Why do socialists deserve to not be poor?

[Jakob]

What Socialists, aka international nazis, deserve is what nazis will always get in the end.


Dangerous hordes of miserable quasi beings obstructing everything good and decent in an "effort" to reduce the entire realm of species to death and if that can't be accomplished, to absolute misery.
That is literally all that Socialism is.

Once upon a time it may have had the connotation of some decency, with some rare not-corrupt union leaders. But even then the basic logic was sadistic. It always has been a world of sadists, Socialism.

[promethean75]

"whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster." - nietzsche

"sometimes one must become a monster to defeat a monster" - prometheus75

[Serendipper]

"whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster." - nietzsche

"sometimes one must become a monster to defeat a monster" - prometheus75

Brave Sir Robin, it now appears the soothing light at the end of your tunnel was just a freight train heading your way

Let's dance!

[Jakob]

I am just very grateful to not be you.


Please find it in yourself to entertain yourself without trying constantly to touch me. I know it is unlikely you'll manage to make your own path. But I express the wish that you try. I do not want you anywhere near me.

[Jakob]

This case is closed, then. My question has been answered more vividly than I asked for.

Socialists are genocidal thugs. What they deserve is what Eichmann deserved.

[promethean75]

I do not want you anywhere near me.

the feeling's mutual, bub. and don't let the dialectical door of history hit you on the ass on your way out!

[Silhouette]

I dunno guys...

Agreeing to disagree can be healthy for the purposes of accepting differences and moving on, but this apparent cadence just seems nothing but divisive and hostile.

The acceptance here is that everyone not "on your side" is a lost cause and "othered", which is an effective pre-requisite for "justified" anger, hatred and violence. If there are any here who actually want this, then I think you are fools who know nothing of how bad even the slightest physical feud can get - or worse, you do know and want it anyway.

There have been hints of some just waiting for the chance to justify "othering" those in the wrong tribe, and perhaps there are arguments both for and against the inevitability and innateness of such tendencies, but let it be known that I neither support nor condone the emotional "us and them" mentality.

There are rational grounds to distinguish certain things from other things, but these do not depend on emotion - they are independent of emotion and ought not to arouse emotion when there is a legitimate rational distinction. One rock parted from another rock is not grounds for war.

I do not differentiate the capitalists from the working class through emotion, but by simple fact - no different from the cow goes moo and the dog says woof. There is factually a different way that they respectively use money, and one I support and the other I do not. And I do not make this distinction as a result of which one I prefer, but as a matter of fact - of which one works better than the other.

I am prepared to be swayed either way, but so far I see more evidence that one works better than the other. I am open to more evidence and I would encourage all others to put aside your unquestioned loyalties to "us" or "them", but instead to evidence or lack thereof.

[promethean75]

You sound very suspiciously like the voice of reason amidst the howling mob. I'll be watching you, buddy.

[Serendipper]

Agreeing to disagree can be healthy for the purposes of accepting differences and moving on, but this apparent cadence just seems nothing but divisive and hostile.

This is why you Brits are getting screwed lol. I call this the chocolate/vanilla argument, but maybe you could give me the proper name. You're saying that because one holds the philosophy of "adversity engendering prosperity" that it's a trivial matter of preference whether or not they vote to implement it on people I care about, so I should stand idly by while they continue oppressing the poor like they're ordering their specific flavor of ice cream and I'm the bad guy who's making a mountain out of a mole hill while I watch people slaving to get by and doing without healthcare. This is like saying "Well, tossing jews in ovens is just a matter of preference and we should endeavor to get along lest we breed hostility." This fallacy must have a name.

The bad part is, the ones oppressing the poor do not have the acumen nor humility necessary to possibly grasp how they're oppressing the poor (and themselves),which makes them "dumb animals" that can't be held accountable, but even if they could grasp it, they wouldn't care because, well, your organ donor friend who wanted to be sure the undeserved didn't get something for nothing and St Aquinas saying the best part of heaven will be watching the damned. If cancer is a disease to humanity, then so are those people. This isn't morality, but pragmatism. It's Stirner's psychological, ethical, and rational egoism. Which makes conservatives irrational, since they are not acting in their own self interests, but against their own interests in order to be sure someone else has it worse.

I don't know about you, but it's not in my self-interest to watch people I care about suffer in order to get along with a narcissistic dimwit with a righteous rod up his ass.... and who doesn't contribute anything of value to any discussion, but only exists to disrupt and derail without dispensing anything of value that couldn't be obtained by shaking a can of alphabet soup.

I'd prefer autsider, trixie and satyr because at least they didn't run from a debate!

I understand your desire for peace, I want peace too, but

"Some men you just can't reach...
So, you get what we had here last week,
which is the way he wants it!
Well, he gets it!
N' I don't like it any more than you men."

[Serendipper]

I am just very grateful to not be you.

You should be. Empathy is a terrible thing; good for you that you don't have it.

I do not want you anywhere near me.

Then stop following me around.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Agreeing to disagree can be healthy for the purposes of accepting differences and moving on, but this apparent cadence just seems nothing but divisive and hostile.

This is why you Brits are getting screwed lol. I call this the chocolate/vanilla argument, but maybe you could give me the proper name. You're saying that because one holds the philosophy of "adversity engendering prosperity" that it's a trivial matter of preference whether or not they vote to implement it on people I care about, so I should stand idly by while they continue oppressing the poor like they're ordering their specific flavor of ice cream and I'm the bad guy who's making a mountain out of a mole hill while I watch people slaving to get by and doing without healthcare. This is like saying "Well, tossing jews in ovens is just a matter of preference and we should endeavor to get along lest we breed hostility." This fallacy must have a name.

1) it seems to me the people in countries where us/them rhetoric is accepted by all sides are also screwed. 2) you just blamed Silhouette for getting screwed, making Brits a them, who are getting themselves screwed, extending your us them even to political allies. And I am pretty damn sure the Brits are very us/them these days. 3) You're being binary. One can passionately oppose legislation and positions without being us/them. IOW you don't have to say your opponents are evil/stupid, but you can say policy Z is or would be catastrophic. One reason to do this is that demonizing tends to make people hand onto their positions even more. And where I am - an unnamed country in the EU - I have seen it make people more radical and outspoken and increased the rolls of nationalist parties. People concerned about immigration here have been categorized as racists - as if there were no economic issues involved. This reaction has been part of a huge increase in the support for a party with a clear racist background.

So then what’s necessary…is a system, in which the good side is always winning, but never is the winner. Where the evil side is always losing, but never is a loser. That’s a very practical arrangement for a successful ongoing game which will keep everybody interested. And you must watch this in practical politics. Every “in-group” or group of “nice people”, needs an “out-group” of “nasty people” otherwise they wouldn’t know who they were! And you must recognize that this “out-group” is your necessary enemy who you need, he keeps you on your toes. But you mustn’t obliterate him; if you do, you are in a very dangerous state of affairs.

So you have to love your enemies in a sense, regard them as highly necessary and to be respected chivalrously. We need the communists and they need us, the thing is to cool it and play what I call a contained conflict, when conflicts get out of hand, all sides blow up. So why should we love our enemies? Because we need them.
Alan Watts

And note the irony - here he is saying the necessary enemy is communists.

So how does one deal with someone like Jakob, who clearly has no problem demonizing. Everyone who disagrees with him here is genocidal. heck, even your post above can imply that his team is genocidal nazis.

Once you limit your sense of the other to the them categorization, you are not recognizing your involvement in their very existence.

It's cutting off the arm that offends you.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I dunno guys...
Agreeing to disagree can be healthy for the purposes of accepting differences and moving on, but this apparent cadence just seems nothing but divisive and hostile.

What would moving on be in this context? I am taking your post here as referring to this discussion, here in ILP. I sort of agree - see my post to Serendipper above - but then he seemed to be focusing in general.
I can't really see what to do with Jakob. He is calling you a genocidal thug. What would moving on look like?
I don't have an us them based on politics with him. I don't consider myself a socialist. I find his posts just calling out for mocking, as posts. Though now I am tired of that.
In part I am pretty sure he posted her once under another name, and was, then, capable of argument and responding to points. Now he wants to express, not be criticized, anyone who disagrees with him is an anti-semite - which is just bizarre, given how much socialism today, Israel itself came out of Jewish thinkers who were socialist, and then how many jews are socialists, especially by his standards - Jews in the US, for example are quite liberal and since he calls liberals socialists, they must all be self-hating Jews. But shit, even taking the anti-semetism charge that seriously is off. One can be capitalist or socialist and be jewish, zionist, anti-jewish, whatever. It's apples and bicycles. we're talking economics.
I sort of hoped that throwing up some of the idiocy in his face might shift it. Naive.

If this is because he is Jewish, if he is, and any criticism aimed at him must come from the hatred of Jews, it doesn't explain his saying all socialists are genocidal anti-semites.

How does one move on with this kind of thing?

What are you planning on collaborating on?

[Serendipper]

1) it seems to me the people in countries where us/them rhetoric is accepted by all sides are also screwed.

Probably why us won and them nazis didn't.

2) you just blamed Silhouette for getting screwed, making Brits a them, who are getting themselves screwed, extending your us them even to political allies. And I am pretty damn sure the Brits are very us/them these days.

Sil's my friend, but I don't know how to put it delicately.

Not a single downvote:

britstakingituptheass.jpg (58.41 KiB) Viewed 11962 times

It's the top comment from here: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03- ... ebate-ends

And I didn't vote. I don't comment there. I just like to keep my finger on the pulse.

When you gonna wake up?

God don't make promises that He don't keep
You got some big dreams baby, but in order to dream you gotta still be asleep.

When you gonna wake up, when you gonna wake up
When you gonna wake up strengthen the things that remain ?

Sil knows what I'm talking about: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=194003&p=2716701&#p2716677

Open topic for anyone with an opinion: why are some people scared that someone might get something for nothing? And these same people applaud the rich getting many things for essentially nothing, but can't tolerate the thought of a poor person getting something for nothing, even though they work their ass off for a pittance. I'd like to explore that, even though doing so will probably piss me off lol

Allow me to piss you off with the following anecdote that I recently came to be burdened with:

I was out for lunch with people at my workplace to mark the occasion of somebody in my wider department finding a new job, and a work colleague of mine who I was sitting with relayed to me, for some reason on the topic of giving blood or donating organs (obvious conversation over food :\) that her boyfriend refused to do it despite being well aware of the good that it can do. The reason? He did not want somebody "who didn't deserve it" to receive the benefit of it.

Literally holding out on a readily available opportunity to potentially save a random person's life, and he would rather forego the possibility of doing good to someone "who did deserve it" for fear of doing good to someone "who didn't deserve it" - not least explicitly elevating his own sense of "who deserves what" to the level of deciding life or death. I was so shocked I couldn't even confront it at the time, and still haven't. When you're dead, your organs being transplanted literally means nothing to you & giving blood costs so massively little compared to the costs that it can save another. Even the cowardice of "I don't like needles/it makes me squeamish" or simply "I don't like the idea" is far more acceptable, but he's not even saying he has any other objections to the idea than his own ultimate moral judgment.

Obviously he sees this decision as morally decisive and just. Probably many would agree or at least feel sympathy for such a stance but this is tribalism even beyond the grave - quite something else. I imagine that the severity of such a position while he's still alive is more the motivation: I see over-simplicity and clarity even to the stupid, at the expense of all nuance and sympathy quite regularly looked up to in politicians. The emulation of such behaviour no doubt grants a feeling of being in the possession of such value and being worthy of dealing it out with an inflated sense of discretion - it surely only appeals to the self-righteous naracissist.

Another anecdote I have from a Trump supporting Leave-the-EU voter with no life plans and fantasies of owning vast wealth like a super-yacht (he's young at least), is that upon my mentions of everyone being richer under my dual currency model, he remarked that he doesn't want everyone else to be rich, just him. It reminded me of a comment by Christopher Hitchens in reference to those who believe in Heaven and Hell that "One of the pleasures of paradise is surverying and relishing the torments of the damned". There's the Zizek joke about a genie who appears to a Slovenian farmer and tells him "I will do whatever you want to you, just remember I will do to your neighbour twice as much" and the farmer replies, "Take one of my eyes", which sums up this mentality very nicely, where certain people who may nonetheless really want to be successful, they will sacrifice this so long as it means that others lose even more: they want to succeed but more importantly they want others to fail.

3) You're being binary.

So? You sound like Phyllo now. Either my friends are getting screwed or they are not... and they are.

One can passionately oppose legislation and positions without being us/them.

How does one be opposed without being us/them? Do you vote to oppress the poor or do you not? If so, you're one of them; if not, you're one of us.

IOW you don't have to say your opponents are evil/stupid, but you can say policy Z is or would be catastrophic. One reason to do this is that demonizing tends to make people hand onto their positions even more.

So you're demonizing my us/them position making me hang onto it even more lol

So then what’s necessary…is a system, in which the good side is always winning, but never is the winner. Where the evil side is always losing, but never is a loser. That’s a very practical arrangement for a successful ongoing game which will keep everybody interested. And you must watch this in practical politics. Every “in-group” or group of “nice people”, needs an “out-group” of “nasty people” otherwise they wouldn’t know who they were! And you must recognize that this “out-group” is your necessary enemy who you need, he keeps you on your toes. But you mustn’t obliterate him; if you do, you are in a very dangerous state of affairs.

No need to obliterate cancer? We will always have enemies. Watts was talking about the universe in general needing good and evil in proper proportions lest it get boring or lest evil destroy the whole thing. I'm fine with evil so long as it doesn't go overboard and start hurting people I care about. You're advocating that "rejoice in slavery because it could be worse" attitude Phyllo was selling on another thread that Sil pointed out as fallacious: relative privation.

So you have to love your enemies in a sense, regard them as highly necessary and to be respected chivalrously. We need the communists and they need us, the thing is to cool it and play what I call a contained conflict, when conflicts get out of hand, all sides blow up. So why should we love our enemies? Because we need them.
Alan Watts. And note the irony - here he is saying the necessary enemy is communists.

He said communism would fall apart on its own because it's essentially one giant corporation and exceedingly inefficient. I don't think he recognized that the capitalists were the problem. He said he wasn't an economist and apparently didn't read any of Chomsky's work.

So how does one deal with someone like Jakob, who clearly has no problem demonizing. Everyone who disagrees with him here is genocidal. heck, even your post above can imply that his team is genocidal nazis.

Once you limit your sense of the other to the them categorization, you are not recognizing your involvement in their very existence.

It's cutting off the arm that offends you.

Narcissists cannot learn because in order to learn they would first have to be wrong and that isn't possible.

[Serendipper]

I dunno guys...
Agreeing to disagree can be healthy for the purposes of accepting differences and moving on, but this apparent cadence just seems nothing but divisive and hostile.

What would moving on be in this context? I am taking your post here as referring to this discussion, here in ILP. I sort of agree - see my post to Serendipper above - but then he seemed to be focusing in general.
I can't really see what to do with Jakob. He is calling you a genocidal thug. What would moving on look like?
I don't have an us them based on politics with him. I don't consider myself a socialist. I find his posts just calling out for mocking, as posts. Though now I am tired of that.

Jakob can't win on a level field using reason and evidence, and since he can't say "I've been doing some thinking and have decided you're right", then the only thing left for him to do is run about propagandizing.

When guys attack me on the liberalforums, I just turn it around on them.

If they say "You're a libtard faggot!" I change their quote so it appears "I serviced a libtard faggot on the corner for a quarter" then ask how much change they returned. Then they say "Oh another faggot that edits posts". I change it to "I'm a faggot who sits on posts". Eventually they leave me alone. Treat me nice and I reflect that; call me names and I'll reflect that. They're free to beat their heads on walls all they want and I'll just think it's fun and games. It works, but Carleas probably wouldn't like it around here, so I can't do much in defense. Usually liberals have conservatives on their block lists (because they act like animals), but I bet I'm the only liberal on a conservative's block list; they just don't tangle with me much anymore. You can't run from predators; we talked about that before.

[Karpel Tunnel]

1) it seems to me the people in countries where us/them rhetoric is accepted by all sides are also screwed.

Probably why us won and them nazis didn't.

Come on Serendipper. You were talkign to a Brit, they also beat the Nazis. We are all dealing with problems related to the groups you are fighting here. YOu made it sound like the Brits have problems, presumably Brexit, because they are like sil. The US has Trump.

2) you just blamed Silhouette for getting screwed, making Brits a them, who are getting themselves screwed, extending your us them even to political allies. And I am pretty damn sure the Brits are very us/them these days.

Sil's my friend, but I don't know how to put it delicately.

You could say that it is problematic and show why. I can help you with diplomacy, whihc would be very funny.

3) You're being binary.

So? You sound like Phyllo now. Either my friends are getting screwed or they are not... and they are.

Again, I see many people getting screwed, including all Western nations, presumably whichever one you live in. The generalization was confused, but British are very US them.

One can passionately oppose legislation and positions without being us/them.

How does one be opposed without being us/them? Do you vote to oppress the poor or do you not? If so, you're one of them; if not, you're one of us.

Hello. He wasn't talking about voting. As I said elsewher and above, you can fight legislation without saying the opponents are evil/stupid. Or, at least, some can.

IOW you don't have to say your opponents are evil/stupid, but you can say policy Z is or would be catastrophic. One reason to do this is that demonizing tends to make people hand onto their positions even more.

So you're demonizing my us/them position making me hang onto it even more lol

Um, no. I didn't say you wEre evil or stupid. I am not sure you are paying attention. I hope that doesn't seem demonizing. Not paying attention to individual posts, like mine here. Maybe the project has gotten too big.

So then what’s necessary…is a system, in which the good side is always winning, but never is the winner. Where the evil side is always losing, but never is a loser. That’s a very practical arrangement for a successful ongoing game which will keep everybody interested. And you must watch this in practical politics. Every “in-group” or group of “nice people”, needs an “out-group” of “nasty people” otherwise they wouldn’t know who they were! And you must recognize that this “out-group” is your necessary enemy who you need, he keeps you on your toes. But you mustn’t obliterate him; if you do, you are in a very dangerous state of affairs.

No need to obliterate cancer? We will always have enemies. Watts was talking about the universe in general needing good and evil in proper proportions lest it get boring or lest evil destroy the whole thing. I'm fine with evil so long as it doesn't go overboard and start hurting people I care about. You're advocating that "rejoice in slavery because it could be worse" attitude Phyllo was selling on another thread that Sil pointed out as fallacious: relative privation.

I was pointing out that Watts was saying be chivilrous and respectful. YOu can listen to him or not. I think Watts is fallible. I'd be happy if you thought so too. You also shifted to the problems, slavery, cancer, as if these were what Sil was suggesting one must accept. He was talking about demonizing one's political opponents. You could demonize slavery and cancer all you want.

So you have to love your enemies in a sense, regard them as highly necessary and to be respected chivalrously. We need the communists and they need us, the thing is to cool it and play what I call a contained conflict, when conflicts get out of hand, all sides blow up. So why should we love our enemies? Because we need them.
Alan Watts. And note the irony - here he is saying the necessary enemy is communists.

He said communism would fall apart on its own because it's essentially one giant corporation and exceedingly inefficient. I don't think he recognized that the capitalists were the problem. He said he wasn't an economist and apparently didn't read any of Chomsky's work.

But clearly he was identifying with the capitalist nations.

So how does one deal with someone like Jakob, who clearly has no problem demonizing. Everyone who disagrees with him here is genocidal. heck, even your post above can imply that his team is genocidal nazis.

Once you limit your sense of the other to the them categorization, you are not recognizing your involvement in their very existence.

It's cutting off the arm that offends you.

Narcissists cannot learn because in order to learn they would first have to be wrong and that isn't possible.

This part was me shifting to spiritual. You are losing out because you can't see how you are involved.

[Serendipper]

Come on Serendipper. You were talkign to a Brit, they also beat the Nazis. We are all dealing with problems related to the groups you are fighting here. YOu made it sound like the Brits have problems, presumably Brexit, because they are like sil. The US has Trump.

He and Mags are both expressing outrage at the "Labour Party" not representing the working people, but instead being conservatives in disguise. They should do something other than bend over and allow it. At least bang Jakob on the head for propagating an ideology that facilitates exploitation.

2) you just blamed Silhouette for getting screwed, making Brits a them, who are getting themselves screwed, extending your us them even to political allies. And I am pretty damn sure the Brits are very us/them these days.

Sil's my friend, but I don't know how to put it delicately.

You could say that it is problematic and show why. I can help you with diplomacy, whihc would be very funny.

Tact has never been my strength

3) You're being binary.

So? You sound like Phyllo now. Either my friends are getting screwed or they are not... and they are.

Again, I see many people getting screwed,

And what are you doing about it?

One can passionately oppose legislation and positions without being us/them.

How does one be opposed without being us/them? Do you vote to oppress the poor or do you not? If so, you're one of them; if not, you're one of us.

Hello. He wasn't talking about voting. As I said elsewher and above, you can fight legislation without saying the opponents are evil/stupid. Or, at least, some can.

Sure, I suppose I could, but in this particular case, the proponents are evil/stupid. I mean, science says so.

IOW you don't have to say your opponents are evil/stupid, but you can say policy Z is or would be catastrophic. One reason to do this is that demonizing tends to make people hand onto their positions even more.

So you're demonizing my us/them position making me hang onto it even more lol

Um, no. I didn't say you wEre evil or stupid. I am not sure you are paying attention. I hope that doesn't seem demonizing. Not paying attention to individual posts, like mine here. Maybe the project has gotten too big.

You're saying "us/them" is a dangerous philosophy, which is demonizing. And I agree it is dangerous, but I often do dangerous things. At least I recognize I'm treading on fine lines.

So then what’s necessary…is a system, in which the good side is always winning, but never is the winner. Where the evil side is always losing, but never is a loser. That’s a very practical arrangement for a successful ongoing game which will keep everybody interested. And you must watch this in practical politics. Every “in-group” or group of “nice people”, needs an “out-group” of “nasty people” otherwise they wouldn’t know who they were! And you must recognize that this “out-group” is your necessary enemy who you need, he keeps you on your toes. But you mustn’t obliterate him; if you do, you are in a very dangerous state of affairs.

No need to obliterate cancer? We will always have enemies. Watts was talking about the universe in general needing good and evil in proper proportions lest it get boring or lest evil destroy the whole thing. I'm fine with evil so long as it doesn't go overboard and start hurting people I care about. You're advocating that "rejoice in slavery because it could be worse" attitude Phyllo was selling on another thread that Sil pointed out as fallacious: relative privation.

I was pointing out that Watts was saying be chivilrous and respectful. YOu can listen to him or not. I think Watts is fallible. I'd be happy if you thought so too. You also shifted to the problems, slavery, cancer, as if these were what Sil was suggesting one must accept. He was talking about demonizing one's political opponents. You could demonize slavery and cancer all you want.

Are we to demonize nazis or not? Should we accept that particular political opponent or not? You're appealing to the same chocolate/vanilla argument that being a nazi is simply a preference that everyone should respect. Being a cancer cell is simply a preference that everyone should respect. Being a germ is a preference that everyone should respect, so disinfectants are immoral, chemotherapy is immoral, and liberating jews from concentration camps was immoral; the nazis had a right to exterminate the jews, afterall, since it was their preference. Well it's my preference to disagree with your preference that their preference is merely a preference

So you have to love your enemies in a sense, regard them as highly necessary and to be respected chivalrously. We need the communists and they need us, the thing is to cool it and play what I call a contained conflict, when conflicts get out of hand, all sides blow up. So why should we love our enemies? Because we need them.
Alan Watts. And note the irony - here he is saying the necessary enemy is communists.

He said communism would fall apart on its own because it's essentially one giant corporation and exceedingly inefficient. I don't think he recognized that the capitalists were the problem. He said he wasn't an economist and apparently didn't read any of Chomsky's work.

But clearly he was identifying with the capitalist nations.

By suggesting that everyone should be assured of a minimum income?

[Karpel Tunnel]

He and Mags are both expressing outrage at the "Labour Party" not representing the working people, but instead being conservatives in disguise. They should do something other than bend over and allow it. At least bang Jakob on the head for propagating an ideology that facilitates exploitation.

I have no idea what Mags has been saying. It seems to me Sillouette has been arguing against conservatives quite steadily. I doubt banging Jakob on the head will help, not if that means insulting him.

Tact has never been my strength

Then insulting might seem like the appropriate tool when it's not.

And what are you doing about it?

About people getting screwed? That's not the topic. We can have that topic also...

but Serendipper the bleeding topic was

YOU said 'that's why you Brits are getting screwed'

I think that is a ridiculous thing to say. All sides in britain are very us/them like these days. So that's Brits being all nicey nicey is not why they are being screwed.
and...
people are not being nicey nicey in the US and they are getting screwed.

That's about time number 3. YOu could have the decency to respond to that point, or not.

Sure, I suppose I could, but in this particular case, the proponents are evil/stupid. I mean, science says so.

That doesnt mean its good to call them that. Feel free at any
to respond to what I'm saying.

You're saying "us/them" is a dangerous philosophy, which is demonizing. And I agree it is dangerous, but I often do dangerous things. At least I recognize I'm treading on fine lines.

Well, here you seem to have finally noticed what I have been saying. It's not much of a defense, but I appreciate it seeming like you read what I wrote.

I was pointing out that Watts was saying be chivilrous and respectful. YOu can listen to him or not. I think Watts is fallible. I'd be happy if you thought so too. You also shifted to the problems, slavery, cancer, as if these were what Sil was suggesting one must accept. He was talking about demonizing one's political opponents. You could demonize slavery and cancer all you want.

Are we to demonize nazis or not?

I didn't know that Jakob is a nazi. If the nazis make up a large percentage of your population, I htink it is a bad strategy to demonize them. POint out the evil of their acts, yes. Fight against their legislation, their lies, their acts.

Should we accept that particular political opponent or not? You're appealing to the same chocolate/vanilla argument that being a nazi is simply a preference that everyone should respect.

Nope. You can call the acts whatever you want. You can loathe t hem emotionally and tear them apart rationally. the acts, the policies the legislation. But I don't think demonizing a large percentage of the population will help. And I do not see it helping in the country I am in or bakc home in the US.

Being a cancer cell is simply a preference that everyone should respect. Being a germ is a preference that everyone should respect, so disinfectants are immoral, chemotherapy is immoral, and liberating jews from concentration camps was immoral; the nazis had a right to exterminate the jews, afterall, since it was their preference. Well it's my preference to disagree with your preference that their preference is merely a preference

Strawman.

You are off your game. Maybe you need a break. This is not the Serendipper of even a couple of weeks ago.

So you have to love your enemies in a sense, regard them as highly necessary and to be respected chivalrously. We need the communists and they need us, the thing is to cool it and play what I call a contained conflict, when conflicts get out of hand, all sides blow up. So why should we love our enemies? Because we need them.
Alan Watts. And note the irony - here he is saying the necessary enemy is communists.

He said communism would fall apart on its own because it's essentially one giant corporation and exceedingly inefficient. I don't think he recognized that the capitalists were the problem. He said he wasn't an economist and apparently didn't read any of Chomsky's work.

But clearly he was identifying with the capitalist nations.

By suggesting that everyone should be assured of a minimum income?[/quote]OK, acknowledge nothing. Hold the line, treat my post as an enemy soldier running at you with a bayonet. Your life seems to depend on it, or you are not sleeping or something.

I'll avoid you for a while. I barely recognize you. You just demonized me in this post. Not as directly, but implicitly. Giving me positions I do not have that are terrible.

See you in a couple of weeks.

My suggestion: take a break or sleep or do whatever is missing. I don't know if those are the causes but as a communication partner, now you are just like Jakob, only you put in more time on a response that is just as irrelevent.

[Serendipper]

He and Mags are both expressing outrage at the "Labour Party" not representing the working people, but instead being conservatives in disguise. They should do something other than bend over and allow it. At least bang Jakob on the head for propagating an ideology that facilitates exploitation.

I have no idea what Mags has been saying. It seems to me Sillouette has been arguing against conservatives quite steadily. I doubt banging Jakob on the head will help, not if that means insulting him.

How much experience are you speaking from? Go to NHB and test it out.

And what are you doing about it?

About people getting screwed? That's not the topic. We can have that topic also...

Well if you're suggesting an alternative, then it is the topic. What are you doing to help people getting screwed that I could do in place of banging people on the head who screw people?

but Serendipper the bleeding topic was

YOU said 'that's why you Brits are getting screwed'

It is! You want me to lie?

I think that is a ridiculous thing to say.

Probably because Phyllo hacked your account and is impersonating KT.

All sides in britain are very us/them like these days. So that's Brits being all nicey nicey is not why they are being screwed.

Well I don't see em in the streets next to the yellow vests, but on here telling people to chill.

and...
people are not being nicey nicey in the US and they are getting screwed.

We have Bernie to put our faith in.... and several progressive candidates. Otherwise we'd be on the brink of civil war. Check out a recent Bernie rally: packed wall to wall.

That's about time number 3. YOu could have the decency to respond to that point, or not.

What point? The only point I've seen so far is I should smile when I grab my ankles. I told you, I disagree.

Sure, I suppose I could, but in this particular case, the proponents are evil/stupid. I mean, science says so.

That doesnt mean its good to call them that. Feel free at any
to respond to what I'm saying.

Well they're hopeless. I'm mostly addressing the audience so people on the fence can see it.

You're saying "us/them" is a dangerous philosophy, which is demonizing. And I agree it is dangerous, but I often do dangerous things. At least I recognize I'm treading on fine lines.

Well, here you seem to have finally noticed what I have been saying. It's not much of a defense, but I appreciate it seeming like you read what I wrote.

I always read what you write. Haven't gotten to a couple threads yet though.

I was pointing out that Watts was saying be chivilrous and respectful. YOu can listen to him or not. I think Watts is fallible. I'd be happy if you thought so too. You also shifted to the problems, slavery, cancer, as if these were what Sil was suggesting one must accept. He was talking about demonizing one's political opponents. You could demonize slavery and cancer all you want.

Are we to demonize nazis or not?

I didn't know that Jakob is a nazi. If the nazis make up a large percentage of your population, I htink it is a bad strategy to demonize them. POint out the evil of their acts, yes. Fight against their legislation, their lies, their acts.

He's not, but I'm just asking if we should demonize nazis or not. If you don't demonize criminals, then you have no moral standing to put them in jail.

Should we accept that particular political opponent or not? You're appealing to the same chocolate/vanilla argument that being a nazi is simply a preference that everyone should respect.

Nope. You can call the acts whatever you want. You can loathe t hem emotionally and tear them apart rationally. the acts, the policies the legislation. But I don't think demonizing a large percentage of the population will help. And I do not see it helping in the country I am in or bakc home in the US.

Why won't demonizing a large % of the population help? The ones being demonized can't believe it and the rest either agree or are on the fence.

Being a cancer cell is simply a preference that everyone should respect. Being a germ is a preference that everyone should respect, so disinfectants are immoral, chemotherapy is immoral, and liberating jews from concentration camps was immoral; the nazis had a right to exterminate the jews, afterall, since it was their preference. Well it's my preference to disagree with your preference that their preference is merely a preference

Strawman.

No it's not.

You are off your game. Maybe you need a break. This is not the Serendipper of even a couple of weeks ago.

A couple weeks ago I didn't have 2 junkies stalking me around the board.

But clearly he was identifying with the capitalist nations.

By suggesting that everyone should be assured of a minimum income?

OK, acknowledge nothing. Hold the line, treat my post as an enemy soldier running at you with a bayonet. Your life seems to depend on it, or you are not sleeping or something.

I'll avoid you for a while. I barely recognize you. You just demonized me in this post. Not as directly, but implicitly. Giving me positions I do not have that are terrible.

See you in a couple of weeks.

My suggestion: take a break or sleep or do whatever is missing. I don't know if those are the causes but as a communication partner, now you are just like Jakob, only you put in more time on a response that is just as irrelevent.

Gee whiz I asked a question. Was Watts a capitalist because he wanted to assure everyone a minimum income?

See you in a couple of weeks.

Well, I guess there's no need to bother with those other threads then.

[Silhouette]

I'm trying to figure out the response to my last post and suspect I may have worded it badly and given the wrong impression.

Am I being read as prescribing "accepting differences and moving on" when I was doing nothing more than describing a more innocent version of what others seemed to be doing on this thread? I say "more innocent", because that's not all they're doing - they're retreating to their respective tribes, each side even more convinced of their own side's superiority than before, and implicitly establishing that reasonable discourse is now off the table. I was condoning neither the acceptance of differences and moving on, nor retreating to an emotional position of "justified" anger, hatred and intended violence.

On the other hand, I may be being read correctly as aiming to keep rationality on the table instead of allowing an "us and them" attitude to divide everyone - since that is guaranteed to not be constructive, when what I recommend is merely unlikely to be constructive. I am interested in the idea of decreasing this unlikeliness - and whilst it's true that "Some men you just can't reach... etc." as Seren was saying, I haven't yet made the ruling that any posters here are definitely one of these "some men" - even if some of you have. And even if some posters here are one of these "some men", it's still better to let them exhibit their lack of rationality, respect and sophistication while you yourself exhibit only those things in response. It may be a vain hope that not backing down from decency will eventually seep through and deter, or even cause the indecent to face the fact that they are only embarrassing themselves, but even if they never learn - others who are new to any such discussions will immediately realise who to listen to and who not to (assuming they hadn't already decided to take the other side regardless of their self-debasing methods).

In this last paragraph all I have done is follow "keeping rationality on the table" through to each of its possible logical conclusions.

The alternative is to shut down the further possibility of anything constructive, and in the absence of forum violence being physically possible, all you're left with is intimidation and pissing contests. This isn't the kind of forum environment that I would prefer.
Further, tribal thinking is part of a growing trend beyond this forum that I do not want to be part of. Why? Everyone who has been involved in violence for a long enough period of time will come to realise its real costs beyond a bit of machismo, catharsis and self-righteousness - there is a reason why foreign policy in the developed world is "violence? yes, but only as a last resort". If you think this is me "bending over to take it up the ass", not only are you very wrong that I have any intention of ever doing so, but you are also very wrong in pushing for violence - even within such a seemingly isolated and harmless environment as an internet forum - as anything but a last resort and you only expose your lack of experience with violence in doing so. We are far from out of options, and pointing this out is not the same as allowing myself or others around me to get screwed.

So now that it ought to be perfectly clear why I am against tribalism, let us go back to my afore-mentioned paragraph: yes it's shitty that those logical conclusions are all we're left with when some people choose tribalism, but they are the best possible set of outcomes.

If anyone is familiar with game theory terms such as finite and infinite games, you will recognise this problem as falling into the latter category. I am simply siding with the tactics of the latter.

Finally, make no mistake that others spouting nonsense and the annoyance of being exposed to different viewpoints is a sure sign that free speech is still functional.
It's probably more of a red flag if everyone is agreeing with each other than if everyone is disagreeing with each other, and psychologically, being in the presence of those with different viewpoints gives at least one person opportunity to grow unlike an echo chamber of preaching to the converted.

[Serendipper]

I'm trying to figure out the response to my last post and suspect I may have worded it badly and given the wrong impression.

Am I being read as prescribing "accepting differences and moving on" when I was doing nothing more than describing a more innocent version of what others seemed to be doing on this thread? I say "more innocent", because that's not all they're doing - they're retreating to their respective tribes, each side even more convinced of their own side's superiority than before, and implicitly establishing that reasonable discourse is now off the table. I was condoning neither the acceptance of differences and moving on, nor retreating to an emotional position of "justified" anger, hatred and intended violence.

You said:

I dunno guys...

Agreeing to disagree can be healthy for the purposes of accepting differences and moving on, but this apparent cadence just seems nothing but divisive and hostile.

Why should I not sever myself from someone wishing to deny me healthcare? Why should I not be hostile with attacks on my person?

On the other hand, I may be being read correctly as aiming to keep rationality on the table

What rationality? Jakob is rational?

instead of allowing an "us and them" attitude to divide everyone - since that is guaranteed to not be constructive,

Why not? I'd be happy to debate him, but you know as well as I that he will run.

KT has ran off as well. Apparently he's an "us" and I'm a "them" who is unreasonable.

[Silhouette]

Why should I not sever myself from someone wishing to deny me healthcare? Why should I not be hostile with attacks on my person?

Sounds pretty eye for an eye. Severing yourself is a resolution of defeat - potentially for decent enough reason, but I do not give up on people easily.

What rationality? Jakob is rational?

I seem to remember rationality from him in the past, and there are subtle signs that he can respond with some reason to the right questions and responses - even if it's been extremely lacking as of late. I understand your reaction, but I am a stubborn mule.

I'd be happy to debate him, but you know as well as I that he will run.

Maybe so, but there's a possibility that he might have read and considered what you said to make him run, and the smallest affect can be cumulative in the long run and is at least better than no affect whatsoever.

KT has ran off as well. Apparently he's an "us" and I'm a "them" who is unreasonable.

KT does not seem to tolerate anything remotely hostile, or at least not reasonably balanced - he seems to take great care to stay reasonable and non-committal to any one side over another when there is reason to side either way, as there almost always is. Yes, denying healthcare is not acceptable, but we've hardly reached that point from anyone here in real terms - nobody around seems to be in any position of power, so I figure it's most reasonable to explore the ways in which other people think at the very least - even if they will not be persuaded. I find that being persuadable is the best way to persuade others - it's when you lock down and dig your heels in that others resolve to do the same, which only serves to drive people even further apart.

You have been a little more ideologically charged lately, wouldn't you agree? Obviously it's in reaction to Jakob's baiting, which has been annoying - but I've read it more like a cornered outburst from a defeated position, over-compensating to reassure himself that the position upon which he bases his identity is still valid. This is the whole problem though: when people base their identity on their arguments. The emotional component prevents genuine rationality, and in real situations with real consequences such things can come to that last resort where violence is justified. But that is not here.

[Serendipper]

Why should I not sever myself from someone wishing to deny me healthcare? Why should I not be hostile with attacks on my person?

Sounds pretty eye for an eye. Severing yourself is a resolution of defeat - potentially for decent enough reason, but I do not give up on people easily.

Is there something wrong with an eye for an eye?



I don't like being told, especially at a time like this, that it's my duty to love my enemies. People who want to go and love a bin Laden can do it on their own time; they're not to tell me that I'm to do the same or tell me that that's moral preaching. No, we have to hate our enemies and try and destroy them before they destroy us. That's a responsibility. To be neutral on such a point, especially if you're a father or if you consider yourself a citizen with duties to his fellow citizens, it's wicked and should be described as such. Christianity is so masochistic in that way: it actually disarms those of virtue and leaves them at the mercy of those who are wicked.

What rationality? Jakob is rational?

I seem to remember rationality from him in the past, and there are subtle signs that he can respond with some reason to the right questions and responses - even if it's been extremely lacking as of late. I understand your reaction, but I am a stubborn mule.

Yes for a brief moment a few months ago he seemed human and we shared what I thought was an understanding like: "hey sorry about what happened on BTL" followed by "that's ok it's cool." Then suddenly he's back to calling me a nazi. So when the olive branch is passed again am I to continue being a sucker for it? Probably and I hate that about myself.

I'd be happy to debate him, but you know as well as I that he will run.

Maybe so, but there's a possibility that he might have read and considered what you said to make him run, and the smallest affect can be cumulative in the long run and is at least better than no affect whatsoever.

I don't understand what's so hard about point-counterpoint debate.

I make claim X
You say "what about Y?"
I say "Oh crap, I didn't see Y. Thanks man!"
Or
I say "I maintain X because of Z."

What's so hard about that? The problem is people have such egos that bleed through an anonymous persona onto an obscure website, that no one really sees, and still they can't admit being wrong. Maybe Jakob has too much invested in the Jakob persona that he's unable to tarnish it, which seems like a liability to me.

I've just reached the limit of my patience for dogmatists and yet I'm totally surrounded by them. I don't know anyone who wouldn't eat a shit sandwich if Trump told them to.

KT has ran off as well. Apparently he's an "us" and I'm a "them" who is unreasonable.

KT does not seem to tolerate anything remotely hostile, or at least not reasonably balanced - he seems to take great care to stay reasonable and non-committal to any one side over another when there is reason to side either way, as there almost always is. Yes, denying healthcare is not acceptable, but we've hardly reached that point from anyone here in real terms - nobody around seems to be in any position of power, so I figure it's most reasonable to explore the ways in which other people think at the very least - even if they will not be persuaded. I find that being persuadable is the best way to persuade others - it's when you lock down and dig your heels in that others resolve to do the same, which only serves to drive people even further apart.

I already know how they think: they don't; it's faith, dogmatism, bullheaded narcissism.

You have been a little more ideologically charged lately, wouldn't you agree?

I just lack a refuge with openminded people.