Donald The Progressive

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Michael, Aug 28, 2015.

  1. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    If this is what one learns today in "liberal arts", then it is certainly dangerous to learn these "liberal arts". Because it completely ignores the logic of argumentation. An important part of argumentation, and one of the most powerful one, is internal critique. Internal critique means that you propose arguments which start from assumptions which your opponent accepts. This includes theories or Holy Scripts which he believes, quotes from journals or authors which he accepts as reliable, even the use of words in the meaning used by the opponent - and then to derive, from all this nonsense, conclusions which are in contradiction with the worldview of the opponent. To use internal critique, one does not have to believe the theories and principles one uses, one can consider the authors and journals as full of ...., and use the words usually in a different meaning, or not use them at all - the argument remains valid, and important for the opponent, who accepts all this, relies on all this nonsense, and now finds that from all this one can make some quite unexpected conclusions.

    So, if one argues with a Evangelical, one may quote the Bible, if one argues with a Moslem, one may quote the Quran, if one argues with a Marxist, one may quote Marx, and is in no way obliged to believe all these sources as in any way reliable or even worth to read. Following your "liberal arts" logic, you would brand me as a marxist evangelical Islamist or so.

    That the brands given by your "liberal arts education" are completely meaningless, they are also morally comprehensible. It suggests to use labels to brand people, and the purpose of such brands is a quite obvious one: To ignore the arguments they propose. This guy is a rightwing authoritarian, so, we, the good ones, have to ignore him. He has made arguments? Ignore them, they are bad arguments, they are despicable rightwing authoritarian arguments.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    That was obviously not the purpose of my observing (in response to his claim of having no political "brand") that Michael, there, is posting rightwing authoritarian propaganda on this forum. Consistently. And not much else.

    Michael is arguing with people he thinks are socialists, Statists, liberals, etc. He is using rightwing authoritarian propaganda outlets as sources, Fox and wingnut radio for vocabulary and framing, and so forth. So clearly your post there would not apply to him, or my response to him (which you have misunderstood entirely), and you can recognize the appropriateness of my recommending a liberal arts education to the guy - especially since he claims an interest in such things as Kant's metaphysics.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    So socialists, liberals are statists, rightwing authoritarian propaganda sources are also statists. As an outsider, he may not see a difference where the insiders see very big and important differences. This is quite similar to Westerners behaving as if there is one Islam, or, in a more accurate approximation, there are Shia and Sunni, but each of them unique. I don't see big differences between right-wing Nazi socialism and left-wing socialism too. For me, above ara totalitarian. But many of them, on above sides, have given their life fighting each other.

    Whatever, my point was not Michael, but the logic behind your argument. And not even much against your use of this argument, but about this "liberal arts education" which, according to you, teaches how to assign such brands, based on the sources one uses.

    My post applies to what I wanted to criticize - the very idea to label or brand people not based on arguments they use, but based on sources, language. This is some sort of guilt by association. Once you consider this "liberal arts education" as positive, claim that it teaches such horrible, totalitarian ideas, and apply these teachings to some person here, branding him as rightwing authoritarian for quoting some rightwing authoritarian sources, it clearly applies - to you.

    So, again: The very idea of labeling people based on the sources they use, or, even worse, the language (so may be you want to brand me a Nazi once I use Hitler's language - German?) is horrible, totalitarian, and if your "liberal arts eduction" really teaches such things, it has to be classified as totalitarian brainwashing.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    He's an outsider to the modern industrial State? He claims otherwise. As do you, similarly confused as you are.
    There is no such thing as rightwing socialism, Nazi or otherwise. You have been learning your English from a terminally corrupted source.
    You have screwed it up. Badly. Go back and reread your little explanation above, about how somebody who is explaining things will choose examples and quotes from source their student knows and will accept. Then read Michael's posts. He isn't doing that. He's picking sources he is familiar with, and understands, and regards as supporting his views.
    I didn't. You have a serious comprehension problem, due to your presumptions about other people.
    You, on the other hand, are just a run of the mill useful idiot for the corporate State. If you succeed in running interference for them, and get rid of the taxes and laws and similar curbs on their ambitions, they move in - they don't even have to bribe politicians any more.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2015
    pjdude1219 likes this.
  8. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    No, only to statist ideology, and the justification of state crimes.

    But, anyway, given that your answer contains only loud claims of "You have screwed it up. Badly." type, there remains nothing to argue about.
     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I wasn't arguing, I was informing. There is no such thing as rightwing socialism, Michael has never been making the kind of argument you describe, Michael himself bases his posts on claims of a familiarity with "Statist ideology" just as you do (and with similar incongruities and bizarre revisions of history), I was not making the argument you disparage or employing the logic of labeling you found fault with, and so forth.

    I'm not arguing with you about that. I'm telling you. Start with your ludicrous reference to "rightwing {Nazi} socialism" - all you have said thereby is that you are unfamiliar with the meaning of one or both of the terms "rightwing" and "socialist" in English. These are mutually exclusive attributes of a person or an argument.

    And perhaps it is a coincidence, but the attempt to label the WWII Nazi government of Germany a "leftwing" and "socialist" government has been a propaganda effort of US fascistic corporate powers for a few years now, with the obvious goal of concealing their authoritarian agenda by dissociation - the comical gullibility of the self-described "libertarians" in the US in swallowing that is well known here: are you sure your obvious unfamiliarity with US propaganda operations and English political terminology has not left you similarly vulnerable?

    (This is your third or fourth such "coincidental" alignment with US fascist propaganda - your dismissal of plantation - ie corporate capitalist - slavery as the primary factor behind the US Civil War, for example, is another of their memes).
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2015
    pjdude1219 likes this.
  10. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    Repetitions of not even arguments.

    Ok, if you have decided not to argue, but to tell the world whatever your Holy Church of Socialism claims, I will ignore you.
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Labeling people from a base of confusion, again. Now I'm a Socialist Believer - would that be rightwing or leftwing Socialism? Sorry - couldn't resist.

    Look, I'm not telling the world, I'm telling you - you're the guy who can't tell left from right, insults arguments he obviously hasn't comprehended based on assumptions of people he doesn't know anything about, thinks disparagement of fascistic propaganda is endorsement of Holy Socialism, and posts standard US rightwing authoritarian propaganda memes as eye-opening libertarian insight.

    Well, you and Michael.
     
  12. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    LOLs.
     
  13. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    Don't worry, I can tell left from right, this is no more complicate than telling Sunni from Shia or catholics from protestants, ask them and they will not fail to answer.

    And I even recognize that the differences are very important for those people, last but not least, the often enough have killed each other for no other reason than this difference. But for myself, these are differences between Muslims, Christians and Socialists which are irrelevant for me. Because I reject above for the same reason - for being religions based on scientifically unsupported Holy Scripts, or for being socialist etatist belief systems.

    For politicians, it would be, nonetheless, extremely important not to mingle them. Actually, the difference between various fractions of Sunni Islam - the Wahhabi section, which is the terrorist section, and all others, which are more or less harmless - may be the most important difference of the whole political world, while you have, on the other hands, a union of orthodox Christians and communists (Russia) fighting as union of classical fascists with liberals and greens (Ukraine). So, the political reasons to support one or another movement have, today, nothing to do with the philosophical reasons to reject them.

    And, yes, I have read "liberal fascism", and I have liked it a lot. Because it contains a lot of interesting information which you usually will not hear nor from the rightwing socialists, nor from the leftwing ones. As usual, I do not care much about who has written is, and what is his (copyright Paddoboy) "agenda", but about what he has presented as arguments.
     
  14. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Socialism is the belief that the government should exist to serve the interests of the people. I suppose that is more a matter of opinion than science.
     
  15. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Well quite. I'd have thought ALL democratic political concepts believe government should serve the interests of the people. That's democracy, isn't it? For socialists to claim that as exclusive to them seems bizarre and arrogant.
     
  16. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Not necessarily, you could have a government that only serves to maintain a minimum set of laws to create a civil society, where personal well-being is irrelevant, and poor people are seen as a natural consequence of differing ability.
     
  17. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    So surprised.
     
  18. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    And just what is this 'Authority' you believe I support?

    Let's take education for example.

    Society A: Voluntarism
    Person 1 chooses to have a child, and would now like to supplement their parenting with professional education.
    Persons 2-100 all want to sell professional education.
    In this society, people must interact with one another voluntarily. This means, persons 2 - 100 must offer educational goods and services such that person 1 wants to voluntarily buy these services. In this society 100% of X is spent on education.

    Society B: Authoritarianism
    Person 1 chooses to have a child, and would now like to supplement their parenting with professional education.
    Persons 2-100 all want to be paid for professional education services, but really don't like the idea of being required to 'sell' these services voluntarily.
    In this society, people are forced to pay a non-voluntary 'tax' towards education.
    Thus, we'll need a few other people:
    Persons 101-1001: they'll be the committee that determines what will and will not be taught 'for the good of society'. We'll call them the Department of Education/Propaganda. They also design the standardized State tests that rent-seekers must pass to be legally allowed to buy and sell goods and services in the 'Land of the Free".
    Persons 1002-10,001: they'll be the committee that regulates and levies the 'tax'. We'll call them the Internal Revenue Service.
    Persons 10,002-100,001: these are the Police State that put the "Authority" in Authoritarianism. If person 1 doesn't pay their "education tax" - these are the guys that point the gun in her face and drag her over to persons 500,002-1,000,001.
    Persons 100,002-500,001: these are the State run spy network. They gather information to determines if some Person 1 didn't pay their "education" tax. We'll call them the National Security Agency.
    Persons 500,002-1,000,001: this is the prison industrial complex that handles the Person 1's who wanted to buy education, but were loath to pay for the shit that posses as 'education' in this Authoritarian shit-hole "society". In this example, 0.00001% of X is spent on education because running an Authoritarian State costs a shit-ton of money and consumes all the rest. Thus, children in this society read at Grade Level 6 and 20% graduate functionally illiterate.


    You're an Authoritarian. You've made this clear in the past. Remember? Since we 'have all these departments already set up' then we may as well use them. Well guess what kind of education your children receive in an Authoritarian crap-hole? One where 20% of the State Certified "Graduates" can't f*cking read or write. Oh, but I'm sure that's "The" Koch Brother's fault. Or may a Jews fault. Or Apple Inc's fault. Or the fault of the Chinese. Not the incompetent, inefficient State-run "Departments" controlled by psychopaths. No no no.

    The irony being, when the rich 0.1% you whine about actually stand to lose a few pennies, it's your beloved State that bails them - not only that, but all the little rats running about their feet - whom a richly rewarded as minor slumlords by playing along.


    So, you can live in your delusional Left -vs- Right world all you like. But the fact is the Government is the initiation and use of violence against innocent people. You support it and call it "Democratic" Socialism, okay, then "Democratic" Socialism, like "Democratic" Slavery is a type of Authoritarianism. This makes you an Authoritarian Statist.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2015
  19. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    In a Democracy with a large State, you cannot take care of the poor IF this isn't the will of the majority. So, it's pointless to use the Government to do so. If people support the poor, then they'll support the poor.

    As a matter of fact, when the State originally attempted to take over charity, The Red Cross turned down their offer of money for these exact reasoning saying that if the State were to support the Red Cross monetarily, this would remove the incentive for people to voluntarily do so changing society from one where people cared and helped one another, to a society where they didn't.

    I cannot tell you how many time's I've heard your public servants tell me "I pay me taxes" when I inquire as to which charities they support.

    Now, take a good look at the generational welfare ghettos - those crime riddled shit-holes you wouldn't wish on your worse enemy. THAT is how the State 'takes care' of the poor.
     
  20. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Let's put in the definition of Government.
    Socialism is the belief that the initiation and use of violence by one group of people (government), against another group of innocent people (private citizens) should serve the interest of the people. I suppose that is more a matter of opinion than science.

    "I'd have thought ALL democratic political concepts believe that the initiation and use of violence by one group of people, against another group of innocent people should serve the interest of the people. That's democracy, isn't it? For socialists to claim that as exclusive to them seems bizarre and arrogant.



    Since we live in a Republic and not a Democracy, where exactly does B. Sanders "Democratic" Socialism fit in? Sounds rather like propaganda given we don't live in a Democracy. And we don't live in a Democracy because Democracies generally fail faster than Republics as "The People" quickly 'vote' the capital-savings of such societies out of existence. In a limited Republic, one that protects private property, this isn't as easily accomplished. That means people are *GASP* forced to buy and sell the goods and services they with to consume.
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I have no idea what you think you "support". My only information is from your posting here, which is dominated by endorsed content from rightwing authoritarian propaganda sources. You claimed to not have a political "brand", and I pointed out that you do - you are a continual feed source of rightwing authoritarian propaganda.

    1) That's not what you do here - you deny such self-identifications quite often. And it doesn't work when assessing motivated liars - such as the Nazis who claimed the favorable image of socialism, a left ideology, for their rightwing agenda. And it doesn't work for the clueless, like Michael or yourself, who don't know what "left" and "right" refer to in standard Western English speaking political conversation.
    2) It's not only people, but political stances and ideologies and so forth, that are "left" and "right". You can't ask them anything, you have to have some criteria, some idea of what "left" and "right" means. And no, you don't have a clue - check this out:
    When you discard meaning from your terms, you can no longer reason. That is why authoritarians finance and launch significant propaganda efforts to destroy the meanings of political terms (see Orwell et al) - reason threatens arbitrary power. Your complicity in this effort is doubtless unintentional, but no less striking for that - and it explains your inability to comprehend arguments, follow reasonings, etc, that involve vocabulary whose meaning is alien to you.

    Rightwing socialism, like triangular circles, is impossible, ok? It's a matter of definition, the meanings of the words when they have meanings. Likewise liberal fascism. There is no such thing. You have been suckered by the professional marketers and political shills, most of them based in the US, of modern fascism - an important task of which involves shucking that name, which has become odious due to the attributes of the thing. You are abetting them in that effort.

    Donald is reactionary, and demagogic, and without any agenda of progress - all of which means he is not a "Progressive", unless "Progressive" means nothing except "somebody like whomever we so labeled": is meaningless, in other words.
     
  22. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Oh, this again. What? Ten more posts where you elect to answer any question but what the difference is between Democratic Socialism and plain ole' Socialism? You know, because "Democratic" Slavery (which the State used to enforce through it's monopoly on violence) is somehow better than just plain ole' Slavery. That line of reasoning may work for the Grade 6 level simpleton that votes for B. Sanders (which is why he qualifies his brand of Statist Authoritarianism as such), but not for anyone else - and not for most of those Grade 6ers either. Most Americans have a deep distrust of Government and, thanks to ObamaCare, is growing more so by the day. How ironic is that? The blowout costs, outright lies and 20% annual increased premiums caused by ObamaCare has actually pushed the country to the right.


    You claimed I support the 'rightwing' authoritarian agenda. Ok, believe whatever you want. My question was, just what is this 'Authority' you believe I (or the magical 'right-wing') support? What is it exactly?
     
  23. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    LOL
     

Share This Page