|
steinrokkan posted:Those two categories can not coexist. Democratic socialism merely tries to impose a limit on arbitrary decision making by property owners, it gives employees no positive control. No, that's social democracy. Democratic socialism is socialism - i.e., worker control of the means of production. Democratic socialist politicians often advocate for social democracy, because they see it as an incremental means to an end. E: poor word choice. Falstaff fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Sep 29, 2017 |
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 20:45 |
|
|
Yeah, assuming I read them correctly, the difference Ytlaya was pointing out is between achieving M4A and saying "There, we're done!" and achieving M4A and saying, "Great, but we've got a lot more work to do."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:It is not in the real world. Okay, I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
I have the feeling that we're talking past each other, because the idea that western democracies are capitalist is probably not going to shock anyone.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
It's true that FDR was a liberal, not a leftist. He adopted leftist ideas in crafting the New Deal, and he did it in order to disarm the growing left in the United States at the time. His letters basically say as much. It's also why the New Deal had such a racist element, because you can never trust a drat liberal.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Its this. In this particular case i was annoyed by condiv's insinuations regarding wapo being such a terrible place to work when the workers enjoy benefits the majority of the workforce does not. Except he didn't. You misread him. Condiv posted:i'm sure the guy who owns a company that is a living nightmare to work for is acting in the best interests of workers though You read that as referring to WaPo, when Condiv was pointing out the guy's largely responsible for Amazon being so lovely. That you misread him is on you, not him, particularly given that you could have asked for clarification rather than going all "ARGH LEFTIST BAD!" quote:I didn't really defend Bezos as many of you insisted that I did. Except you did. Heck Yes! Loam! posted:This information does not feed condiv's massive persecution complex, thus it will be ignored. You said that as a response to a story about Jeff Bezos cutting benefits at WaPo. That's defending Jeff Bezos and the actions under discussion. If that's not what you meant, then it's on you to clarify, rather than pentupledown. quote:As always, Ytlaya is a much better poster than I am. This much is true.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Who defended the statement? Who said "yes, this is an appropriate choice of diction"? Feel free to quote them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:In the Trump thread many chose to ignore the quoted part that was inflammatory and chose to continue to agree that Hillary was indeed terrible. It is something seen over and over where supposed leftist people ignore straight up Nazi like talk if it agreed with their preferred narrative. The left adapts and internalizes right wing attacks because they find them convenient cugdels. See the Hillary Clinton owned slaves talking points or the Harvey Weinstein derails. And did these posters agree pre- or post-edit? Because I wasn't even aware of the original (awful and lovely) wording until I looked later in the thread and saw it quoted, at which point I understood your objection (this was pre- your own edit, for the record, so you didn't actually ). You quite rightly called out someone who was being really lovely. I certainly didn't see anyone defending the use of a call to "kristallnacht" the DNC despite the fact that according to you leftists were Heck Yes! Loam! posted:jumping out of the woodwork to defend it. I mean, yes, I might have missed it. My eyes glaze over sometimes when reading long threads, so sometimes I miss things. I've been wrong before, and I'm sure I'll be wrong again before I die. I just don't see what you're talking about. E: Quoted the post I was responding to.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I don't think you yourself are a nazi, but i do think that there are nazi like mindsets among the people you agree with, and it is important to root that out and kill it with fire. Heck Yes! Loam! posted:internet leftists are indistinguishable from internet nazis.  quote:I am not going to engage with you because you're obviously not interested in a good faith discussion.  Dude, I have repeatedly tried to get you to either walk back your statement about leftists "coming out of the woodwork" to defend a lovely post, or else put up some kind of proof. I.e., discussing in good faith. You've repeatedly refused to do either. All your "haha, I'm just as dirty as y'all" mea culpas mean nothing if it doesn't lead to improved behaviour. You're not in any position to call anyone out right now, because you're pretty much the same as NFS - you knee-jerk with lovely takes that paint with a ridiculously wide brush. quote:I did call him a nazi, but people took issue when I pointed out that the left has no problem with nazi like behavior when it happens to agree with their viewpoints. None of the so called leftists in this thread blinked an eye at his comment, yet took extreme issue with me pointing it out. Almost no one saw that post, and by the time anyone did the discussion had moved on. quote:Majorian, I do not think you are a nazi or condone naxi like behavoir. Heck Yes! Loam! posted:internet leftists are indistinguishable from internet nazis. quote:I try to do this in good faith, but i o lash out at those i feel are being disingenuous. if you think I am doing that too then please call me out on it, and i will try and be self critical. That's what's actually going on here, you just seem to be unable to see it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:In my opinion ignoring a comment like that and choosing to continue the discussion it was related to without even a comment is the same as defending it. Shitt ybehavoir on the left is ignored, while lovely behavoir of those you happen to ideologically disagree with are amplified. A little consistency would be nice. And, again, you miss the point that it was not ignored. It was never seen in the first place. Your post calling it out didn't actually say what was wrong with it until you edited that in later. From what I can see, all of one post, pages later, actually explicitly refers to krystallnacht-ing anyone, and that's at a point when the discussion has pretty much moved on (and the poster in question was quite rightly mocked). The Trump thread moves fast because Trump is always doing or saying some new, lovely thing. Leftists are not blessed with clairvoyance. I wish we were, it would make a lot of things easier, but we're not. You're really going to hold leftist posters to a standard that requires us to decry posts, even if we were unlikely to see them, and even if we did see them decrying those posts would damage a conversation because the topic has long since moved on, while also calling for nuance and good faith? And at the same time not holding your own side to that kind of standard? I hate the smug ironicat smilie, but poo poo son...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Also, if when you say "defend" what you really mean is "ignore," then you're speaking a different form of english from the rest of us and maybe you should keep that in mind.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Agreeing with someone on something doesn't mean you agree with them on everything. If I'm a vegetarian, that doesn't mean that I agree with Adolf Hitler's other policies. Likewise, someone can agree that Clintonites should be driven out of the Democratic Party without agreeing that framing it in terms of Night of Long Knives is entirely cool and good. And also, Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Yeah, but they didn't have a problem with it at all, and definitely supported his other statements. Who is "they"? Once again, feel free to name names.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Three wonderful posts to illustrate my point. Thanks for being so reliable guys. How do people have a meaningful conversation, when people are doing poo poo like that, and why isn't it called out for what it is? One of those quotes is not like the others. That you can't tell the difference between them suggests the problem was within you, all along. Mr Hootington posted:Why do we need to listen to your radical centrist facism? For the record, I, Something Awful forums poster Falstaff, do not condone equating centrism with fascism. I also, for the record, strongly disagree with applying the word "radical" to anything that attempts to maintain the status quo, since by definition a radical ideology seeks radical change. Just wanted to get that in there before HYL accuses me of ignoring (and thereby agreeing with) bad leftist posts. Falstaff fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Oct 17, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's pretty clear that Fiz wasn't proposing a serious plan of action. Yeah, this. It was still bad framing and in very poor taste, though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:The racist tree story outlines a pretty effective problem-solving technique for combating racism: do not tolerate racism. More specifically, do not tolerate racism even when the source of that racism is offering you something you want. The problem is the story has somehow been interpreted by many people as "if you ignore racists they'll eventually go away." That hasn't worked out so well. Falstaff fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Oct 23, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:what if I just can't stand jimmy dore? I'm about as lefty as can be, and I can't stand him either, so that's cool.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
It's worth pointing out that the 40,000 tally from your second article is from July, and was an estimate based on the prior nine months of fighting - which is to say that if Trump deserves blame for that (and he does), then so does Obama, since it started under Obama's watch. "Telegraph posted:The figure given by Mr Zebari for the number of civilians killed in the nine-month siege is far higher than those previously reported, but the intelligence service of the Kurdistan Regional Government has a reputation for being extremely accurate and well-informed. Isis prevented any monitoring of casualties while outside groups have largely focused on air strikes rather than artillery and rocket fire as a cause of civilian deaths. Airwars, one such monitoring group, estimated that attacks may have killed 5,805 non-military personnel in the city between 19 February and 19 June. Which gets at the real problem. There's no such thing as a U.S. President who doesn't subscribe to U.S. exceptionalism, and there's no such thing as a U.S. exceptionalism that doesn't use as its foundation a pile of corpses.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:the choice between two mass murderers Trump wasn't a mass murderer at the time, unless you know something about him I don't.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
True, he was pretty pro-torture and advocated targeting non-combatant families and the like, which was disgusting. I guess it's silly to split hairs, but I think there is an arguable difference between "plans to do stuff" and "has already, provably done stuff." But I feel kind of gross getting into this, so I guess I'll drop it and concede to the spirit of your point.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
The last verse is the same as in the original, though...?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Ah, I sit corrected, you're right.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
Condiv posted:in the same vein "the general's not the time to try to change the party, the primary is!!" 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:That this strategy doesn't work goes without saying, just like it goes without saying that the establishment doesn't really care. Well, in Manchin's case at least it does work, since he's the incumbent. The argument there becomes whether it's worth the opportunity loss and the long-term damage to the party's brand to continue to support and court pols like Manchin, even in areas where a better candidate supposedly can't win.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Look at all these people who don't want the Democratic Federation for Women to be allowed to disagree with them. Here's a hot take: Interest groups are good when they push for good things. But when they push for bad things, they're bad. I know, I just love courting controversy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
I'm sympathetic to the idea that a political party might want to favour one candidate over another (or even block candidates entirely) on ideological grounds. If you're the pro-choice party and that's a super important plan that gets to the very core of what your party is about, then it makes sense to me to show the door to a pro-lifer who wants to run under your label. Doing otherwise can do long-term damage to your brand, to the point where you can't say your party really stands for anything. But that's definitely not what's going on in Manchin's case.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Feminism is good and necessary (white feminism has serious issues, mind), but like anything else it becomes dumb when it stops being about principles and starts being about partisanship.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
I guess after looking in the mirror, Dems figured maybe some added misogyny also wouldn't hurt.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What is the electorally optimal amount of victims that must come forward before we acknowledge victimizers shouldn't be in power, let's go to the focus groups That's easy: [the number of victims that have come forward] + 1. It's a moving target, granted, but you can't be too careful about these things.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
I've never seen elitism combined with anti-intellectualism to quite this degree before, it's really something to behold.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
Wait, wait... You're telling me that different stages of capitalism have different characteristics?! Why didn't someone ever tell me! Oh, wait, a bunch of people did. Never mind, carry on.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Do you not have any memory of anything past the last few years? The Bush regime was full of corruption, criminality, and constitutional abuses, and exactly zero of the worst offenders were ever held to account by Democrats. In fact, Obama continued most of Bush's worst actions. If you think the Democrats have significantly changed since 2008, that they've actually learned valuable lessons and want to do things differently next time around, why? What can you point to as evidence of this? Because the other side can point to, oh, the past two hundred years or so as evidence that they haven't learned a thing, and will continue to not learn a thing until they're forced to do so. Like, what does this Solkanar512 posted:having a majority of democratic senators means democratic control of the schedule and the committees actually mean to you in practical terms?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
Nah, it was a very dumb thing to say. Praising someone for being like William F. Buckley is a bad look. It's some real  poo poo in an age where concern for decorum is the last thing anyone needs.It's a minor flaw overall, mind, given all the other positives AOC has going for her.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
Dolphin posted:And I know that's communism, shut the gently caress up Seizing the means of production is socialism.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
The idea that Sanders or Corbyn aren't master-class speakers isn't exactly a spicy take. Corbyn's been getting better since he became leader of his party (no doubt it's something he's worked on very hard behind closed doors), and they both have the advantage of being obviously genuine since they back their words up with actions... But both of them have some pretty serious flaws in that area. And that's okay, because they're still so much better than just about any other available alternative.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2018 17:37
|
|
|
This took place in 2016/2017, and there's a video recording of assault. If true, this really should result in criminal charges.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
Zas posted:Pankaj Mishra wrote a really good critique of Coates and his views on Obama, as well as Obama himself, for the LRB: https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n04/pankaj-mishra/why-do-white-people-like-what-i-write This was a lot to chew on, thanks for sharing the link.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 20:45 |
|
|
Being unreasonably fair, there's approximately 0% chance that HRC wrote that tweet herself, so this is basically one of HRC's current staffers begging for money for a former HRC staffer's medical expenses. I can see how the stake there might be a touch personal.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2018 23:15
|
|