|
Kalit posted:Is there much text to that? I don’t have an NYT subscription, but from the text that’s visible to me, I don’t see anything about current sanctions. Same with a quick Google search for current sanctions Google Winnetka library NYTimes and grab a 3 day free pass for reading it. You can do this as many times as you want
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 02:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:15 |
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Not all of us want Communism Correct, only us leftists. Heck Yes! Loam! posted:and it is not the only answer or even the default answer.  You may achieve limited control of capital within some nations, but that only works because it has other places to go abuse people. RBA Starblade posted:Considering the current state of communism, it seems to be a wrong answer. Failed, sabatoged really, attempts to create the thing are not themselves the thing. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 03:56 on Mar 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 03:50
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Correct, only us leftists. Global Communism seems like a great way to get a ton of people that don't want to live that way pretty mad at you. Also your argument also applies to communism so I don't see how it invalidates regulated capitalism while not also invalidating Communism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 03:57
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Global Communism seems like a great way to get a ton of people that don't want to live that way pretty mad at you. Also your argument also applies to communism so I don't see how it invalidates regulated capitalism while not also invalidating Communism. gently caress those people. I'm not sure I understand the second part. Yes capitalism will fight against efforts to bring about communism just like it fights against regulation. Harder even. Doesn't change the nature of the fight. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Mar 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 03:59
|
|
|
People who want to own slaves are very mad at the current non-slave owning order of the world. Do the capitalists deserve to exploit because they want to exploit? Either way again it's one of a few expected outcomes and when/if we hit that point I think people will be more on board for communism than many of the other options on the table at the end of capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 04:05
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Global Communism seems like a great way to get a ton of people that don't want to live that way pretty mad at you. This is literally every single economic system to ever exist, including our current state of global capitalism. Do you think everyone agreed by unanimous decree to live this way?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 04:09
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Interracial marriage is now a GOP issue While this specific issue has never technically been brought to the Supreme Court, the Full Faith and Credit Clause would almost certainly make it a moot point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 04:20
|
|
|
Is the glorious communist revolution a US current event? I haven't been checking the news, much today, but it's wild to see that one get by me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 04:40
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Is the glorious communist revolution a US current event? I haven't been checking the news, much today, but it's wild to see that one get by me. Midterms are coming up so yes, a lot of Republicans are here to tell you that they're the thin red line between you and SJW CRT re-education camps.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 05:03
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Is the glorious communist revolution a US current event? I haven't been checking the news, much today, but it's wild to see that one get by me. It should be. Throwing capitalism and its supporters in the dumpster would solve a great many of the problems we discuss in here. Almost everything goes back to the consolidation of power and wealth that's inherent in capitalism. Your government and the media are ruled by money. The climate crisis is imminent because of the endless drive for profit and mindless consumerism. There is no plan in place for when oil is predicted to run out in 47 years because transitioning is unprofitable. We let nearly a million die in a pandemic because paying people to stay home wasn't acceptable to capitalists. Russia is attacking its neighbor because a bunch of rich assholes wanted another notch on their barrel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 05:16
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:It should be. Throwing capitalism and its supporters in the dumpster would solve a great many of the problems we discuss in here. Almost everything goes back to the consolidation of power and wealth that's inherent in capitalism. Your government and the media are ruled by money. The climate crisis is imminent because of the endless drive for profit and mindless consumerism. There is no plan in place for when oil is predicted to run out in 47 years because transitioning is unprofitable. We let nearly a million die in a pandemic because paying people to stay home wasn't acceptable to capitalists. Russia is attacking its neighbor because a bunch of rich assholes wanted another notch on their barrel. What makes it *my* government? Do you live somewhere free from the clutch of capitalism?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 05:25
|
|
|
What if we just try global communism, if we don't like it we can always give all the corporations back to the same soulless inbred aristocrats who inherited them now
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 05:27
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Is the glorious communist revolution a US current event? I haven't been checking the news, much today, but it's wild to see that one get by me. https://theathletic.com/news/bernie-sanders-introduces-legislation-to-remove-mlbs-antitrust-protections/pVte4tAbEidq/ We're taking baseball first.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 05:30
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:What makes it *my* government? Do you live somewhere free from the clutch of capitalism? Odd thing to take umbrage with, but okay. If the party you vote for and identify with is in control of the congress and the presidency, I would say its "your" government. The rest of my post was much more important than whether I wrote "your" or "our".
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 05:33
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:https://theathletic.com/news/bernie-sanders-introduces-legislation-to-remove-mlbs-antitrust-protections/pVte4tAbEidq/ How does enforcing/expanding anti-trust laws lead to communism 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 05:34
|
|
|
Kalit posted:How does enforcing/expanding anti-trust laws lead to communism I always forget that everyone in d&d is 100% literal. It's just a current event that's mildly interesting and involves Bernie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 05:38
|
|
|
Good conversation about how we can and why we should nationalize the oil industry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKqWPuYR9HE
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 05:39
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Good conversation about how we can and why we should nationalize the oil industry: Ugh, I don't want to be owned by everyone in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 05:51
|
|
|
eXXon posted:Ugh, I don't want to be owned by everyone in this thread. Then don't post here, simple (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 07:09
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:Unfortunately there's no good centralized way to keep track of thread/forumbans so mods often don't notice until it's pointed out. Or well, we have a list now, but we have to manually check usernames against a list so things still slip by. This is old now but I don't have PMs. I don't think petercat should be threadbanned. I don't think people should be banned from a discussion forum for having opinions that other posters think are abhorrent or whatever. It's far more interesting to talk to people who think quite differently than you do, even if that leads to them coming to conclusions that you disagree with and think cause harm in the world. Is this supposed to be a place for discussion or a place where nobody ever gets upset and everyone is polite and boring?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 10:21
|
|
|
Looking back on it the reason for their threadban seems kinda bullshit (criticizing Joe Biden), but maybe that was just the last straw idk, I didn't go through the whole rapsheet. But on the other hand do we really need pro-childbeating opinions in this thread though I mean where's the line. Are there other subforums that have a pro-childbeating contingent and we're unreasonably censoring a rational justifiable position worthy of intelligent debate like whether adults should suplex little girls if they get mad and need an outlet? Maybe I'm a snowflake or whatever but I feel like there isn't much value on reopening debate about subjects that our society has had and fairly well settled like child abuse: good or bad. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 11:56 on Mar 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 11:38
|
|
|
Next up in D&D: roundhouse kicking a 3rd grader in the face, how much is too much? Join us for refined erudite debate with that EXTREME edge, because the snowflakes at HR keep threatening my job for debating my reasonable opinions on the matter at work
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 11:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Next up in D&D: roundhouse kicking a 3rd grader in the face, how much is too much? Join us for refined erudite debate with that EXTREME edge, because the snowflakes at HR keep threatening my job for debating my reasonable opinions on the matter at work Point made. Can you actually post about US Current Events or are you done?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 13:53
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:And poo poo like this is barely registering anymore We've already gotten so numb to mass shootings that 28 people being shot doesn't matter since only two people died. We also have the weird cognitive bias where "shooting where 8 people died = tragedy," but "5 different shootings where one person died at each shooting = meh" because "only" one person died at each shooting. Once we decided that killing a class of kindergartners was worth not changing gun laws at all, then we pretty much wrote it off. When even a universal background check bill supported by Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey is too extreme to pass the Senate, then you're already in too deep.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 14:00
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:Remember how a bunch of people insisted that sanctions wouldn't result in Russian citizens starving? About that. Did you actually read the article? There are no sanctions on sugar, nobody is starving, and the article explicitly says what the cause is: quote:Sugar shortages have been the first major material consequences of the Kremlin’s decision to invade Ukraine felt by many ordinary Russians. It’s been caused by a cocktail of factors that include government attempts to regulate prices, skyrocketing demand and a crash in the value of the Russian currency. The article even says that Russia does not import much sugar, so even a hypothetical (and again, there are no sanctions on sugar) blockade of sugar would have little impact. quote:Russia imports a relatively small amount of sugar The Russian government doesn't even claim it is the result of outside interference: quote:Russian officials insist there’s no sugar deficit and that the crisis is an artificial one, caused by consumer panic-buying and unscrupulous manufacturing and distribution companies hoarding sugar in an attempt to push prices higher. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Mar 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 14:10
|
|
|
Sounds like Russian capitalists are just as horrible as American ones. Jacking up the prices because they have a vague explanation for doing so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 14:17
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Sounds like Russian capitalists are just as horrible as American ones. Jacking up the prices because they have a vague explanation for doing so. We went in there with Larry Summers after the wall came down and showed them how it’s done. You gotta shake those people down, they were coddled under communism! That’s why life expectancy fell so dramatically lol.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 14:29
|
|
|
Is there some reason you cut off half that sentence and then edited the introductory clause to conceal this and make it seem like a complete thought making the opposite point? Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:
quote:Although Russia imports a relatively small amount of sugar, the gyrations in the value of the ruble mean foreign companies are suddenly unwilling to sign contracts with their Russian counterparts. Are these the debate standards of D&D now
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 14:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Is there some reason you cut off half that sentence and then edited the introductory clause to conceal this and make it seem like a complete thought making the opposite point? Kojima/the Colonel's AI was right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 14:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Are these the debate standards of D&D now Is Leon Trotsky the entirety of D&D? No. Are you done? If you do not wish to engage with them, don't. D&D is not a hivemind and this is frankly really boring sniping you are doing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 14:34
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Did you actually read the article? "Similar shortages are almost inevitable as Western sanctions and the continuing fighting in Ukraine isolate Russia from the global economy. Inflation in Russia is rising rapidly and a cost-of-living crisis is looming." That similar shortage linked in the story was wheat. Ah, the Russian government, suddenly an aboveboard, trustworthy source when you need it to be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 14:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Is there some reason you cut off half that sentence and then edited the introductory clause to conceal this and make it seem like a complete thought making the opposite point? I was highlighting the point that Russia doesn't import much sugar. The OP said that people were starving, there were sanctions on Russia directly causing this sugar shortage, and that this starvation was a direct result of them. None of which were accurate. The article says that Russia imports relatively little sugar, that there are no sanctions on sugar, and that the Russian government says that isn't true. Does that change the point that there are no sugar sanctions on Russia, nobody is starving, and the Russian government itself says that there is no foreign cause or even an overall shortage? Those three quotes are disproving the three assertions the OP made because he likely didn't read the article. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 14:38
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Is Leon Trotsky the entirety of D&D? No. Well that is why I asked the question, I thought that bad faith debate tactics like editing quotes from sources to change the meaning wasn't up to the standards of this forum. It wasn't sniping at the forum to point out that someone is falling below the standards we have and what is your problem anyway, surely Jimmy Dore tactics of editing quotes is the problem, not pointing it out? If he is not the problem here then it seems my question is a valid one and I do have the wrong idea about what debate and discussion is supposed to be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 14:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well that is why I asked the question, I thought that bad faith debate tactics like editing quotes from sources to change the meaning wasn't up to the standards of this forum. One poster does not a valid generalization make. You should know better. I will have Koos review Leon Trotsky's posting, but until then knock it off with the lovely generalizations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 14:45
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:"Similar shortages are almost inevitable as Western sanctions and the continuing fighting in Ukraine isolate Russia from the global economy. Inflation in Russia is rising rapidly and a cost-of-living crisis is looming." That similar shortage linked in the story was wheat. The Russian government doesn't make you not read the article, though. There re no sanctions on sugar, nobody is starving, and literally nobody in the article actually claims that is true. It's like showing a video of a toilet paper rush during Covid or Black Friday and claiming that people in the U.S. are starving and desperate for food because of sanctions. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Mar 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 14:45
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I was highlighting the point that Russia doesn't import much sugar. The OP said that people were starving, there were sanctions on Russia directly causing this sugar shortage, and that this starvation was a direct result of them. None of which were accurate. The article says that Russia imports relatively little sugar, that there are no sanctions on sugar, and that the Russian government says that isn't true. Except that is not what the quote says, it says sanctions are causing the problem (making foreign companies refuse to do business with Russia as is their intent), and the introductory word "although" means that what's coming next isn't the issue. A disruption in a relatively small amount of import can still cause spikes if demand is inelastic (for example gas prices here). But we both know you understood what he sentence said because if you didn't understand it you wouldn't have found it necessary to do Jimmy Dore edits on it
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 14:45
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Except that is not what the quote says, it says sanctions are causing the problem It explicitly does not say that. Literally nobody (except for the OP in this forum), including the Russian government, is claiming that people are starving or that the sugar issue is caused by sanctions. It says that sudden surge in demand, hoarding by vendors, the fluctuations of the ruble, price controls, and skyrocketing demand are the cause. quote:It’s been caused by a cocktail of factors that include government attempts to regulate prices, skyrocketing demand and a crash in the value of the Russian currency. Although Russia imports a relatively small amount of sugar, the gyrations in the value of the ruble mean foreign companies are suddenly unwilling to sign contracts with their Russian counterparts. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 14:50 on Mar 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 14:48
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It explicitly does not say that. Literally nobody, including the Russian government, is claiming that people are starving or that the sugar issue is caused by sanctions. Yes, you are technically correct. You read an article about how sanctions will soon cause those problems and correctly figured out that they're not happening yet but will be happening soon. You are very good at reading.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 14:50
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The Russian government doesn't make you not read the article, though. There re no sanctions on sugar, nobody is starving, and literally nobody in the article actually claims that is true. You understand that you don't have a monopoly on the conclusions that can be drawn from stories and accusing people of not reading is a lovely thing to do, right? That's a horrible analogy unless you think that toilet paper is a core ingredient in cooking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 14:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:15 |
|
|
You also seem to have selectively quoted a lot, ie the part where the Russian government says everything is fine and it's all greedy sugar hoarders causing the problem (is Putin trustworthy now?), and curiously left out analysis contradicting the Russian government likequote:Similar shortages are almost inevitable as Western sanctions and the continuing fighting in Ukraine isolate Russia from the global economy. Inflation in Russia is rising rapidly and a cost-of-living crisis is looming. The article does not appear to be making the point that everything is fine and the sanctions aren't hurting average Russians idk
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 14:50
|
|