Forums - Politics Discussion - Antifa Protestors Throw Garbage at Conservatives Eating Breakfast.

SuaveSocialist said:
Kalkano said:

I'd imagine that, if this were to happen

So it's an 'if' now.  And here you sounded so certain what <100 billion dollars going into Socialized institutions would do to your taxes.  Well, it's >100 billion, so what happened to your certainty?

I honestly don't know what you're talking about.  I was saying that would happen if we took a sudden turn to Socialism.



Currently Replaying: Baten Kaitos

Around the Network
Kalkano said:
SuaveSocialist said:

So it's an 'if' now.  And here you sounded so certain what <100 billion dollars going into Socialized institutions would do to your taxes.  Well, it's >100 billion, so what happened to your certainty?

I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

Your military budget is set to increase by over 100 Billion and it is to be funded by tax dollars.  That exceeds the cost of Socialized healthcare AND Socialized post-secondary education.

You claim that Socialized healthcare and post-secondary education would increase your taxes "up to ~50% of our paychecks". 

It stands to reason that the 100+ billion dollar increase to your military budget would increase your taxes even higher as it costs a lot more than Socialized healthcare and Socialized post-secondary education combined.

Are you still certain that you are about to be hit by that tax hike you had previously projected?  You seem to have lost confidence in your claim now that you are aware of how much your Socialized military costs.

Like I said: brace yourself, for you have predicted a massive tax hike heading your way. But you should also brace yourself for the absence of a resulting tax hike, for that would deal a heavy blow to Republican talking points against rational policy-making.



SuaveSocialist said:
Kalkano said:

I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

Your military budget is set to increase by over 100 Billion and it is to be funded by tax dollars.  That exceeds the cost of Socialized healthcare AND Socialized post-secondary education.

Where do you get these numbers? The US spends 73% of its federal budget on social services including Health, Medicare etc, 15% on military, 6% interests, 6% others.

Social spending skyrocketed while military spending declined drastically in the last decades

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/04/what-does-the-federal-government-spend-your-tax-dollars-on-social-insurance-programs-mostly/



numberwang said:
SuaveSocialist said:

Your military budget is set to increase by over 100 Billion and it is to be funded by tax dollars.  That exceeds the cost of Socialized healthcare AND Socialized post-secondary education.

1. Where do you get these numbers?

2. The US spends 73% of its federal budget on social services including Health, Medicare etc, 15% on military, 6% interests, 6% others.

 

1. >100 billion: see thread talking about it.  You took the time to post in it, so you are already aware that over >100 billion more dollars has been approved for West Korea's Socialized military.

Cost of Socialized healthcare: see thread talking about it.  You took the time to post in it, so you are already aware that Socialized healthcare costs less than West Korea's existing system. I do not know how much less, so I am not specifying any number in this discussion.  

Cost of Socialized education: calculated to total around 75 billion by the Bernie Sanders campaign, verified by fact-checkers years a couple years ago.

100>75: Grade 3 math textbooks.

~50% of paycheck tax hike: freely asserted by Kalkano.

2. So what? 100>75. Your numbers don't address that in the slightest and that happens to be the subject of conversation.  Do avoid grafting those graphs to conversations that have nothing to do with them. 

Kalkano tried making a case that Action A (putting <75 billion into Socialized healthcare/education) would cause Reaction B (tax hike) and result in Consequence C (~50% of your paychecks going into it).

Putting 100 billion into Socialized defense would have a more pronounced effect according to Kalkano's reasoning, ergo he should brace himself: if he is correct he will experience a life-altering tax hike and if he is wrong it undermines the extreme right's adverse reaction to sound fiscal policy.

As my father says: the word for "informed Conservative" is "Liberal".



o_O.Q said:

lmao cut the snark dude i've torn the stupid leftist equality nonsense apart more times than i can count

 

"Why not? What is the basis for segregating sport based on sex?"

lol you've ever realised that its incredibly hard to explain something that should be obvious? that's the dilemma i'm facing with this question

uh well i'd think its obvious that the physical differences between men and women are why we don't match brock lesner and rhonda roussy for example... are you in disagreement with the fact that men and women are different?

 

"Why should women need special protections? The same laws regarding rape, harassment and sexual crime can and should apply regardless of sex, gender, or sexual orientation."

i actually agree but i've noted the inconsistency in many leftist ideas

i knew that it was quite likely that he'd say that women should have special protections while advocating for equality as the vast majority of leftists pushing the equality doctrine do because they refuse to be coherent in their beliefs

 

"That's ridiculous and no one advocates this"

i think its quite ridiculous for you to claim to speak for everyone especially when i have evidence to back up what i'm saying

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/6sdbqv/socialists_must_socialism_abolish_all_private/

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/4ytyrs/socialists_why_is_private_property_theft_to_you/

etc etc etc

and before you get into the silly hand waving nonsense of the difference between private property and personal property you should note that there is no coherent principle behind that since any possession depending on the context can be used for profit

 

"Shows your thin understanding of left wing politics."

lmao my friend i am absolutely sure that i understand your so called socialist principles better than you do so don't make me laugh

 

"what needs to happen is that the economic foundations of the system must be altered, so as to minimize the structural and institutional bias that generates poverty and homelessness."

and how do you propose we do so? in russia and other countries where socialist revolutions occured they seized the businesses of all the people who were productive and murdered them, i'm hoping you have a better solution

 

"They wouldn't. They describe wildly different things and have nothing to do with equality (or even equity)"

to be fair i was just bringing up ridiculous points that came to mind at that point, i wasn't being serious really but regardless...

you don't think desegregating sports is more in line with equality than keeping them segregated? can you expand upon that for me please?

did you not go along with my proposal of taking away special protections for women?

 

"It is about how the system is set-up and how opportunities are distributed in society and seized by individuals without benefitting those who in one way or another inherit power"

so i'm assuming that if you have children that you'll have them give away any wealth you would have accumulated over your life so they can start at a more equitable position?

 

"Every single person who has ever justified hierarchy has described it as something "natural" and "normal". No one has proceeded to verify and prove this claim. "

i'm back here now

"lol you've ever realised that its incredibly hard to explain something that should be obvious? that's the dilemma i'm facing with this question"

tell me something, can you play ball as well as lebron james? swim as fast as michael phelps? what? no? well why not?

 

"Hierarchy is always self justified."

uh you disagree with me right? you started this conversation with this "Eeer... No. Those methods won't promote equality. You don't understand what equality is."

does that mean that you are stating you are more knowledgeable than i am? are you unaware that you are setting up a hierarchy yourself?

it amuses me how leftists will get into an argument and claim that hierarchies cannot be justified (and i'm not saying they are or can here) while not realising their incoherence, it really is fascinating to me  

I will not dignify this with a full analytical response, as it does not deserve one. I will partly respond to some of your questions, however most of what you typed was nonsense or the result of barely understanding what you are talking about.

 

"so i'm assuming that if you have children that you'll have them give away any wealth you would have accumulated over your life so they can start at a more equitable position?"

You are assuming wrong. Firstly, you present a ridiculous and irrational argument here: That if someone supports what you describe as 'leftist' or 'socialist' views, they must also be ready to give their personal wealth to set-up an example for others to follow. This is classic misapprehension and incorrect association. Is everyone who supports capitalism rich? Secondly, even if someone was what you call 'lefitst' and 'socialist', they would still be living in a capitalist system. Such an act of giving away their own personal property would be comprehensively meaningless. 

"it amuses me how leftists will get into an argument and claim that hierarchies cannot be justified (and i'm not saying they are or can here) while not realising their incoherence, it really is fascinating to me"  

Oh boy, here we go again with this. You either lack reading comprehension, or the required knowledge to engage with what I am explaining. Probably both. Here goes:

I did not say that hierarchy cannot be justified. Go ahead and retread my post, where I clearly say that hierarchy is its own justification. This is just as much a justification as anything. Nazis used this understanding to lay claim on the whole world as the Aryan race, and based their claim to power and privilege precisely on how Schmitt revealed that power and knowledge are intertwined. The concept of an originary or primary violence in Schmitt, refers to how -- through history -- ownership and power are retroactively justified. It does not mean that hierarchy is unjustified. It only means that the origin of any law, order or institution is a first act of violence that establishes this law, order, or institution. It means that, rather than an external justification, such as God, or a natural justification, such as the concept that something is 'inevitable' because of some higher law of physics, all human acts have their consequences. In short, hierarchy is NOT unjustified. It is, however, contingent. 

Finally, a brief response to the general tone of your "answer":

1. I'm not a "leftist". 

2. I'm not a "socialist".

3. I'm nowhere on your perceivable spectrum. 

4. You completely misunderstood what I said, especially regarding hierarchy and equality. 

5. I *am* more knowledgeable than you, and this is not due to me setting up any kind of hierarchy personally (you don't even know what you mean by that, so think again before randomly responding). The hierarchy is already in place for millennia now and it is called academia. As an academic working on international relations, history, and political theory, I am justified to presume I know more than you - since I'm already teaching on these fields at the highest level.

6. I'll give you a hint: When one argues for equality and brings up the concept of the self-justification of hierarchy, they are not contradicting themselves. There is a huge body of philosophical work, from Castoriades to Lefort, and from Foucault to Ranciere exploring this seeming paradox. Lefort called it the "empty place of power". Ranciere described it as the tension between "the police" and "politics". But I intentionally used Schmitt, since he was a Nazi, and was in the peculiar position of realizing the basis of power and hierarchy, but reaching the entirely wrong conclusions and implications about it. 

You amuse me with your pathetic ignorance of, and simplistic approach, to politics. Is everything you disagree with 'leftist' and 'socialist'? 

 

The whole idea of a left-right political spectrum is outdated and archaic. It persists, yes, partly because media and society fuels the distinction, but has become more and more meaningless as we move away from the context in which it developed: the first French democracy is already in history books for centuries now.

Perhaps it is time to kill the whole 'left' and 'right' dichotomy. It does not describe anything. I do not belong to a political spectrum, thank you very much. 

 

User was banned for this post ~ Angelus

Last edited by Angelus - on 14 August 2018

Around the Network
Helloplite said:
o_O.Q said:

lmao cut the snark dude i've torn the stupid leftist equality nonsense apart more times than i can count

 

"Why not? What is the basis for segregating sport based on sex?"

lol you've ever realised that its incredibly hard to explain something that should be obvious? that's the dilemma i'm facing with this question

uh well i'd think its obvious that the physical differences between men and women are why we don't match brock lesner and rhonda roussy for example... are you in disagreement with the fact that men and women are different?

 

"Why should women need special protections? The same laws regarding rape, harassment and sexual crime can and should apply regardless of sex, gender, or sexual orientation."

i actually agree but i've noted the inconsistency in many leftist ideas

i knew that it was quite likely that he'd say that women should have special protections while advocating for equality as the vast majority of leftists pushing the equality doctrine do because they refuse to be coherent in their beliefs

 

"That's ridiculous and no one advocates this"

i think its quite ridiculous for you to claim to speak for everyone especially when i have evidence to back up what i'm saying

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/6sdbqv/socialists_must_socialism_abolish_all_private/

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/4ytyrs/socialists_why_is_private_property_theft_to_you/

etc etc etc

and before you get into the silly hand waving nonsense of the difference between private property and personal property you should note that there is no coherent principle behind that since any possession depending on the context can be used for profit

 

"Shows your thin understanding of left wing politics."

lmao my friend i am absolutely sure that i understand your so called socialist principles better than you do so don't make me laugh

 

"what needs to happen is that the economic foundations of the system must be altered, so as to minimize the structural and institutional bias that generates poverty and homelessness."

and how do you propose we do so? in russia and other countries where socialist revolutions occured they seized the businesses of all the people who were productive and murdered them, i'm hoping you have a better solution

 

"They wouldn't. They describe wildly different things and have nothing to do with equality (or even equity)"

to be fair i was just bringing up ridiculous points that came to mind at that point, i wasn't being serious really but regardless...

you don't think desegregating sports is more in line with equality than keeping them segregated? can you expand upon that for me please?

did you not go along with my proposal of taking away special protections for women?

 

"It is about how the system is set-up and how opportunities are distributed in society and seized by individuals without benefitting those who in one way or another inherit power"

so i'm assuming that if you have children that you'll have them give away any wealth you would have accumulated over your life so they can start at a more equitable position?

 

"Every single person who has ever justified hierarchy has described it as something "natural" and "normal". No one has proceeded to verify and prove this claim. "

i'm back here now

"lol you've ever realised that its incredibly hard to explain something that should be obvious? that's the dilemma i'm facing with this question"

tell me something, can you play ball as well as lebron james? swim as fast as michael phelps? what? no? well why not?

 

"Hierarchy is always self justified."

uh you disagree with me right? you started this conversation with this "Eeer... No. Those methods won't promote equality. You don't understand what equality is."

does that mean that you are stating you are more knowledgeable than i am? are you unaware that you are setting up a hierarchy yourself?

it amuses me how leftists will get into an argument and claim that hierarchies cannot be justified (and i'm not saying they are or can here) while not realising their incoherence, it really is fascinating to me  

I will not dignify this with a full analytical response, as it does not deserve one. I will partly respond to some of your questions, however most of what you typed was nonsense or the result of barely understanding what you are talking about.

 

"so i'm assuming that if you have children that you'll have them give away any wealth you would have accumulated over your life so they can start at a more equitable position?"

You are assuming wrong. Firstly, you present a ridiculous and irrational argument here: That if someone supports what you describe as 'leftist' or 'socialist' views, they must also be ready to give their personal wealth to set-up an example for others to follow. This is classic misapprehension and incorrect association. Is everyone who supports capitalism rich? Secondly, even if someone was what you call 'lefitst' and 'socialist', they would still be living in a capitalist system. Such an act of giving away their own personal property would be comprehensively meaningless. 

"it amuses me how leftists will get into an argument and claim that hierarchies cannot be justified (and i'm not saying they are or can here) while not realising their incoherence, it really is fascinating to me"  

Oh boy, here we go again with this. You either lack reading comprehension, or the required knowledge to engage with what I am explaining. Probably both. Here goes:

I did not say that hierarchy cannot be justified. Go ahead and retread my post, where I clearly say that hierarchy is its own justification. This is just as much a justification as anything. Nazis used this understanding to lay claim on the whole world as the Aryan race, and based their claim to power and privilege precisely on how Schmitt revealed that power and knowledge are intertwined. The concept of an originary or primary violence in Schmitt, refers to how -- through history -- ownership and power are retroactively justified. It does not mean that hierarchy is unjustified. It only means that the origin of any law, order or institution is a first act of violence that establishes this law, order, or institution. It means that, rather than an external justification, such as God, or a natural justification, such as the concept that something is 'inevitable' because of some higher law of physics, all human acts have their consequences. In short, hierarchy is NOT unjustified. It is, however, contingent. 

Finally, a brief response to the general tone of your "answer":

1. I'm not a "leftist". 

2. I'm not a "socialist".

3. I'm nowhere on your perceivable spectrum. 

4. You completely misunderstood what I said, especially regarding hierarchy and equality. 

5. I *am* more knowledgeable than you, and this is not due to me setting up any kind of hierarchy personally (you don't even know what you mean by that, so think again before randomly responding). The hierarchy is already in place for millennia now and it is called academia. As an academic working on international relations, history, and political theory, I am justified to presume I know more than you - since I'm already teaching on these fields at the highest level.

6. I'll give you a hint: When one argues for equality and brings up the concept of the self-justification of hierarchy, they are not contradicting themselves. There is a huge body of philosophical work, from Castoriades to Lefort, and from Foucault to Ranciere exploring this seeming paradox. Lefort called it the "empty place of power". Ranciere described it as the tension between "the police" and "politics". But I intentionally used Schmitt, since he was a Nazi, and was in the peculiar position of realizing the basis of power and hierarchy, but reaching the entirely wrong conclusions and implications about it. 

You amuse me with your pathetic ignorance of, and simplistic approach, to politics. Is everything you disagree with 'leftist' and 'socialist'? 

 

The whole idea of a left-right political spectrum is outdated and archaic. It persists, yes, partly because media and society fuels the distinction, but has become more and more meaningless as we move away from the context in which it developed: the first French democracy is already in history books for centuries now.

Perhaps it is time to kill the whole 'left' and 'right' dichotomy. It does not describe anything. I do not belong to a political spectrum, thank you very much. 

"I will not dignify this with a full analytical response"

because you can't?

 

"You are assuming wrong. Firstly, you present a ridiculous and irrational argument here"

my argument was in response to this

"It is about how the system is set-up and how opportunities are distributed in society and seized by individuals without benefitting those who in one way or another inherit power"

are you falling for the fallacy of thinking that because you aren't "rich" that you don't have a substantial degree of power and wealth to pass on to your offspring?

the fact of the matter is that you have a computer, internet, enough disposable income to play video games(one of the most expensive hobbies there is) and despite all of that you are unaware that you are unbelievably privileged in your own life

in the socialist revolutions of the past, you would've been dragged out naked into a field and shot in the head with your world possessions being distributed across the homeless people you pass by everyday

that you don't understand that shows a frightening ignorance of history

 

" they would still be living in a capitalist system. Such an act of giving away their own personal property would be comprehensively meaningless. "

not if your actions are consistent with your principles and correct me if i'm wrong but are you stating that charity is pointless?

 

"Oh boy, here we go again with this. You either lack reading comprehension, or the required knowledge to engage with what I am explaining. Probably both. Here goes:

I did not say that hierarchy cannot be justified. Go ahead and retread my post"

uh... this is what i said 

"it amuses me how leftists will get into an argument and claim that hierarchies cannot be justified (and i'm not saying they are or can here) while not realising their incoherence, it really is fascinating to me"

can you identify which part of that statement identifies you? isn't it funny that despite all of that snark your own reading comprehension is what is at fault? lol

 

" I'm not a "leftist". 

2. I'm not a "socialist".

3. I'm nowhere on your perceivable spectrum. "

good thing then that i didn't say you were, right chief? i identified the equality doctrine for example as a leftist idea and attacked it... you understand that a person is not equivalent to their ideas right?

 

"You completely misunderstood what I said, especially regarding hierarchy and equality. "

lmao i'm using the words as they are defined

"a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority."

this takes me to this

" I *am* more knowledgeable than you, and this is not due to me setting up any kind of hierarchy personally"

...

i mean at this point what am i supposed to do here? we are discussing the meaning of something and there you are pretending it does not exist... you kind of have me stuck there buddy

 

"As an academic working on international relations, history, and political theory, I am justified to presume I know more than you - since I'm already teaching on these fields at the highest level."

uh based on what? what are you comparing your qualifications to?

 

" I'll give you a hint: When one argues for equality and brings up the concept of the self-justification of hierarchy, they are not contradicting themselves."

well that's your claim, but i think its fairly obvious that its a stupid claim with regards to the vast majority of situations which can be examined

you can't argue, for example, that a boss because of their experience and qualifications is justifiably in a position of power and authority over his employee and at the same time argue that he and his employee should be equal with regards to power and authority

its obviously inconsistent

you could argue however that both should be equal with regards to respect and decency but that's not the same hierarchy obviously

 

"You amuse me with your pathetic ignorance of, and simplistic approach, to politics. Is everything you disagree with 'leftist' and 'socialist'? "

you're just reiterating what i've already said, but ultimately one of us is suffering from serious delusion and i am pretty damn sure that its not me lol

anyway i never so much as implied that i disagree with all leftist ideas... so again what are you basing your conclusion on? you're seriously an academic? lol

 

"I do not belong to a political spectrum, thank you very much."

again you make the mistake of presuming i care about you, i'm attacking your stated ideas.. whether you identify as right, left, gender binary fluid unicorn i do not care


Last edited by o_O.Q - on 13 August 2018

Helloplite said:
o_O.Q said:

lmao cut the snark dude i've torn the stupid leftist equality nonsense apart more times than i can count

 

"Why not? What is the basis for segregating sport based on sex?"

lol you've ever realised that its incredibly hard to explain something that should be obvious? that's the dilemma i'm facing with this question

uh well i'd think its obvious that the physical differences between men and women are why we don't match brock lesner and rhonda roussy for example... are you in disagreement with the fact that men and women are different?

 

"Why should women need special protections? The same laws regarding rape, harassment and sexual crime can and should apply regardless of sex, gender, or sexual orientation."

i actually agree but i've noted the inconsistency in many leftist ideas

i knew that it was quite likely that he'd say that women should have special protections while advocating for equality as the vast majority of leftists pushing the equality doctrine do because they refuse to be coherent in their beliefs

 

"That's ridiculous and no one advocates this"

i think its quite ridiculous for you to claim to speak for everyone especially when i have evidence to back up what i'm saying

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/6sdbqv/socialists_must_socialism_abolish_all_private/

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/4ytyrs/socialists_why_is_private_property_theft_to_you/

etc etc etc

and before you get into the silly hand waving nonsense of the difference between private property and personal property you should note that there is no coherent principle behind that since any possession depending on the context can be used for profit

 

"Shows your thin understanding of left wing politics."

lmao my friend i am absolutely sure that i understand your so called socialist principles better than you do so don't make me laugh

 

"what needs to happen is that the economic foundations of the system must be altered, so as to minimize the structural and institutional bias that generates poverty and homelessness."

and how do you propose we do so? in russia and other countries where socialist revolutions occured they seized the businesses of all the people who were productive and murdered them, i'm hoping you have a better solution

 

"They wouldn't. They describe wildly different things and have nothing to do with equality (or even equity)"

to be fair i was just bringing up ridiculous points that came to mind at that point, i wasn't being serious really but regardless...

you don't think desegregating sports is more in line with equality than keeping them segregated? can you expand upon that for me please?

did you not go along with my proposal of taking away special protections for women?

 

"It is about how the system is set-up and how opportunities are distributed in society and seized by individuals without benefitting those who in one way or another inherit power"

so i'm assuming that if you have children that you'll have them give away any wealth you would have accumulated over your life so they can start at a more equitable position?

 

"Every single person who has ever justified hierarchy has described it as something "natural" and "normal". No one has proceeded to verify and prove this claim. "

i'm back here now

"lol you've ever realised that its incredibly hard to explain something that should be obvious? that's the dilemma i'm facing with this question"

tell me something, can you play ball as well as lebron james? swim as fast as michael phelps? what? no? well why not?

 

"Hierarchy is always self justified."

uh you disagree with me right? you started this conversation with this "Eeer... No. Those methods won't promote equality. You don't understand what equality is."

does that mean that you are stating you are more knowledgeable than i am? are you unaware that you are setting up a hierarchy yourself?

it amuses me how leftists will get into an argument and claim that hierarchies cannot be justified (and i'm not saying they are or can here) while not realising their incoherence, it really is fascinating to me  

I will not dignify this with a full analytical response, as it does not deserve one. I will partly respond to some of your questions, however most of what you typed was nonsense or the result of barely understanding what you are talking about.

 

"so i'm assuming that if you have children that you'll have them give away any wealth you would have accumulated over your life so they can start at a more equitable position?"

You are assuming wrong. Firstly, you present a ridiculous and irrational argument here: That if someone supports what you describe as 'leftist' or 'socialist' views, they must also be ready to give their personal wealth to set-up an example for others to follow. This is classic misapprehension and incorrect association. Is everyone who supports capitalism rich? Secondly, even if someone was what you call 'lefitst' and 'socialist', they would still be living in a capitalist system. Such an act of giving away their own personal property would be comprehensively meaningless. 

"it amuses me how leftists will get into an argument and claim that hierarchies cannot be justified (and i'm not saying they are or can here) while not realising their incoherence, it really is fascinating to me"  

Oh boy, here we go again with this. You either lack reading comprehension, or the required knowledge to engage with what I am explaining. Probably both. Here goes:

I did not say that hierarchy cannot be justified. Go ahead and retread my post, where I clearly say that hierarchy is its own justification. This is just as much a justification as anything. Nazis used this understanding to lay claim on the whole world as the Aryan race, and based their claim to power and privilege precisely on how Schmitt revealed that power and knowledge are intertwined. The concept of an originary or primary violence in Schmitt, refers to how -- through history -- ownership and power are retroactively justified. It does not mean that hierarchy is unjustified. It only means that the origin of any law, order or institution is a first act of violence that establishes this law, order, or institution. It means that, rather than an external justification, such as God, or a natural justification, such as the concept that something is 'inevitable' because of some higher law of physics, all human acts have their consequences. In short, hierarchy is NOT unjustified. It is, however, contingent. 

Finally, a brief response to the general tone of your "answer":

1. I'm not a "leftist". 

2. I'm not a "socialist".

3. I'm nowhere on your perceivable spectrum. 

4. You completely misunderstood what I said, especially regarding hierarchy and equality. 

5. I *am* more knowledgeable than you, and this is not due to me setting up any kind of hierarchy personally (you don't even know what you mean by that, so think again before randomly responding). The hierarchy is already in place for millennia now and it is called academia. As an academic working on international relations, history, and political theory, I am justified to presume I know more than you - since I'm already teaching on these fields at the highest level.

6. I'll give you a hint: When one argues for equality and brings up the concept of the self-justification of hierarchy, they are not contradicting themselves. There is a huge body of philosophical work, from Castoriades to Lefort, and from Foucault to Ranciere exploring this seeming paradox. Lefort called it the "empty place of power". Ranciere described it as the tension between "the police" and "politics". But I intentionally used Schmitt, since he was a Nazi, and was in the peculiar position of realizing the basis of power and hierarchy, but reaching the entirely wrong conclusions and implications about it. 

You amuse me with your pathetic ignorance of, and simplistic approach, to politics. Is everything you disagree with 'leftist' and 'socialist'? 

 

The whole idea of a left-right political spectrum is outdated and archaic. It persists, yes, partly because media and society fuels the distinction, but has become more and more meaningless as we move away from the context in which it developed: the first French democracy is already in history books for centuries now.

Perhaps it is time to kill the whole 'left' and 'right' dichotomy. It does not describe anything. I do not belong to a political spectrum, thank you very much. 

On basic stand point.

Any and all people that I know who defend capitalism also defend their personal property, their freedom to do charity as they choose, that people work for money and companies for profit, etc. All of which is perfectly aligned with capitalism, and would say most would also pursue the path to be richer than they were born. Some call this right wing poor people (and mock them)

Also it's very very very hard to find any socialist or left wing person that while believing in equality give away their privilege and money, they are always talking about taking from everyone to distribute never their own money. That is what we call caviar leftists. For some reason none of them see the hypocrisy in this.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

To o_O.Q: had written a response for you, but I have decided it is utterly meaningless to engage in conversation with you. You are ignorant and lack reading comprehension. You fail to even comprehend the difference between a normative desire or moral argument, and an ontological reality -- conflating the two and dragging this conversation down. You insist on adding stuff that I have not said to my position (e.g. on whether workers and bosses should be equal), conflate equality with "leftism" (a condescending tag lumping together a variety of different ideologies), have produced no coherent position of your own, and your best efforts have been spent on finding amusing gifs to illustrate points that you do not have (what is now so commonly called an ‘ad hominem attack’ in these parts).

So, I will entirely avoid responding to you, and simply participate in the wider conversation on this topic. You are really not worth my time.

 

My position to the general topic is the following:

 

1. Antifa is an oxymoronic movement. They are literally the antifascist fascists. Still a million times better than radical right-wing movements and groups, but depressive nevertheless. Gilles Deleuze, described this as 'microfascism', and if unchecked can lead to full-blown fascism.

2. You can't make omelette without breaking a few eggs. Those who deplore such groups for 'protesting violently' are hypocrites themselves. The whole idea of a 'peaceful protest' is borne from the same kind of neoliberal-capitalist mindset in which all social conflict must be restricted to the 'institutional' arrangements and systems in place, namely elections and the 'peaceful' civil society. Society is never so neat, and containing politics exclusively to parliaments is effectively the death of real politics. So yeah, of course protest will be violent, eruptive, uncontrollable, and impossible to fully contain. Furthermore, whenever we attempt to constrain protest and activist action, no matter the source, we engage ourselves in the same kind of totalitarian thinking. A protest is a protest is a protest. It is not there to sugar-coat things, or to act 'civil', as if we are all nobles sat on thrones. 'Civility' is a highly problematic as a concept, and stems from aristocratic conceptions. For the same reason, 'political correctness' is a repressive idea. You can never contain fully all of the excess in society, no matter where it is coming from. Doing so, including restricting the right to speak and to think, only generates further disillusionment and protest down the road.

 


Last edited by Helloplite - on 14 August 2018

Helloplite said:

To o_O.Q: had written a response for you, but I have decided it is utterly meaningless to engage in conversation with you. You are ignorant and lack reading comprehension. You fail to even comprehend the difference between a normative desire or moral argument, and an ontological reality -- conflating the two and dragging this conversation down. You insist on adding stuff that I have not said to my position (e.g. on whether workers and bosses should be equal), conflate equality with "leftism" (a condescending tag lumping together a variety of different ideologies), have produced no coherent position of your own, and your best efforts have been spent on finding amusing gifs to illustrate points that you do not have (what is now so commonly called an ‘ad hominem attack’ in these parts).

So, I will entirely avoid responding to you, and simply participate in the wider conversation on this topic. You are really not worth my time.

 

My position to the general topic is the following:

 

1. Antifa is an oxymoronic movement. They are literally the antifascist fascists. Still a million times better than radical right-wing movements and groups, but depressive nevertheless. Gilles Deleuze, described this as 'microfascism', and if unchecked can lead to full-blown fascism.

2. You can't make omelette without breaking a few eggs. Those who deplore such groups for 'protesting violently' are hypocrites themselves. The whole idea of a 'peaceful protest' is borne from the same kind of neoliberal-capitalist mindset in which all social conflict must be restricted to the 'institutional' arrangements and systems in place, namely elections and the 'peaceful' civil society. Society is never so neat, and containing politics exclusively to parliaments is effectively the death of real politics. So yeah, of course protest will be violent, eruptive, uncontrollable, and impossible to fully contain. Furthermore, whenever we attempt to constrain protest and activist action, no matter the source, we engage ourselves in the same kind of totalitarian thinking. A protest is a protest is a protest. It is not there to sugar-coat things, or to act 'civil', as if we are all nobles sat on thrones. 'Civility' is a highly problematic as a concept, and stems from aristocratic conceptions. For the same reason, 'political correctness' is a repressive idea. You can never contain fully all of the excess in society, no matter where it is coming from. Doing so, including restricting the right to speak and to think, only generates further disillusionment and protest down the road.

 


Except no one have Carte Blanche to attack others or destroy public/private property during their protests. But as rightly stated in this thread if the protest was made by Nazi, KKK or right wing movements they would face the consequences. When it's done by Antifa, BLM or other left wing movements it is defended and uphold.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Helloplite said:

To o_O.Q: had written a response for you, but I have decided it is utterly meaningless to engage in conversation with you. You are ignorant and lack reading comprehension. You fail to even comprehend the difference between a normative desire or moral argument, and an ontological reality -- conflating the two and dragging this conversation down. You insist on adding stuff that I have not said to my position (e.g. on whether workers and bosses should be equal), conflate equality with "leftism" (a condescending tag lumping together a variety of different ideologies), have produced no coherent position of your own, and your best efforts have been spent on finding amusing gifs to illustrate points that you do not have (what is now so commonly called an ‘ad hominem attack’ in these parts).

So, I will entirely avoid responding to you, and simply participate in the wider conversation on this topic. You are really not worth my time.

 

My position to the general topic is the following:

 

1. Antifa is an oxymoronic movement. They are literally the antifascist fascists. Still a million times better than radical right-wing movements and groups, but depressive nevertheless. Gilles Deleuze, described this as 'microfascism', and if unchecked can lead to full-blown fascism.

2. You can't make omelette without breaking a few eggs. Those who deplore such groups for 'protesting violently' are hypocrites themselves. The whole idea of a 'peaceful protest' is borne from the same kind of neoliberal-capitalist mindset in which all social conflict must be restricted to the 'institutional' arrangements and systems in place, namely elections and the 'peaceful' civil society. Society is never so neat, and containing politics exclusively to parliaments is effectively the death of real politics. So yeah, of course protest will be violent, eruptive, uncontrollable, and impossible to fully contain. Furthermore, whenever we attempt to constrain protest and activist action, no matter the source, we engage ourselves in the same kind of totalitarian thinking. A protest is a protest is a protest. It is not there to sugar-coat things, or to act 'civil', as if we are all nobles sat on thrones. 'Civility' is a highly problematic as a concept, and stems from aristocratic conceptions. For the same reason, 'political correctness' is a repressive idea. You can never contain fully all of the excess in society, no matter where it is coming from. Doing so, including restricting the right to speak and to think, only generates further disillusionment and protest down the road.

 


 

"To o_O.Q: had written a response for you, but I have decided it is utterly meaningless to engage in conversation with you."

i told you from the very beginning man, i've torn this nonsense apart more times than i can count and the reason i can is because i've studied it deeply right to its very source which i'm absolutely sure you do not know of

 

" You fail to even comprehend the difference between a normative desire or moral argument, and an ontological reality -- conflating the two and dragging this conversation down."

well buddy if i wanted to discuss fairy tales i'd go back to kindergarden

we are here now discussing real issues governing the interaction between people and the state... i obviously would not expect someone to conflate the two... unless of course they were trying to be dishonest and evasive

you can review your posts and decide for yourself if what i'm claiming here has any credence... regardless any objective person can see what i'm talking about i'd hope

 

". You insist on adding stuff that I have not said to my position (e.g. on whether workers and bosses should be equal)"

i used that as an example of how your arguments about hierarchy were nonsensical... but again i'm talking about the real world here and not fairy tales so that must be where the disconnect is occuring

ironically you yourself claimed to be in a higher position in a hierarchy than i am(without any evidence i might add since you do not know my background) using real world criteria then denied that you were doing so

 

"conflate equality with "leftism"

advocating for equality in opposition to hierarchy is a well understood central value of the left, that you are denying this and claiming i am ignorant is amazing to me 

 

"what is now so commonly called an ‘ad hominem attack’ in these parts"

at every single turn i have replied to direct quotes from your posts

 

"You can't make omelette without breaking a few eggs. Those who deplore such groups for 'protesting violently' are hypocrites themselves."

i think its more that these people attack violently not in retaliation but to instigate violence


this pathetic weasily coward(who was a professor supposedly in a similar field to yourself) reached out from behind someone to whack this 20 year old(who was simply talking) in the head with a bike lock 

you really think this piece of shit attacked this kid to "take down the oppressive capitalist system"(which protects his rights and property ironically) or to "take down the patriarchy" or some shit like that?

there are piles upon piles upon piles of evidence that many of these people are simply looking for an excuse to engage in criminal behavior even though they may claim to have altruistic intentions

this is why its important to have stated goals that are in alignment in with your actions, but unfortunately that is not the default state for most people


Last edited by o_O.Q - on 14 August 2018