Why are only right-leaning people being called "Conspiracy Theorists" as they're being banned from social media? Is it a conspiracy to say white cops are targeting black people, that the patriarchy conspires to pay women 70 cents for every dollar that men make, that natives are trying to stop immigration because they hate people who don't look like them, etc? Is it a conspiracy theory to say social media firms have a political agenda?
Conspiracy theorist: One who believes in, follows, or advances a conspiracy theory
Conspiracy theory: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
Happy to get your thoughts on this topic and ideas on how reasoned people should respond.
25
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
23 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.There is no right thinking outside of radical left thinking. They've relegated any person to the right of them--even only slightly--to the KKK--to be ignored, dismissed, condescended, mocked. 'conspiracy theory', 'nazi', 'fascist', 'racist', 'sexist', 'xenophobe', 'homophobe'--all of these terms are used in exactly the same way. They're pejoratives. That's obvious and simple. But, they're also terms used to dehumanize, disassociate, banish. You don't have to listen to someone you've dehumanized. Interesting, remember slavery? Slaves were dehumanized by Democrats in order to justify their subjugation. Anybody not radical left is dehumanized to justify the order to control them, enslave them, or simply violently confront them. Same OLD story, different chapter.
chuckpo
Level 8
May 6, 2019
12
Of course, we don't have to listen to them either, they're Leftists.
@jwhitten, but we do. I listen until I determine the level of thought is low. When its low, it doesn't take long. Most of my world is left. I'm unable to engage in the real world. See? Coward. The radical left in my world don't mind engaging. Privilege. There's only a cost for conservatives. I'm serious. I don't even touch politics on my Facebook page. Gotta make a living.
@iThink I agree that we must hear them for a variety of reasons. That they're human beings, being the first among them. We don't want to treat them the way they treat us or else what would be the difference between us? We'd simply be a different tribe. Also, fwiw, my comment to Chuckpo was mostly in jest, he just responded to it seriously, so I went with it.
Also, fwiw, my comment to Chuckpo was mostly in jest, he just responded to it seriously, so I went with it.
I knew that. I guess sometimes I can't be de turd--I mean deterred from my serious thought. It was a dumb, obvious point I made in response anyway, so I should have just gone with the joke.
The funny thing is, most of what the "Left" calls conspiracy theory is nothing of the sort. Consider the popular "conspiracy" at present: Marxist academics over the last several generations took over educational and governmental bureaucracies in order to influence the socialization of young people in an effort to change western culture. The Left calls that a conspiracy theory, but it's not. It's simply observation of the published works of 20th century cultural theorists; the programs and policies instituted among governmental agencies associated with social regulation and welfare; the ever growing ____ studies curricula promulgated within academia; the sensitively trained HR policies among an ever growing number of corporations...Pointing it out isn't espousing a conspiracy theory. Pointing it out is simply presenting the actual published recommendations presented in published writings and lectures by the established modern executors of the cultural positions of influence.
govols
Level 8
May 6, 2019
11
Gary Allen “none dare call it a conspiracy”
HG Wells “the open conspiracy” and “the new world order”
Generally speaking the tactic of shaming someone for voicing a thought is a form of censorship/oppression used by people who don't want others the question certain things.
Also cognitive dissonance is really hard on people I find. They would rather shut us up than question their own beliefs.
OneGodlessWoman
Level 7
May 6, 2019
9
"the tactic of shaming someone for voicing a thought is a form of censorship/oppression" - there is a word for that; it's FASCISM. The left in the Americas and Europe are today the very thing they accuse to the Conservatives - namely egregious practitioners of Fascism. Furthermore, since the leftist Marxist movement really does have a near monopoly on culture (books, movies, television programming, news outlets, music etc) they naturally control the common narrative. Most people who see the propagandized effluent of the entertainment/news/education industries don't really care to investigate for themselves. Furthermore the easiest thing is to convince most people that they have been mal-treated and or ignored by a power structure designed for that very purpose. Black people WANT to believe "Whitey" is keeping them down. Cowards WANT to believe that by appeasing the muslims they will like us and won't want to kill and rape us. Women (American women especially it would seem) WANT to believe they are being used, abused, cheated by an imaginary Patriarchy built especially upon and for that very purpose. Conversely it is extremely difficult to get most people to accept the reality that they are in charge of their own destinies, and it is THEIR OWN poor decisions that set the trajectory of their OWN lives.
I believe Conspiracy Theorists attacks by the left including the media are just a facet of their attack on Freedom of Speech. The right does not make attempts to shut up the left. The left however has the weaker argument. Hence the College leftist fascist will scream, cry, beat, kick or bite you to keep you from speaking or being heard. The Masters of the Universe will tweak their program filter and call it community standards. The genius of Trump was to attack and neutralize PC speech. Shutting us out of outlets is the best they can hope for. So far they are still playing catch up. Keep on the attack....hold the initiative....vote for results and repeat!!!
10thGeneration
Level 7
May 6, 2019
8
There is a very pertinent distinction to be made between that which has been called "conspiracy theorists" and that which is an outright falsehood - a prima facie lie! To say that police target Black people is a prime example of a prima facie lie. It is obviously designed to enflame and to stir a segment of the population that is already highly suspicious and distrusting of White people to violent and ill-founded outrage against "The Man". "The Man" is an old and often used by expression mostly within the "Black Community" as a reference to a perceived White Power structure whose primary intent was to "keep Black People down". I think it is interesting to note that the lie about Police targeting Blacks is not and never was intended to remedy any wrong doing (it is impossible to "remedy" a problem that in reality does not exist) but was designed to manipulate and to create further mistrust; to widen the chasm between White and Black people in USA. As for banning people from social media sites it seems fairly obvious that in order to do so it is/was necessary to first use slander against the folks they banned in order to make it appear to be righteously motivated and virtuous thing to do. The left almost never challenges head on the content of right leaning or conservative dialogue mostly because in an open and good faith debate the leftist will loose having based their entire case upon the emotional rather than the objective analytical side of analyses. Rather than losing in such a debate the leftist will simply posture himself in a cloak or self righteousness and claim to have won the debate because those conservative people are "racist, hatefilled, sexist, misogynistic, xenophobic, homophobic assholes...sorry but that vulgar vernacular is commonly used by leftists when casting their phony dispersions against their rivals.
iThink
Level 9
May 6, 2019
5
I think it’s simply another epithet that the DemLeft throws around ... like racist ... like “mean” ... like 1%.
The DemLeft does as well in taking over epithets for themselves ... like liberal ... like progressive ...
They are very good at “Label Shaming” or, at least trying to shut their “opponents” down.
If you’re the target of someone calling you a “Conspiracy Theorist” what can you answer? How is the target of that phrase to respond in any meaningful way? All the target can do is walk away, discontinue to engage. The person who throws that on the table is either deliberately, and with malice, changing the conversation or, they are simply illustrating their totally irrational and unsupported bias while simultaneously “scoring a point” by smearing the target.
It should be noticed that this tactic is usually used in settings where it can act as a “dog whistle” to others who are observing the dialog. (“SEE!?!” Accuser steps back, takes a bow to their cheering fans, and walks away, fist pumping ... “I WON!!!” )
It’s simply a ploy used to censor any response that might come ... even before a response might come (even if it probably won’t).
Bottom Line; the Target cannot easily, if at all, disprove a non existent status, cannot disprove a negative.
The truly best response would be to deliver a swift kick to the Accuser’s crotch ... and walk away.
Bay0Wulf
Level 8
May 6, 2019
4
The term "conspiracy theorist" is used to degrade a person making statements so to nullify their point in a discussion. The use in online discussions and debates is usually done by those that have the want and power to control the communications so their ideas and ideology seems superior and will be accepted above others, whether trueth or not. I don't know of any media/social platform controlled by "right leaning" editors or producers with the power to override the authority of companies involved with internet services. It used to be newspapers and TV news that controlled media, now it those controlling computer servers and airwaves.
MilesPurdue
Level 7
May 6, 2019
4
To put my previous comments in a nutshell: nativists have been scapegoating minorities and ascribing wide-ranging and malicious conspiracies to Jews, liberals, leftists, academics, the media, and freemasons for centuries. That garbage is out of bounds.
WilyRickWiles
Level 8
May 6, 2019
3
Pffffft.
My favorite response to people who throw the conspiracy theorist label around is, "Everything is a conspiracy until it gets declassified!" Lol
Devildoll1778
Level 5
May 7, 2019
3
Of course, it does depend on what the definition of "throw the conspiracy theorist label around" is. I mean, sometimes a conspiracy theory [take "chemtrails", for example] is actually a conspiracy theory. LOL.
I firmly believe both political sides (extremes) peddle conspiracy theories and point the finger at the other side for doing so, and on and on the insanity goes with no end in sight...
SpikeTalon
Level 10
May 6, 2019
3
Here's a reasonable question, though. Are there conspiracies? There certainly seems to be widespread collusion. Are there actually conspiracies? Something seems to be going on underneath all of the information we get. How much of the conspiracy stuff might actually have some merit? Did the left conspire to falsely accuse Trump?
@chuckpo I said both sides push conspiracy theories, but I never said they both are wrong all the time though...
I must say I find it interesting that Facebook banned Louis Farrakhan along with the likes of that idiot Alex Jones. As much as I dislike these two people I have to say neither should be banned from a site that projects an image of open dialogue and free speech. Having said that I am not sure Facebook and twitter every claimed to be open and accepting of all speech. I don't believe that language (open and free dialogue) is their mission statements nor in the community standards/by laws. BTW, did Farrakhan really have a face book user account?
iThink
Level 9
May 6, 2019
3
Facebook's Community Standards excerpt:
"Our Mission is all about embracing diverse views. We err on the side of allowing content, even when some find it objectionable, unless removing that content can prevent a specific harm. Moreover, at times we will allow content that might otherwise violate our if we feel it is newsworthy, significant, or important to the public interest..."Twitter Rules:
"We believe that everyone should have the power to create and share ideas instantly, without barriers..."As I see it, if they are purging conservative thought from their platforms, then their standards and rules need to reflect that. If Antifa and the Muslim Brotherhood can retain their accounts and John Paul Watson, Milo, etc are banned, then perhaps lawsuits need to occur for false advertisement.
It is because their arguments, if existent, are weak, so they are forced to rely on broad labels and ad hominen attacks. If they can shut someone up with labels like "racist," "homophobe," "misogynist," "bigot," "hater" "fascist," "nazi," "intolerant," "climate denier," "deplorable," "zionist," "capitalist pig," and "conspiracy theorist" they think they have won both the argument and the moral high-ground. It doesn't matter to them that their accusations are unfounded nor that they are, as often than not, projecting their own intolerance and hatred.
Wordmage
Level 8
May 7, 2019
2
Perhaps one reason in answer to your question is that most social media (google, facebook, twitter) are run almost entirely by people of the left persuasion.
Another connection to right = conspiracy might come from idiots like Alex Jones.
Nightingale
Level 3
May 6, 2019
1
It's less that they're "conspiracy theorists" and more that they're "far right conspiracy theorists." The qualifier "far right" typically suggests an authoritarian and nationalist bent. Such speech has a tendency to incite violence against minorities. We're historically sensitive, for example, to conspiracy theories that blame Jews for promoting immigration and secularism, and that dehumanize minorities and non-conformists.
I'm sure there are genuine leftist and liberal conspiracy theories, but I would argue that the ones you mention, which would likely be communicated in a more nuanced way by proponents, should not be equated with those of the far right. Firstly, they are more grounded in facts than say the idea that reptoids are conspiring to rule the world. Secondly, they are part of a liberatory political agenda rather than one of majoritarian domination, and thus are morally superior.
WilyRickWiles
Level 8
May 6, 2019
2
it is worth pointing out that every despotic, violent and genocidal regime that existed during the 20th century up to today is/was a Communist/Socialist regime. Including the 3rd Reich of Nazi Germany. So just who sir are you describing as a morally superior participant in the ever roiling battle of ideas regarding political ideologies.
@iThink First off, the characterization of Nazis as leftists goes straight into the garbage. Second, there's a huge difference between the actions of a Stalinist or Maoist regime and the arguments and demands of a liberatory social movement in a capitalist country.
Na·zi
/ˈnätsē/
noun
noun: Nazi; plural noun: Nazis
- historical
a member of the National SOCIALIST German Workers' Party.
•derogatory
a person with extreme racist or authoritarian views.
•a person who seeks to impose their views on others in a very autocratic or inflexible way.
"I learned to be more open and not such a Nazi in the studio"
The Nazi party under Hitler began their reign of socialist terror by doing what. By taking control of the German banking system the means of production of all German manufacturing and transportation, by disarming the German people and by pitting the "Aryans" agains the "Jews". That sire is absolutely TRUE and is the true practical application of a Socialist regime. So you can take my statement OUT of the dumper and paste in on your forehead. Better yet tattoo it on your arm along with a serial number so maybe you can get a slight idea what it must have been like for a Jew under the NATIONAL SOCAILIST WORKERS PARTY - SIEG HEIL!
@WilyRickWiles >> "demands of a liberatory social movement in a capitalist country."
What the hell does that even mean?
social movement
OP posited a number of "conspiracy theories" linked to social movements, i.e., women's equality, criminal justice, and immigrant rights.
liberatory
that liberates
in a capitalist country
e.g., the United States
demands
the goals of a social movement--what they're fighting for
It should be obvious that those words are how I characterize the forces on the left that bring these issues to the fore, and that such forces are very different from the historical authoritarian regimes that iThink compared them to.
@WilyRickWiles, @iThink Please don't confuse him with facts.
@iThink, @WilyRickWiles So you know how to use Google to look up words, but what does that even mean?
@jwhitten The original post equated certain leftists with far right conspiracy theorists. I replied claiming that the leftists were more morally sound. Why? Because they are part of a philosophical tradition fighting to make people more free whereas the inherently authoritarian far right is working in the opposite direction. I like to trace it back to the Enlightenment. Back then the liberal professional class was fighting to supplant the feudal aristocracy. These days, leftists and some liberals are fighting for more freedom for the working class and marginalized groups. You may disagree with their methods, see them as misguided, or assign them ulterior motives, but I see their tradition of liberation as a virtuous struggle rooted in the universal rights of human beings. And I reject iThink's argument conflating such movements with Stalinist and Maoist regimes. Particularly given that they operate within and oftentimes in service of the capitalist status quo.
Can I go back to being concise now?
first - oh the mental contortions you must put yourself through to come up with such dialogue. your assertions are absurdly and deliberately oppositional to historical reality. second - when have you ever been concise...you are at least as verbose as I. @WilyRickWiles
@WilyRickWiles Those liberals overthrew the feudal aristocracy and then proceeded to murder 70-100 million people. Some "liberation". Current day "Liberals" aren't doing jack shit for the working classes. They're keeping them struggling in place, right where they want them, so they think they're getting something and keep voting for the Democrats. They're catching on now. You shouldn't have given them access to the Internet 'cause they've been comparing notes.
@jwhitten Hey, I have my own criticisms of mainstream liberals, but I don't buy the "plantation" narrative you seem to imply. I never claimed the liberal revolutions weren't messy, but I'm sure glad they were successful. And I sure as hell am not going back. My way forward is solidarity whereas yours seems to involve fighting one's class peers and kissing up to supposed superiors.
@WilyRickWiles "Messy" is an interesting way to describe the wanton murder of 70-100 million people because you can't handle political criticism... I don't think that word 'solidarity' means what you think it means-- in fact, I think you offed pretty much everybody who did know. Ooops! The modern left is all about ideological festoonery, episodic political expediency, transient alliance, and a bullet in the back of the head by way of thanks. 'Cause you know, "parting is such sweet sorrow" and all that...
@jwhitten Not sure where you're getting your number. Tens of thousands died in the American and French revolutions, for example.
@WilyRickWiles I was simply agreeing with @iThink when he pointed out that every shining example of socialism / communism to-date has ended in the untimely deaths of many tens of millions. You lefties are an interesting bunch. You claim you value "free speech" as you beat up the dissidents. You claim you value diversity as you purge anyone with a different point of view from your ranks. You claim you love "liberty" as you lock 'em up in the gulags. And you claim you "value life" as you shoot 'em in the back of the head. Personally I think the world has experienced enough "Liberal Values" to last at least a millennia or more.
@jwhitten You know when things evolve you end up with different branches, right, and if you go back far enough everything is related. I don't think you would attribute such a body count to the branches of socialism that produced people like Jane Addams, Helen Keller, George Orwell, and Eugene Debs, to name just a few. If the latter had had his way we might have avoided all the dead of World War I! And I haven't even gotten into the ranks of social democrats. Your desire for a rigid social conformity which can only be imposed through authoritarian violence is betrayed by your conflation of and animosity toward organically disparate left movements.
@WilyRickWiles I don't have a desire for "social conformity", that's your department. The irony that you're completely missing is if we here were anything like your so 'liberal' Left, you wouldn't be here having a casual ideological discussion-- because you would have been ousted, "othered", "de-platformed" and summarily ejected by now. I don't agree with your viewpoint or politics, but I'm just fine with you having one, and quite okay that it doesn't match mine. That's what tolerance is actually about.
@jwhitten But nobody should have kicked me out because I wouldn't have been spouting far right conspiracy theories... I'm glad that you are tolerant of my viewpoint, and I hope it stays that way. But it's easy for me to be cynical considering all of the posts on here invoking violence against leftists and liberals. If you truly don't have a desire for social conformity, may I recommend letting go your anger at certain leftist speech and being open to the possibility that there are different leftist factions representing different philosophies and different interests?
"the branches of socialism that produced people like Jane Addams, Helen Keller, George Orwell, and Eugene Debs" - you must be joking. I suppose you also believe Solzhenitsyns seminal The Gulag Archipelago was attributable to the socialist/communist system that imprisoned him and thereby informed his seminal masterpiece? So people like Adams and Keller and Orwell and Debs and Solzhenitsyn actually only found their voices - their genius - because they had the misfortune of having lived under the intellectually and morally bankrupt system of Socialism? WTF! This is the most convoluted illogical mind boggling bit of demagoguery I have ever seen! @WilyRickWiles
@iThink Hate to break it to you but I'm not a Stalinist or even a Leninist. I thought that might have been clear by now.
@iThink Those figures traced to an earlier branch of socialist thought. I did not imply that they branched off from Soviet communism.
@iThink Do you deny that they were socialists?
@WilyRickWiles I actually consider myself a classic liberal and more of a center moderate-- perhaps slightly right of center these days-- and I have been so for years. All the while watching while the left has gotten whackier and whackier by the hour.
I admit / agree that I have historically had somewhat of a problem with the old-guard Republicans, but a good chunk of them are dead and gone at this point. And when it comes to 'conspiracy theories' you bunch take the cake with all your 'Collusion', 'Russia', 'Orange-Man-Bad' and other BS.
You've spent the entirety of the past two years, not even counting all the time in the run-up before the election, hating on Donald Trump and haven't so much as even considered putting together any meaningful party platform.
I reckon you're sure that "Mueller Lied" is gonna get you the win? That actually sounds like a perfectly sound strategy to me, here's hoping you bring it home on election day. BTW-- you might want to let Creepy Joe know that Margy Thatcher is d.e.d.
But okay, what "different leftist strands representing different philosophies and different interests" did you have in mind?
never said nor implied you were a Stalinist per se'. Nevertheless, you seem to have a huge blind spot regarding the bloody past of applied Socialism which of course is a FACT of history and can no more be denied that it can be forgiven. You incongruously assert that Socialism is a moral and righteous ideology if properly applied and administered presumably by you or people you deign to be benevolent and well intentioned. You persist in ignoring the obvious failure of applied Socialism even as that bloody failure plays out in Venezuela on the nightly news in living color. Socialsm: such a good idea that it has to be foisted upon the population by force. No thank you very much. If you love it so much I just do NOT understand why you haven't already relocated to the workers paradise of Venezuela or Cuba...etc. @WilyRickWiles
I assert that they lived under the oppressive rule of socialism which in fact the very experience of such gave them rise. Their genius flourished not because of socialism but in spite of it.@WilyRickWiles
@iThink Most of them didn't live through socialist rule unless you're painting with a REALLY broad brush. And regardless, they were all unequivocal political socialists. The type of socialism I support has worked under FDR, in our social insurance programs, in the labor movement, in multibillion dollar companies like Valve Corporation, and in Europe. I think you need to be more critical about the philosophical differences between different branches of socialism; between socialism and other political ideologies; and between different economic and geopolitical environments where different types of socialism have been tried.
I am not blind to the fact that in the many criticisms of conflated "leftisms" on this site, capitalism is responsible for a fair share, particularly where atomization, secularization, hollow identity politics, elitism, corporatized media, and destruction of culture are concerned. To reconcile that with my values, I have become a socialist. Others find refuge in hierarchy, whether it is in their status as a capitalist elite, a Christian, a white person, or a man, for example. That ain't me.
@iThink And to be clear, I'm not even anti-market. I just think we can do a lot better and socialism seems to be the only morally solid ground to stand on.
"But it's easy for me to be cynical considering all of the posts on here invoking violence against leftists and liberals"- what? where? when? Please do show us the posts you refer to in this remark. " recommend letting go your anger at certain leftist speech" this is so very typical of a leftist - reading anger into content that opposes their point of view. I typically would not deign to speak for anyone else but I feel rather comfortable saying Neither Jwhitten or I are angry about your posts. Confounded? surely. Bewildered? yes Taken aback? yes that too Angry? no! @WilyRickWiles
@jwhitten I'd pay more attention to the substance of different factions' criticisms of Trump. Which are true, which are sensationalized, which are nuts. And don't blame me for all of them. What tactics are really unique to the left? Look at the platform different candidates have run on. During the midterm elections, for example, most of them regardless of faction focused on local issues rather than Trump. Not a Biden supporter, by the way, but it's pretty clear he misspoke.
Here's a few different tendencies of leftism for 'ya: social democracy, democratic socialism, and libertarian socialism.
@iThink Here's the sort of thing I'm talking about (from [slug.com] ). The topic was voter fraud.
@jwhitten And I think I would be remiss if I didn't mention republicanism, which I think planted the seed of left politics in the US.
Socialism by any other name would smell as putrid. Socialism is a beast that will NOT be tamed. Human nature human nature dictates it so. @WilyRickWiles
I followed the link you posted. Talk about being prepared in the event of a societal breakdown is not to be conflated with using violent dialogue against you in an argument over some political issue. I see that conversation was about voter fraud. The talk about being armed and prepared might have been extraneous and off topic but it was in no way a threat to you or any other individual person. You could easily have deflected it or ignored it and steered the conversation back on topic. But you didn't do that. You instantly engaged them on their tac toward survival and prepping. You could have been the better person but instead you engaged them on that point. @WilyRickWiles
and one more thing about keeping arms and ammunition in preparation for the unthinkable. Republicans, White People, Conservatives, Right leaning people are not alone in that regard. There are plenty of armed preppers who also call themselves "liberals".@WilyRickWiles
@iThink. @jwhitten, having been down this road, I'm hesitant to relive the experience--something about futility seems appropriate here. BUT, IF there are 'different branches of socialism, why doesn't one faction stand up against the radicalization of another branch? It would be organic to see those values clash at least at the level of comparing and contrasting ideas. I've literally never seen it. What I do see over and over again is the collective and coordinated attack of those 'branches' on republicans or conservatives or independents that refuse to align with an acceptable branch. If there's actually a distinction between branches, and that's not the invention of political expedience, we'd be seeing a rather epic weaponized pc/identity politics slugfest play out, because those forces would naturally oppose each other and would fight for air.
Contrast that with the Trumper vs. the establishment republicans. There's a clear line delineating the two sides. You simply don't see that on the left. In fact, I've called on the reasonable left--half (or some portion) of the silent majority to step up, take some responsibility, and reel in radicalized leftists and their divisive tactics. What I've experienced is people who were once 'silent majority' members are now radicalized, stopping short of the full on whacky side of the extreme left. There's a clear line between the far right and the mainstream right--even with the trumper vs. establishment republican divide. Both of those groups are clear on opposing the far right. It's really hard to find a line on the left between the far left and the mainstream left. The mainstream left has bled into the radicalized far left. That unity thing by Democrats works well politically, but the price is it leave the party vulnerable to movement even when you don't want to move.
@iThink And not for nothing, committing voter fraud should be considered a willful hostile and seditious action committed against the people, as voting is the most fundamental and basic right which is entrusted unto the citizen. It is a different sort of a crime to vote more than once or to vote fraudulently, and even more so when the person committing the act is not a citizen.
And when I say 'different sort of crime', I don't mean just this kind of misdemeanor or that sort of felony-- I mean that it is darned near a TREASONOUS ACT because its entire point and purpose is to undermine the legitimate will of the citizenry.
So while I don't think a violent reaction is warranted for one single individual case, nor even for a few isolated cases. When it becomes hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands-- my opinion changes dramatically and I think people who do commit voter fraud ought to be looking fervently over their shoulders as they slink away.
@iThink, @chuckpo This is addressed toward @WilyRickWiles, but anybody feel free to chip in an opinion...
Real question, no gotchas-- Let us assume for the point of discussion that we're correct in the proposition that 'there has never been a known, successful instance of nation-level socialism / communism enacted in the world'. You have all of the known world history to draw from as your example pool... (and if you vehemently disagree with the proposition, why do you think it's incorrect?)
So given the above, what do you think the correct way to implement socialism / communism would be. What would it look like? How would it be regulated and governed? What is it about either the ideal or the practical reality which has gone wrong in every other known implementation that would be different in your scheme? How would you ensure it? What would be the remedy if you're wrong?
@WilyRickWiles
Actually EVERY “Honest” Academian DOES Agree that NAZIs ... as well as EVERY “Fascist” Movement or Government IS, In Fact, “Leftist” in nature. So your statement about “straight into the garbage” indicates that you are going against the Actual Definitions of the Terms OR you are deciding that somehow YOU have the ability to Supercede the Actual Definitions with one’s of your own devising.
As to Socialism or Neo-Liberalism being “more moral” are concerned, that is an extremely simplistic statement made by Simpletons who are unaware of the Reality of Cause and Effect.
You seem to be enamored with the terms that are thrown around like; “Fairness”, “... Justice”, “...Equality” and a slew more ... but NOT with the Actual “Outcome”.
I’ll grant you that their phrases, their verbiage, their expostulated ideas, SOUND “So GOOD” ... Who could possibly object ... and why?
The PROBLEM is that ALL those “Good Things” inevitably lead to BAD Outcomes.
Why shouldn’t We (through Government) support the unfortunate? (Welfare) Because it robs the recipient of the need to produce and simply becomes a self perpetuating system as it has morphed into a multi-generational ideal where children eagerly await their 18th birthday when THEY can get Their Own access to the system. (You know, following the example set by their parents). These people have actually been deprived of a “Future”.
Why shouldn’t the LBTQ be granted “Equal Rights”? Because those “Rights” are NOT “Equal”, they are “Special” ... Rights that supercede the ones that Everyone have ... to the detriment of everyone else.
Almost EVERY time you hear the phrase “Equal Rights” in this country it means “Special Rights”.
Why shouldn’t the Government determine that homosexual couples can get married? Aside from the fact that Marriage is a “Religious” Event ... Marriage is recognized to provide certain benefits to couples due to the Potential that they may provide the NEXT Generation through Childbirth and the Comingling of Genetic Materials ... homosexual couples cannot do this even through adoption. Legalized Civil Unions of these couples should be recognized but Marriage...?
Why shouldn’t Abortion ... at whatever stage ... be Government Supported? In a time where birth control is readily available, in a time of falling birth rates ... especially among the “upwardly mobile” (intellectually superior) is abortion a good idea? Is it a good policy?
Why shouldn’t “Trans” have “Equal Rights” in whatever gender they choose? Try asking the soon to be thousands of Genetic Females who are about to be literally shouldered aside in their quest for school scholarships through athletic performance by “Trans-Women” ... where are the “Equal Rights” that are supposed to be “Guaranteed” to Actual Genetic Females? Further, the disparity in athletics is a Minor Tip of the Iceberg, How long before Genetic Females find themselves once again relegated to being Breeding Mares as corporations find they can satisfy their “Requirement” to hire Women with these pseudo women who NEVER Need Maternity Leave?
Leftist and Neo Liberalism does, indeed, SOUND SO WONDERFUL but it ALWAYS Involves “Picking Winners” by some sort of “Social” measurement and pushing aside Merit.
In the Long Run they are MORE Detrimental to Society, Community and Government and, inevitably end up by HURTING Everyone ... Including ESPECIALLY Those People that the “Ideas” were intended to Assist.
Reptilen is a Sir name that King Charles traced his bloodline back too. Now if you think from the bible perspective of demons, the witnesses (yes there have been a few) who said they saw the Queen begin to change into a Reptilen/demon and you believe in demons this is not far fetched to many, and if you know that Satan can inhabited souls and people do evil things because of it then it is more believable then not. Its not a sight/visual seeing it's a spirit feeling sense you have about someone. NOTE it was said though out history that this bloodline was more Evil then Dracula's.
@iThink, @chuckpo I think I agree with you Chuckpo, it always seems to degenerate into a specific set of factions with a distinct hierarchical social structure.
You have the ruling elite class at the top, however that's organized. You have the 'intelligensia', which for the most part tend to be a whiny bunch of suck-ups. And out of that group you have a few truly independent thinkers / dissidents who are willing to throw great big ideological rocks at the establishment (who thus need to be "taken care of" ).
You have the "enforcer" class who gets special perks and privileges (because everybody's afraid of them) who are willing to go out and bash some heads on demand.
You have the "merry ship of fools" contingent who are busy running around in all directions saying and doing decidedly stupid things, but who are otherwise largely harmless apart from being "the mob" and the "eggers-on" as needed.
Then you have the masses, the majority of people who are just regular, middle-of-the-road mainstream folks who just want to keep their heads down, live a nice little life, put something aside for their children, have a good time once in awhile and generally live-and-let-live.
Then finally you have the dregs of society, the underclasses who are hopelessly mired in their own filth and shit and who will never amount to anything more than hungry mouths to feed. In this group you also have the petty criminal class, the robbers, thieves, muggers, grifters, pick-pockets and all-around no-good dirty louses. Any of them with any actual ambition or ability would have moved up into a higher tier and become a banker.
You could also make a pretty good argument that the above represents all human societies though and you probably wouldn't have to work too hard to convince me.
--
>> "why doesn't one faction stand up against the radicalization of another branch? It would be organic to see those values clash at least at the level of comparing and contrasting ideas. I've literally never seen it."
There are a couple of reasons here-- first among them, I think-- "professional courtesy"... 
Kidding aside, I think it comes down to the fact that people are comprised of complex, often-conflicting mores, beliefs and attitudes (which we would collectively describe as "culture" ) and a tiny wee bit of schadenfreude, taking delight in other people's misery.
I think that all things being equal, people tend to gravitate towards other people who are more ideologically like themselves and away from people they consider have differing views. But as societies grow larger and more complex and the number of ideas and "ways to be" grow seemingly exponentially with them, it is increasingly difficult for people to sort themselves out into harmonious ideological patterns, and thus are forced to cohabit spaces with people they wouldn't necessarily ideologically agree with across the spectrum. So out of necessity, people "make allowances" and overlook areas of disagreement in order to get along as much as they can with the other people they have decided and accepted as part of their gang.
As the pressures from proximity and (oddly enough) diversity (of culture, opinions, ideologies) increase there reaches a bit of a "tipping point" where people stop being courteous and accommodating and start "pushing back". And then how it falls out depends upon how the various factions are "glued together"-- along what ideological lines-- what they believe they have in common, what their objectives are, who they think is being bothered, and so on-- which is why the concept of "Othering" is so important.
"Othering" is the process of stripping away the 'badges' and 'ribbons' which serve to signify and identify members of the same social order from one or more members for some perceived transgression, which could be as simple as not agreeing quickly enough over some perceived slight. Really, the initial trigger effect could be practically anything as long as one person is able to relate whatever it is to another person of the group in such a way as to turn it into a "victim / victimized" situation and thus require that other person to take an ideological "stand"-- either you're with me or against me.
That fracture then runs through the group as far as it is able, based on lines of communication and proximity, until it is eventually played out and new group alliances are formed and re-formed.
When the groups get big enough and the ideological rifts wide enough, the ability-- desire-- for tolerance among "members" fades until some sort of war erupts. Either socially or if pushed hard enough, long enough and far enough, physically. As the shock-- OH NO YOU DIDN'T boundaries get pushed and broken in an ever-escalating manner. If nothing happens to dampen out the shock wave (like Oprah or Ellen, for instance) it can become very large in magnitude.
Interestingly, I think-- and this is the point of all of the proceeding-- as the shock wave increases, the degree of difference perceived between the people and the groups decreases as they look to each other for solidarity and resolve. It's a whole sort of "back me up, I'm going in" kind of mentality as they groups reach out to one another and prepare and brace themselves for conflict.
So the issues that people and groups would ordinarily quibble with themselves over are pushed back in importance as the groups feel threatened, vulnerable and/or attacked by some perceived external element and group cohesiveness takes over.
Does that make sense?
>> "Contrast that with the Trumper vs. the establishment republicans. There's a clear line delineating the two sides."
I don't think there's a difference-- from a group cohesiveness perspective. Meaning what holds them together, irrespective of the "values" they hold. The Right simply doesn't feel as threatened existentially as the Left does and are thus able to comport themselves in a more leisurely manner. PLUS, as the supposed 'aggrieved' party, the Right can also use the supposed assault as propaganda and for political benefit. The Left also feels aggrieved, however that came to pass (which would be a whole different post) and thus also plays it for mileage and political gain. Both sides are busy feeding off of the other, but you can clearly see who is being more aggressive if you're being honest about the situation. But again, that's a different post.
>> "You simply don't see that on the left. In fact, I've called on the reasonable left--half (or some portion) of the silent majority to step up, take some responsibility, and reel in radicalized leftists and their divisive tactics."
And you're not going to see it, because they're in group 'lockstep' (think-step) mode, where they have put aside their smaller ideological differences in order to band together against a larger perceived threat. We are seeing the success of the establishment media successfully convincing the Left that there is an existential threat to their existence and are busy pulling their strings-- and playing them like a two-bit fiddle.
The right is simply reacting to the situation-- both with amusement, retort and more increasingly a bit of concern as it too is starting to collectivize its strength and minimize its ideological differences in order to combat the growing appearance of a perceived threat. It hasn't fully "blossomed" into a war flower however, and thus we don't see those on the right behaving in the same extreme ways as we do on the left.
"Mob" dynamics are a tricky but quite interesting thing, IMO.
>> "What I've experienced is people who were once 'silent majority' members are now radicalized, stopping short of the full on whacky side of the extreme left. There's a clear line between the far right and the mainstream right--even with the trumper vs. establishment republican divide. Both of those groups are clear on opposing the far right. It's really hard to find a line on the left between the far left and the mainstream left. The mainstream left has bled into the radicalized far left. That unity thing by Democrats works well politically, but the price is it leave the party vulnerable to movement even when you don't want to move.'
Agreed. There is a wonderful set of videos that Alison Tieman (of the 'Honey Badgers Brigade' did a couple of years ago about the "Church of the Left" and "Wimminwursting" which I think do a fabulous job of explaining a lot of what we are seeing around us and why. I will have to go dig them up and put up some links here so you can watch them (listen to them, it's just narrative). If you want to look them up in the meantime, those are some keywords that you can use to find them quickly on YouTube.
@jwhitten (in reference to your previous post to wily), okay, I'll play. There's always this 'feeling' that we can do it better. It's steeped in idealism, Utopianism, a world without flaw sees no obstacle. Let's get rid of guns. Why? Because the world is going to be inhabited by beings who've transcended violence. Let's have one-world government. Why? Because when we're one people without faction, we'll evolve into pure cooperation and collectivism. These things are baseless BECAUSE what the world is and what the world has always been is violent and tribal. We've watched it happen. As tribes blend into collectivism, new tribes form. I've been saying for years, the only thing holding intersectionality together is non-leftist. If the left's evil other goes away, all of those identity groups will turn on each other for supremacy. Who is the winner in the intersectional lottery? It would be epic and horrifying--like a cock fight with razor blades strapped to their feet. You see this in families sometimes. A family gets sparked by blame, and all of a sudden everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else--no alliances, a free-for-all cage match--a true shitshow.
The problem with ideals--which are theoretical models we create--is real life doesn't fit it exactly. The wheel is based on a theoretical circle. Only, none of the things are actually perfect circles. They're close enough approximations of the model that they serve our purpose for wheels. We are not currently 'close enough approximations' to pull off the ideal. And, that's a calculation the left never makes when building their fantasies. Honestly, by my estimation, the founding fathers in the USA built a model that may be the best I've ever seen for making a good way to live while accounting for actual human behavior. Not perfect--this cultural/political war is evidence it's not perfect. But, really extraordinarily good. Our deviations from it are what's causing so much trouble.
@jwhitten To answer your question about how I think socialism should be implemented, let me start by saying that I'm not seeking revolutionary change. I seek a socialism built on top of the US Constitution and driven by republican (small r) values. If we were starting from scratch I might go for something closer to libertarian socialism. But the powers of the existing US state have a lot going for them so my plan would look like something closer to social democracy. I don't think the following is that different from existing successful mixed economies, so I'm not worried that it would end in catastrophe. The remedy for any failures would be democracy.
- Tax billionaires and multimillionaires more to combat extreme income inequality (e.g., wealth tax, graduated income tax, capital gains tax, loophole closing, IRS audits, and shutting down tax shelters)
- Decrease military spending
- Have the Federal Reserve adopt a monetary policy following the principles of MMT economics
- Run larger deficits justified by MMT economics to fund domestic priorities and share the social gains from automation and other technologies
- Reform the patent and copyright systems to promote more open exchange of information
- Have the Federal government act as employer of last resort and raise the minimum wage
- Provide basic income to people who do uncompensated care work for family members, who are engaged in learning or inquiry, who are engaged in artistic work, who are engaged in community service, or who are unable to work
- Create a single payer healthcare system
- Provide free opportunities for higher education
- Fulfill the demands of the civil rights movement for equity in housing and education
- Create institutions in poor communities to meet all of the basic social needs people have: e.g., mental healthcare, counseling, drug treatment, family planning, conflict mediation, remedial education, civic education, professional training, networking, and child care
- Reform the criminal justice system to be more equitable and less punitive
- Legalize use and regulate supply of recreational drugs
- Decriminalize immigration and stop treating civil immigration law violators worse than criminals
- Grant citizenship to anyone who has lived in the US for a certain number of years
- Decriminalize sex work
- Strictly regulate the financial, energy, healthcare, telecommunications, and arms industries
- Break up monopolies
- Nationalize (buy out shareholders) monopsonies using a public wealth fund which would pay dividends to citizens. Consider doing the same for all companies over a certain market capitalization.
- Mandate a public stake in companies that benefit from publicly funded research
- Make publicly funded research freely available
- Bail out state and local pensions, which should have been federally insured like private pensions decades ago. Insure them, require minimum funding levels, and regulate investments (no private equity or hedge funds) going forward.
- Protect labor union rights
- Promote worker ownership and governance of corporations
- Adopt ranked choice (instant runoff) voting in most elections
- Reapportion (increase seats) the House of Representatives
- Adopt independent, algorithmic redistricting
- Add judges to the Supreme Court and Federal judiciary and adopt term limits
- Abolish the Electoral College (national popular vote)
- Grant statehood privileges to the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico
- Publicly fund elections
- Protect and expand voting rights
- Consider abolishing the Senate
- Adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy that promotes self determination and human rights
- Seek global alliances and treaties that don't undermine popular sovereignty
@chuckpo u don't see different branches standing up against them the same way u don't see the Muslims that condemn ISIS and such. The media drives a narrative to keep us divided and fighting and only allow certain viewpoints to be presented without smears and attacks. Most Americans do agree on policy positions but due to partisan media owned by the donor class that is benefitting from the way things are, we are constantly being pitted against one another instead of trying to bring us together.
@jwhitten there is successful deomocratic socialism going on every day in many countries, the USA being the most prominent. Democratic socialism is happening in Europe as well. The "socialist" of today is not pushing for authoritarian take over of the economy or anything like was done in the USSR or anywhere else. Democratic socialism is a mixed economy with capitalism as the system but regulations and safe guards provided by the government. The tax breaks for corporations is socialism at its finest and people supporting the likes of Bernie Sanders think the socialism part should benefit ALL of us instead of just redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top. Our socialist programs in America serve Wall Street and the military industrial complex across the board and the ones making the money use the media they own to attack anything that helps working people as being socialist and horrible while they are living it up thanks to socialism.
@WilyRickWiles Hello - sorry for the delay in responding-- my weeks are insanely complicated at the moment...
>>To answer your question about how I think socialism should be implemented, let me start by saying that I'm not seeking revolutionary change.
That's what they all say... until they've confiscated all the guns and ammunition...
But, it's at least good to hear you say it, we can bring that back up at your trial!
BTW-- in sincerity, thanks for answering the question.
>>I seek a socialism built on top of the US Constitution and driven by republican (small r) values. If we were starting from scratch I might go for something closer to libertarian socialism.
I don't know your definition of that, but I would say that would simply be me doing me but making the occasional voluntary contributions.
>>But the powers of the existing US state have a lot going for them so my plan would look like something closer to social democracy.
That sounds a bit more like 'wealth redistribution'. But if we're just talking roads, infrastructure and the common good, I'm not as far away as you might think.
>>I don't think the following is that different from existing successful mixed economies, so I'm not worried that it would end in catastrophe. The remedy for any failures would be democracy.
You mean, the 'Social' kind...
>>Tax billionaires and multimillionaires more to combat extreme income inequality (e.g., wealth tax, graduated income tax, capital gains tax, loophole closing, IRS audits, and shutting down tax shelters)
That's where I think you just went wrong. Not necessarily in your intent, but in your methodology. Me, I'm perfectly okay with billionaires as long as they're rewarding the people who took the risk along with them. But, by "risks" I don't just means the risks of success, but also the risks of FAILURE, which most people don't stop to think about. If you (the potential businessman) go into business and leave behind a huge, stinking, smoldering, radioactive crater-- the community has to clean that up. That's a risk THEY took right along with you. One that most "self-righteous" Capitalists would rather you not remember. Not that I'm not a self-righteous Capitalist myself, mostly-- but just being honest about it. The general consensus among Capitalists seems to be "Privatize the assets, Socialize the liabilities." I personally don't think it should work quite that way.
But instead of taxing it out of them, they should be sharing the rewards more equitably up-front, which also includes the community. I also don't see any problem with communities having stock / equity ownership in companies. As long as their stakes are managed by an independent, arms-length board. That would help communities get a better return on their localized investments-- building houses and police stations, fire and medical facilities, schools, roads, sidewalks and the whole bit. As the companies grow richer, so do the communities they serve.
Moreover, even just from a psychological standpoint, it helps communities and companies form a cooperative mindset and, IMO, tends to engender a sense of responsibility and partnership in both directions.
>>Decrease military spending
Profoundly disagree on this one. While it may be possible to reduce literal expenditure, it shouldn't be at the expense of military might and readiness. I am a "peace through strength" kind of guy. If you're not strong you get no respect-- no matter what bullshit liberals and peaceniks have to say about it. When you're not strong you lack the ability to enforce your will and you become a paper tiger. Nobody respects the paper tiger.
>> Have the Federal Reserve adopt a monetary policy following the principles of MMT economics
Hmm.. this sounds like it could be a whole interesting side-discussion. I'm not sure that I agree-- but I think I would have to sit and think about it some more, hear some more opinions. In general, I understand "money" as "payment" in exchange for an abstracted unit of "work" which is pinned to a sliding scale based on people's perception / assessment of what they can purchase with it. There is the other idea of "money" as being wealth gained through return on risk-taking ventures, such as loaning it out, buying equities, etc. Either way however, the valuation remains the same...
>>Run larger deficits justified by MMT economics to fund domestic priorities and share the social gains from automation and other technologies
The way I see it, that is a "risk" in and of itself-- and potentially a very large one, as it occurs to me that this is based on "predicting the future" and getting it right. Everything is fine and you win as long as you're right. But get it wrong and everybody suffers horribly until it works itself out again. Sort of like Greece, and look how well that worked out for them.
>>Reform the patent and copyright systems to promote more open exchange of information
Here we almost agree, I think. I definitely agree that the patent and copyright systems need to be reformed. I also think they should go back to their original concept and goal of encouraging new things and rewarding the people who brought them about. In the old days the reward was generally public recognition and a stipend of some kind from the King / State according to the novelty and usefulness it bestowed. In modern times this has become considerably abstracted until patents and copyrights are scant more than "titles" to some sort of "intellectual property" which are sliced and diced and used to fuck the public up the ass at every opportunity. The original goal was to reward thinkers and inventors but have the technology eventually work its way into the public sphere where it could be used and improved and put to good use for the benefit of all.
I definitely think that reforming the system to re-implement and re-institute these ideals would be a good thing. And especially the part where corporations get to extend the lifetime on patents through minuscule incremental "improvements", more or less indefinitely.
>>Have the Federal government act as employer of last resort and raise the minimum wage Provide basic income to people who do uncompensated care work for family members, who are engaged in learning or inquiry, who are engaged in artistic work, who are engaged in community service, or who are unable to work
Maybe. I'm not as opposed to that idea as you might think. But I think there is a MUCH larger issue looming that we humans need to address-- which is what will ANY of us do for work in the relatively near future? And I think that's another topic for a great side discussion.
I don't think "Basic Income" will work though. That one I think is just plain ridiculous and idiotic. Well-meaning perhaps, but idiotic all the same. As soon as that gets implemented and people get "X" as basic income, prices will immediately rise to "X+1". There is a basic tenant to economics that they don't teach in school-- at least not out loud: "Chumps will always be chumps". You just can't tell them that they're chumps. That's the part which is against the rules.
>> Create a single payer healthcare system
Vehemently disagree-- mostly. I think competition in health care is really where the solution lies. Except I don't trust Capitalism to ensure "great service" and "quality healthcare" while simultaneously tasked with "saving a buck" and "getting paid out of the profits". I think history has shown repeatedly who loses and loses big when that model is applied. HOWEVER, I think it is plain for all to see that-- except for ONE THING-- the Socialism model is even worse. Much worse. In that there is no incentive for improvement, or morale, and after a few short years of pomp and circumstance, you're left with a whole lot of circumstance and not much pomp. The one exception to that is that I think that Socialized medicine MIGHT do a better job of entry-level / minimal-standard-of-care health care. Making sure that everybody gets something and nobody gets left literally out in the cold.
Apart from that however, I think both systems resoundingly SUCK.
>> Provide free opportunities for higher education
You mean like working at Mickey-D's to pay off your loans? That kind of free? Or the kind where standards are lowered to the point where you can't give the stuff away-- that kind of free?
Please define "Free".
>> Fulfill the demands of the civil rights movement for equity in housing and education
Create institutions in poor communities to meet all of the basic social needs people have: e.g., mental healthcare, counseling, drug treatment, family planning, conflict mediation, remedial education, civic education, professional training, networking, and child care
I actually don't disagree with this too much. Though I don't think it should be limited to poor neighborhoods. I have a concept that I call "wellness centers", which is different from the usual term and definition that I would like to articulate at some point. I already cranked out a draft some months back and I've been letting it rumble around in the back of my head.
I think I'm kind of like you in that regard, in that I think we're doing it all wrong. And it's not because of the "Socialism / Capitalism" thing, although that very definitely gets in the way to be sure-- but because of the "People" aspect-- the qualitative part which always seems to get boiled out of the equation.
>> Reform the criminal justice system to be more equitable and less punitive
I'm with you on that one. Except for crimes that intentionally hurt people-- I'm thinking specifically about physical hurt. Killing, maiming, assaulting, etc. I have no sympathy for them at all. And most especially if they do it to children. But "hurt" is also a relative thing too-- how hurt is the guy I rob a million from if he's a billionaire. Versus me robbing $10 bucks from if that's about all he's got and a family to feed.
>> Legalize use and regulate supply of recreational drugs
Here I'm sort of with you and sort of not. I think drugs should be legalized based on their ability to do harm-- both to the individual who is taking them, as well as the individual they are being sold to, as well as the people they're going to encounter-- and possibly the harm they're going to cause themselves and other people (family, for instance) socially-- using all the household income to shoot-up heroin instead of feeding the kids is not cool, IMO.
So I think there's still some debate and stuff to think about and consider in formulating a good public policy. My 25 year-old self can't believe my 56 year old self is saying any of this!
>> Decriminalize immigration and stop treating civil immigration law violators worse than criminals
I don't agree with decriminalizing immigration. In fact I think that immigration should be principle concern of law enforcement-- if for no other purpose than policing our borders and knowing exactly whom we're permitting to enter our country. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to ask / precaution to take. However, I do agree with you that real criminals should get real sentences and the "crime" of immigration should be handled differently.
I think that NOW at this place and time-- where the problem of "illegal immigration" has been swept aside and so overwhelmingly politicized so that rich people can have their cheap domestic help and left-wing politicians can get "vote" insurance-- assurance-- thaht the system is completely broken and dysfunctional. Such that FIXING the problem NOW is imperative, and that includes instituting near-draconian measures to get it back under control.
ONCE immigration is back under control and we have a handle on WHO is coming into the country, WHERE they are going WITHIN the country, HOW LONG they are staying and MAKING SURE THEY LEAVE when their welcome has expired-- THEN I think we should / could revamp the policies to move illegal immigration to a low-level felony punishable by a fine and a mandatory waiting period before they can apply for citizenship. I think there needs to be assimilation into OUR host culture. I think SPEAKING ENGLISH should be mandatory by the second generation. And I think employers caught paying illegal workers UNDER THE TABLE should be sent to prison-- and not "Club-Fed" either-- with extremely public and high-reaching examples made so as to put the fear of God into knowingly hiring illegal / undocumented workers. I also think that people caught using social security numbers or other identification information from other legal citizens should be punished by a short stint in jail. Especially if they harm the legitimate citizen in the process, such as bad checks / credit, loans that aren't repaid, etc. Regular people shouldn't have to put up with that shit and the people who do it should be put in jail.
>> Grant citizenship to anyone who has lived in the US for a certain number of years
I mostly agree with this. I think the only major difference we might have is how it is implemented. I don't think it should be an automatic pop-up "Here I Am!" and poof you're a citizen. But rather being a documented individual who's lived a respectable life should get the ability to become a citizen through some process. There might be things that someone could do to "hurry it along" such as public service / community service, serving in the military, etc. So that we reward the people most who serve and give back to the community.
>> Decriminalize sex work
As long as they get regular inspections and the ones with communicable diseases are removed from the pool-- I agree.
>> Strictly regulate the financial, energy, healthcare, telecommunications, and arms industries
The so-called "natural monopolies". I think in broad strokes that's the right idea. I think the devil however, will be in the details, as usual.
>> Break up monopolies
Nationalize (buy out shareholders) monopsonies using a public wealth fund which would pay dividends to citizens. Consider doing the same for all companies over a certain market capitalization.
Interesting ideas. We should talk more about that. I am a strong proponent that companies operate for the purposes of people and not the other way around. Also that the risk-takers and stake-holders aren't simply those who put up the money and own the stock. As I mentioned above and elsewhere.
>> Mandate a public stake in companies that benefit from publicly funded research
Seems like a reasonable idea. I don't have a problem with public ownership of private companies as long as it's done and managed at arms-length.
>> Make publicly funded research freely available
Yes. I thought it already was.
>> Bail out state and local pensions, which should have been federally insured like private pensions decades ago. Insure them, require minimum funding levels, and regulate investments (no private equity or hedge funds) going forward.
I'm okay with that one. I think encouraging people to actually save for retirement and earnestly helping them with the honest means is a good thing. My caution though would be that such programs quickly become politicized though and used by one constituency to beat another constituency over the head with.
>>Protect labor union rights
Nope. They can protect their own rights through collectivization. That's the WHOLE POINT of labor unions. If they need to be propped-up then they FAILED their mission and should be disbanded. The former members however would be free to start a new union and try again.
I might be willing to re-think that just a little with respect to SMALLER trade unions who may not be able to muster enough members to represent a big enough "threat" for management to take them seriously. The flip side to that problem though is that if the government comes in and throws their muscle behind the trade unions, then it becomes an unfair and unbalanced situation for the company representatives. In order to work effectively, BOTH SIDES have to (more or less) equally fear the other. Again it gets back to what I said initially about "Peace through strength" and how people won't respect you if you are unable to enforce your will.
My preference would be to keep hands-off and let the owners and unions duke it out between themselves. But I have some little bit of sympathy for either side that is somehow structurally less able to represent themselves.
>> Promote worker ownership and governance of corporations
Yes. But only when that comes about organically. I'm not interested in taking away anybody's company.
>> Adopt ranked choice (instant runoff) voting in most elections
I personally like that idea and style of government better. Also the idea of removing private capital from elections. Let each candidate's election be funded through the State. Perhaps from a pool where each gets a portion. That would have to be worked out much more in principle before I'd be willing to go for it myself though.
>> Reapportion (increase seats) the House of Representatives
Maybe. The folks who made our country seemed to recognize that figuring out the rules was a complicated mix of things and for different reasons-- mostly in preventing tyranny. There are different kinds of tyrannies too. Most people probably think "Hey, we don't have a King anymore, what are we worried about tyranny?" without stopping to think that they themselves can become the tyrants if unchecked.
I have said elsewhere that "society begins at the tip of the spear" and that each faction is able to exert a bit of physical or psychological power over the others to advocate and insist upon getting what they want. There can be rules, such as the "Constitution" and "laws" to help mediate disputes-- but in the end it is an unholy alliance of interests along with their myriad side-deals and special agreements that makes it all work.
The Constitution and the laws which are enacted beneath its auspice, are but a mere bit of parchment-- no matter how noble the ideas-- until the first drop of the first patriot's blood is spilled upon it granting it life, honor and heritage. Nations are erected not in law but in blood and sacrifice. Nations fall as reverence and commitment for that sacrifice fades. Thus the people get not the government they want, but the government they deserve.
>> Adopt independent, algorithmic redistricting
Okay. Don't see the point though. We simply relegate the gerrymandering to a computer.
>>Add judges to the Supreme Court and Federal judiciary and adopt term limits
What you don't like nine?
And I'm not sure what you're talking about though, they already have term limits.
You just want the ability to re-shuffle the deck.
>> Abolish the Electoral College (national popular vote)
Right. You mean of course only for those times when you don't like the result. 'Cause all those OTHER times you seemed pretty okay with it.
Just sayin'.
>> Grant statehood privileges to the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico
As long as they come out of YOUR checkbook and not mine. While we're at it, why stop there? Why not add Guam, and the Aleutian islands? Or the Virgin islands? Why not annex Great Britain? Or Canada? Heck, why don't we just do away with America altogether and just be one big happy people???
>> Publicly fund elections
I'm mostly in agreement with you there. Except millionaires still get the advantage because they can still fund other secondary groups on or off the books.
>> Protect and expand voting rights
Protect voting rights, check.
Expand voting rights? Isn't my right to vote pretty big now as it is? I can hardly keep it in my pocket. I pull it out now and again to look at it, and to polish it a little. How much bigger do you want it to be?
>> Consider abolishing the Senate
Ah yes. Those dirty rotten scoundrels who never vote the way you tell them to. I can't say I blame you on that one. Tell you what, I'll agree to abolish the Senate if you'll agree to abolish the House. Then we can just all meet on opposite hills on November 3rd and the last man standing can pull the lever. Whaddaya say... Deal?
>> Adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy that promotes self determination and human rights
So you're saying that you DO want to curtail immigration then? If we're going to be non-interventionist then we'll be wanting to shut down our borders so people can't flee from over there to over here. And I suppose you'll be wanting to shut down welfare next, right? Good plan. Once they don't have a great big government tit to suck on, they'll have to go get jobs and practice some self-determination. Oh, and hey-- that should help you with your chartalism too-- bonus points on that one! Human rights. That's a toughie. How are we ever going to get lefties to respect DIVERSITY !?!?!? They keep shutting it down, driving it off campus and putting their fingers in their ears hollering LALALALALALALA every time it comes to a meeting hall near them. But that's OKAY-- ooops, my bad. So much for diversity I guess, eh?
>> Seek global alliances and treaties that don't undermine popular sovereignty
POPULAR Sovereignty. You mean like anybody who's last name doesn't end in "Trump" or who has an 'R' after their name... ??
George, I'll be honest. I'm not quite sure whether you're arguing for or against Socialism, or 'Democratic Socialism' as your comment seems to be a bit of both.
Seemingly PRO:
>> there is successful deomocratic socialism going on every day in many countries, the USA being the most prominent. Democratic socialism is happening in Europe as well. The "socialist" of today is not pushing for authoritarian take over of the economy or anything like was done in the USSR or anywhere else. Democratic socialism is a mixed economy with capitalism as the system but regulations and safe guards provided by the government.
Seemingly CON:
>> The tax breaks for corporations is socialism at its finest and people supporting the likes of Bernie Sanders think the socialism part should benefit ALL of us instead of just redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top. Our socialist programs in America serve Wall Street and the military industrial complex across the board and the ones making the money use the media they own to attack anything that helps working people as being socialist and horrible while they are living it up thanks to socialism.
I will say that I am not completely against any "Social" programs or "Social Responsibility" / aka "The Social Safety Net". I see the pros and cons of Capitalism, and even the pros of Socialism for what it's worth. The idea of Socialism is not horrible, just the practical application of it.
I wrote more in my response to @WilyRickWiles where I pointed out that Capitalism tends to privatize the rewards and socialize the liabilities. That really is not fair. I don't personally have a problem with billionaires, but I do think that our system has become unbalanced and the people who have a considerable amount of "risk" involvement-- such as the surrounding community should share a lot more in the potential rewards. Thus government and private enterprise can operate cooperatively as arms-length partners and share together the ups and downs of the business venture. I am concerned about how Capitalism fits into and supports communities and vice versa.
@jwhitten Thanks for taking the time to respond. I will add that I would use "social democracy" to describe what @george calls "democratic socialism," and instead use the latter to describe a socialist tendency focused more on workplace democracy and other forms of bottom-up democratization, but it is not uncommon to use his definition. Bernie Sanders, for example, calls himself a democratic socialist even though he (like FDR who called himself a liberal) is more of a social democrat (likewise many so-called progressives and of course the social democrats of Europe). I think its popularity as a term stems from its apparent broad connotations. Also, the most popular socialist organization, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is a multi-tendency organization, making it natural to use as a label for anyone who is not an authoritarian.
@WilyRickWiles I think we're facing a new situation for humanity where our ability to produce and distribute is rapidly outpacing our need for actual workers to go and do the work. Such that we're starting to see an increasing accumulation of people worldwide who aren't actively engaged in doing much-- or maybe even anything. Which is leading to a brand new type of employment problem, people who could work but just don't want to. The problem is that in our organizational paradigm these people would be called 'lazy', 'goldbrickers', 'freeloaders' and 'malingerers'. And in the old scheme these workers would be missed. Production would suffer for lack of workers. In the new paradigm they're not even missed.
I was listening to an Eric Weinstein discussion where he was talking about that problem, and I completely agree. But it leads to the problem that I'm all the time going on about-- what is the value of money when nobody has any? How do people live? Eat? Get gas? Acquire things? And have a place to put them?
Consider this-- if there was no limit on your ambition, where would you choose to live? Money is no object, pre-existing residents notwithstanding-- the sky is the limit. Where would it be? How big would your house be? How much stuff would you have? What kind of stuff would it be? What kind of car would you drive? Would you have your own airplane? If so, where would you keep it? What about your hobbies? Would you have "one of everything" to play with, "just in case"? What foods would you eat? Would you stuff yourself silly at every meal? Would you eat your vegetables?
Here's another question. HOW would you get stuff? Would you go shopping? What would you expect to buy there? Would it be automated or staffed with sales-droids or people? Why would people bother going to work to serve you? Would they do it because they're bored? What would their motivation and/or incentive be? Why would people do dirty or dangerous jobs? Why would a plumber, for instance, come to your house and muck shit for nothing?
How does a post-scarcity economy work?
What happens if you get sick? What happens if you get bored? Who heals you? Who entertains you?
And what do YOU do in all of this? Just lay around? Fiddle with your hobbies? Go chip in at a charity or something?
This is the world we're rapidly approaching and I don't think that there are many answers yet. As we morph from gathering and hoarding to a service and distribution-based organization. Amazon may be the only company standing when it's over. I know Idiocracy predicted it would be CostCo but hey-- so they got one detail wrong. The rest seems pretty reasonable. We devolve into being extremely petty, immature, and emotionally stunted people-- because who would really want to put up with the likes of any of us and all of our petty bullshit if they didn't actually have to?
This whole thing has staggering ramifications for our whole society. Where do we even begin to sort it all out?
@WilyRickWiles terms can be very subjective and what we should focus on is policy positions no matter what we call ourselves or others is what I say. Different regions and dialects have different meanings and to many times people get lost in defining terms instead of working for solutions. From what I've seen that u have shared we do agree on most things.
An older, relevant video:
pbuck0145
Level 8
May 6, 2019
2
When was this recorded? 1970s? It could be say that his predictions were too early, no? Similar to predictions of food scarcity in the 1980s... are predictions like these coming soon?
Well they are conspiracy theories, because there isn't really a conspiracy behind those things. Yes, they're technically true, but it's not due to some eeeeevil conspiracy behind it. It's just a series of otherwise normal, reasonable events piling up on top of one another for both of them.
Yes, women earn less than men after they're about 30 years old - in fact, when women and men do the same work in the same quality and same quantity, with the same sacrifices, the women actually tend to get paid slightly more than men, but due to a wide variety of factors, women generally aren't willing to do the same things men will. A maid in a comfy, air conditioned apartment downtown simply doesn't make as much as a maid in a logging camp in the middle of nowhere 200km away from the nearest town. Almost all of the maids in the big city with all its luxuries are women, almost all of the maids out in the middle of the forest are men. The women could be making as much as the men if they wanted to, but let's face it, that's an awfully huge sacrifice to make, being stuck out there for 3 months straight at a time, 11 day shifts and minimal access to internet, people, or anything even remotely resembling a nightclub. The vast majority of women aren't willing to make the sacrifices required because it's honestly a bad deal. Women typically value comfort, meaning and value in their work, working with people, short commutes, benefits, virtually anything other than just raw money and that's it - it's a different set of priorities and so they don't tend to go for the high-wage jobs because those jobs require enormous amounts of sacrifice and the only benefit is more money, and for most women, it's just not worth it. Hell, for most men it's just not worth it either - men only tend to do those jobs if they plan to retire at 30 or if they have a family to support.
Similar situation with the black people being targeted by cops. Oh, they definitely are in many areas. It's not really so much that they're black as it is they're in a poor neighbourhood/ghetto. If you go into a ghetto, you're going to find you get pulled over at random just for being there. I've been pulled over by cops before because I lived in a ghetto and I'm not black - just out for a walk, nothing more. They checked my ID, talked to me for like 5 minutes and eventually let me go. Why'd they pull me over? Because I was going for a walk at 3 am in a ghetto so they obviously assumed I was a drug dealer or going to buy some. No, it's just the gunfire stops at about 2am so 3am's a perfect time to go for a walk because all the gang members have finally gone to bed. The gangs in ghettos teeeend to pretty heavily be based around their race, so you get black gangs in a ghetto, so police are going to be more critical of black people if they happen to be in a ghetto. That's not a conspiracy from the top down, institutionalized and focused upon sticking it to darkie in the slightest - it's just pattern recognition.
Which is what conspiracy theories are in the first place - pattern recognition. It's why you see faces in clouds or on the wood grain on a hardwood floor: your brain is a pattern recognition engine, and it's really good at what it does. Sometimes too good. Sometimes it sees patterns that aren't really there, puts together all the pieces and gets a picture out of them, but it's the wrong picture because it's missing some pieces or drawing in ones it doesn't have with a crayon when the pieces it has don't make sense. This's what happens if the pieces can fit together in more than one way. There's only one "right" way, but plenty of "wrong" ways, and if you have a certain pre-disposed idea you want to be true, you can hammer in even the pieces that don't fit at all, or ignore them entirely and draw in what you want to go there.
So yes, those are actually conspiracy theories, but like most conspiracy theories they actually have a fairly large core of truth to them, it's just the specific details are all wrong and they're seeing a bunch of things that seem reasonable to them and they can point to plenty of evidence which exists which supports the basic premise. They can demonstrate quite well that women get paid less than men on average... under certain circumstances which are almost entirely due to women's free will meaning the only way to fix the problem is to remove free will from women. They can show that black people are targeted by cops more often than whites... if you also include that they don't target black people in rich neighbourhoods who look like they belong there nearly as much as they target white people in poor neighbourhoods who look like they belong there as well.
The main issue is that they expect to see X and so they see X, hence the people who are calling the right-wing conspiracy theories are correct, they are conspiracy theories, but they can't see their own conspiracy theories as well, or consider it bad form to admit to such if they can see it's nonsense.
CatreeceMacLeod
Level 5
May 10, 2019
1
I don't know if this comment is seen by everyone, but I flagged the post simply because it was a duplicate of the one below. The author didn't make an inappropriate comment that needed to be removed. Kind of important to know about the author. No rules were violated.
Recent Visitors 118
Photos 127 More
Posted by Admin Does teaching "white guilt" also cultivate a "white pride" backlash?
Posted by Admin Is it time to take a knee on the Superbowl?
Posted by Admin Why not equality right now?
Posted by Admin How's Biden doing?
Posted by Admin How many good friends do you have from other political tribes?
Posted by Admin What did Trump do, if anything, to incite violence?
Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?
Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?
Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?
Posted by Admin Under what time and circumstance is the use of violence warranted?
Posted by Admin Now what?
Posted by Admin What do you expect to be achieved by this week's pro-Trump DC rally?
Posted by Admin What did you learn in 2020?
Posted by Admin Should pedophiles be allowed to have "child" sex robots?
Posted by Admin Do you have a "line in the sand" regarding political or social change?
Posted by Admin Should big tech firms hire more Blacks and Hispanics?