about the trots, but in the "big bourgeois" and "big landlords" example it just means the obvious, "as opposed to small". There are bourgeoisie that aren't big, but not petit either. Say, the owner of a successful 10-person company. And a small landlord could be a peasant that has too much land to till and rents two thirds of it out. They don't wield meaningful political or organising power and have much more personal relationships with the masses than richer people do. I think the origin for those bigs is just straightforward translation from CCP's wording, which doesn't use any frills to sound smart. Might have something to do with people's lack of education back then and the character-per-word writing system. Imagine if there was no alphabet connecting "petit" and "small" and they were just different characters you had to learn separately.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 22:56
|
|
|
A quick glance at the Socialist Worker archives doesn't seem to show much in the way for "big.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 23:07
|
|
|
Its Coke posted:are you not fine with violence if and only if it's your team doing it? distilling it down to teams with no apparent differences is what bothers me and it's because I burn with the righteous fire of Being Correct
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 00:16
|
|
|
indulging in the team sports rhetoric of liberals is corrosive to your own personal politics imo. using it accepts the liberal idea that there is no such thing as correct action, therefore all actions are correct. As opposed to the more realistic, there is no perfectly correct, but theres plenty of wrong and less correct actions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 00:21
|
|
|
Mr. Lobe posted:A quick glance at the Socialist Worker archives doesn't seem to show much in the way for "big. Check under "my junk"
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 00:45
|
|
|
I think it’s fair to say none of us have all the answers and are often forced to make our best guesses in the dark but as long as we unambiguously uphold Cuba we won’t stray too far from the path of the righteous
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 00:57
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:I think it’s fair to say none of us have all the answers and are often forced to make our best guesses in the dark but as long as we unambiguously uphold Cuba we won’t stray too far from the path of the righteous
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 01:17
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:I think it’s fair to say none of us have all the answers and are often forced to make our best guesses in the dark but as long as we unambiguously uphold Cuba we won’t stray too far from the path of the righteous
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 01:30
|
|
|
Cubalism
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 01:31
|
|
|
uphold cuba, uphold the zapatistas, and you uphold the Truth
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 01:46
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:indulging in the team sports rhetoric of liberals is corrosive to your own personal politics imo. using it accepts the liberal idea that there is no such thing as correct action, therefore all actions are correct. As opposed to the more realistic, there is no perfectly correct, but theres plenty of wrong and less correct actions. I don't think seeing politics as a team sport does that. one team can be right and the other wrong. plus the liberal thing is more, we're all on the same team. team America
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 02:06
|
|
|
but we are all on the same team team workers
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 03:05
|
|
|
uncop posted:The idea in there that we should discard theory and "see nature as it is" is crude empiricism instead of something a marxist can take seriously in the first place. Nature or natural reality is what exists independently of conscious observation, but Marx's "matter" is specifically reality that has entered consciousness as sensations and/or concepts. You could say that people have a Midas's touch that immediately turns whatever they sense or otherwise measure into matter. Marx's "matter" is the inversion of Hegel's "idea": it's the dialectical unity of opposites between the reality out there and its conceptual representation, except with the right side on top. ya ok but you see how like, you went from a post-kantian critical position back to naive realism between your first and second paragraph, right? like, we can't see nature as 'it is', so we need theory, but really theory is just matter as mind so we don't need theory? This is reflection style epistemology, Lenin style - and Lenin was wrong. We do need theory, and dialectical materialism is precisely the attempt to construct an ontological framework adequate to the reality revealed to us by the natural sciences. It's qualitatively distinct from other theories, or we may as well fall back into religion and mysticism. Their theories are just matter too, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 04:17
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:I think it’s fair to say none of us have all the answers and are often forced to make our best guesses in the dark but as long as we unambiguously uphold Cuba we won’t stray too far from the path of the righteous I'm afraid they have reformed their constitution to include a limited definition of private property, which makes them all revisionist traitors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 06:19
|
|
|
they’re doing their best 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 06:21
|
|
|
THS posted:i wish i were as smart as those women and saw the cynical bastard trying to take us for a ride back in 2008 tbf all he really had to do was look like a better bet than McCain and Romney
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 06:29
|
|
|
Prince Myshkin posted:I'm afraid they have reformed their constitution to include a limited definition of private property, which makes them all revisionist traitors. They will be the first to be liberated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 08:06
|
|
|
splifyphus posted:ya ok but you see how like, you went from a post-kantian critical position back to naive realism between your first and second paragraph, right? No, I don't. I meant scientists don't need training in philosophy to produce theory, because the interactions of matter are enough to guide them to give them a working understanding of probable and vanishingly improbable structures. You are smuggling in your own plainly wrong assumption that there is no theory without ontology. Diamat doesn't make any philosophical demands of science except that it study things in motion rather than frozen in time. But Marx&Engels noted that scientists had been forced to do that on their own anyway, without needing to hear any philosophical demand for it. Diamat indeed claims a kind of funhouse mirror reflection style epistemology, and people who try to take out reflection also take out the materialism. Without it, diamat is nothing more than mysticism, side by side with the hegelian framework.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 11:01
|
|
|
the philosophical influences of marxism are there to convince gringos to alter their thinking and not really to be read into further than that. imo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 11:06
|
|
|
it's amazing how bad people who claim to not need philosophy are at it
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 11:32
|
|
|
T-man posted:it's amazing how bad people who claim to not need philosophy are at it Amazingly predictable? Can you imagine what the world would look like if being bad at philosophy held them back too?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 11:41
|
|
|
T-man posted:it's amazing how bad people who claim to not need philosophy are at it what do you think of marx?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 11:46
|
|
|
im a postmodern neo marxist so i think he's daddy 😉
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 11:47
|
|
|
I sincerely believe that the fact that Marx is a handsome butch papa with a big beard and striking profile has aided the cause of communism
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 13:03
|
|
|
david byrne is right that people consciously and unconsciously mold their faces to fit their personality. that’s why you can tell what stirner was about from that sketch by engels. che is hot jock applied philosophy, mao looks like a guy who would write Combat Liberalism, sanders looks like an american social democrat, etc. very few people go against their face. this is also related to felix biederman’s extensive research on types of guys
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 15:03
|
|
|
materialism is when you look like the kinda guy that you are
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 17:42
|
|
|
THS posted:david byrne is right that people consciously and unconsciously mold their faces to fit their personality. that’s why you can tell what stirner was about from that sketch by engels. che is hot jock applied philosophy, mao looks like a guy who would write Combat Liberalism, sanders looks like an american social democrat, etc. very few people go against their face. this is also related to felix biederman’s extensive research on types of guys also a LOT of people with big noses are greedy for osme reason
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 17:58
|
|
|
Its Coke posted:also a LOT of people with big noses are greedy for osme reason uh oh
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 18:02
|
|
|
THS posted:david byrne is right that people consciously and unconsciously mold their faces to fit their personality. that’s why you can tell what stirner was about from that sketch by engels. che is hot jock applied philosophy, mao looks like a guy who would write Combat Liberalism, sanders looks like an american social democrat, etc. very few people go against their face. this is also related to felix biederman’s extensive research on types of guys so should i wear a small suit to make my head appear larger and appear smarter
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 18:04
|
|
|
settle down I'm making fun of the idea that you can tell someone's philosophy/personality from their facial features
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 18:07
|
|
|
indigi posted:you’re right, historical examples of “actually existing communism” have no place in the discussion of building communism. ps youre a leftcom now It's actually possible to advocate for what worked in the past while acknowledging that past socialist states made mistakes Certainly it's a better idea than trying to trojan horse socialism into America. A strategy so paper thin that even the goons in this thread can tear it apart
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 18:22
|
|
|
Its Coke posted:settle down I'm making fun of the idea that you can tell someone's philosophy/personality from their facial features I was going along with the joke
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 18:34
|
|
|
Dreddout posted:It's actually possible to advocate for what worked in the past while acknowledging that past socialist states made mistakes For some reason though, "acknowledging mistakes" always seems to be either about answering grand accusations originally leveled in order to cause harm. Why not start from acknowledging everyday practical mistakes which there's actually something to learn from? That shows people that you are someone who acknowledges their mistakes and adapts to realities without having to engage with slander *at all*. There are a zillion accusations to fight off if you get on that road, most of them false or minor historical curiosities blown up, and mainly nerds and opponents even (pretend to) care.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 18:46
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:I was going along with the joke this forum needs flippin sarcasm tags!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 18:47
|
|
|
THS posted:david byrne is right that people consciously and unconsciously mold their faces to fit their personality. that’s why you can tell what stirner was about from that sketch by engels. che is hot jock applied philosophy, mao looks like a guy who would write Combat Liberalism, sanders looks like an american social democrat, etc. very few people go against their face. this is also related to felix biederman’s extensive research on types of guys David Byrne did blackface, what conclusions can we draw from this act?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 18:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:16 |
|
|
Dreddout posted:David Byrne did blackface, what conclusions can we draw from this act? that hes cancelled forever and we cant listen to the talking heads anymore
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 18:57
|
|