Fragile Bird

US Politics: Speak Into the Microwave

402 posts in this topic

30 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

tgftv,

So, Stalin and Mao weren't pushing totalitarian flavors of Marxist-Leninist socialism and disclaiming them isn't an example of "no true Scotsman"?  Totalitarians can't employ socialist economics?

That's not what I said. What I said was that there are different kinds of socialist policies. Some of them are compatible with a capitalist system (like universal healthcare, pensions systems, social security,...), some of them are required for a capitalist system (socialised police, firefighting and infrastructure) and some of them are incompatible with capitalism (common ownership of the means of production). Some are even incompatible with democracy (e.g., Mao's cultural revolution, Stalin's Gulag system). People are objecting to "Healthcare bad because Stalin bad" because the kind of socialist policy promoted is leaps and bounds away from the socialist policies that made Stalin and Mao moral monsters, and indeed in some sense diametrically opposed to those policies (because universal healthcare and Gulag go so greatly together, after all...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

8 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The thing is, the French definitions don't describe it as a system. It's generally defined as "A number of very diverse schools of though and political movements whose common point it is to seek a fairer economic and social organisation."

The definition of it as a "system" can be found on the French "Wikiliberal" which has, as its name implies, a neo-liberal bias, and is thus anti-socialist.

Rippounet,

Then the French definition (definitions themselves are not absolutes and are neccessarily malleable) is incomplete.  Socialism is not that simple claiming it to be that simple is disengenous and an example of "no true Scotsman" because it attempts to define away anything bad that arises from socialist systems by saying "socialism can only be a good".

It would be like defining Capitalism as "A number of very diverse schools of thought and political movements whose whose common point is to seek a freer economic and social organisation". 

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/opinion/the-original-lie-about-obamacare.html?

Quote

You hear it from Republicans, pundits and even some Democrats. It’s often said in a tone of regret: I wish Obama had done health reform in a bipartisan way, rather than jamming through a partisan bill.

Yes, yes, the poor old Republican Party. Everyone is just so mean to them. 

Quote

That it’s nonetheless stuck helps explain how the Republicans have landed in such a mess on health care. The Congressional Budget Office released a jaw-dropping report Monday estimating that the Republican health plan would take insurance from 24 million people, many of them Republican voters, and raise medical costs for others. The bill effectively rescinds benefits for the elderly, poor, sick and middle class, and funnels the money to the rich, via tax cuts.

The AARP doesn’t like the bill, nor do groups representing doctors, nurses, hospitals, the disabled and people with cancer, diabetes and multiple sclerosis. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, it’s a great bill

Brownie, you're doin a hecka of a job!!!!

Quote

How did the party’s leaders put themselves in this position? The short answer is that they began believing their own hype and set out to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

The charge of the conservative light brigade!!!

Half a league, half a league,
 Half a league onward,
All in the valley of stupidity
 Rode the Republicans
"Forward, nuts"
"Charge " Mr. Ayn Rand said:
Into the valley of Stupidity
Rode the Republican Party.

Quote

over intense opposition that equated Medicare with the death of capitalism.

Well, if Ronnie said it, it must be true!!!

Quote

So Democrats slowly moved their proposals to the right, relying more on private insurance rather than government programs. As they shifted, though, Republicans shifted even farther right. Bill Clinton’s plan was quite moderate but still couldn’t pass.

Well, maybe the Republicans just asked themselves,"are we conservative enough!!".

Quote

But congressional Republicans ultimately decided that opposing any bill, regardless of its substance, was in their political interest. The consultant Frank Luntz wrote an influential memo in 2009 advising Republicans to talk positively about “reform” while also opposing actual solutions. McConnell, the Senate leader, persuaded his colleagues that they could make Obama look bad by denying him bipartisan cover.

Now surely the Republican Party wouldn't do something like that.

Quote

Today’s Republican Party has moved so far to the right that it no longer supports any plan that covers the uninsured. Of course, Republican leaders are not willing to say as much, because they know how unpopular that position is.

Well now. The Republican Party went looking for a brawl over healthcare and now they got one.

Quote

Their approach to Obamacare has worked quite nicely for them, until now. Lying can be an effective political tactic. Believing your own alternative facts, however, is usually not so smart.

Talkin trash might seem like a good idea at the time....until somebody calls you on it. 

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

10 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

That's not what I said. What I said was that there are different kinds of socialist policies. Some of them are compatible with a capitalist system (like universal healthcare, pensions systems, social security,...), some of them are required for a capitalist system (socialised police, firefighting and infrastructure) and some of them are incompatible with capitalism (common ownership of the means of production). Some are even incompatible with democracy (e.g., Mao's cultural revolution, Stalin's Gulag system). People are objecting to "Healthcare bad because Stalin bad" because the kind of socialist policy promoted is leaps and bounds away from the socialist policies that made Stalin and Mao moral monsters, and indeed in some sense diametrically opposed to those policies (because universal healthcare and Gulag go so greatly together, after all...)

Then your point was something of a non-sequitur to mine.  I do not seek to claim that all socialism is "bad" because Stalin and Mao used socialist economic policies to further their own power and goals.  I'm simply pointing out that any and all political systems can and have been abused.  That they can be twisted to further political power of some groups or individuals.  

Ideals are ideals and practice is practice.  Claiming ideals supercede practice in any circumstance is foolish.  To claim that practice means the "bad" aspect of a system means it is no longer the ideal espoused is the very definition of "no true Scotsman".

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scot, please reread where the socialism discussion started. My point was in reference to that, explaining to you where your insistence that yes, socialism has been abused. (which it has just like any other ideology), that's irrelevant to the fact that socialised healthcare is proven to be compatible with capitalism and democracy, so socialised healthcare really shouldn't cause the "Stalin in disguise!" cries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Scot, please reread where the socialism discussion started. My point was in reference to that, explaining to you where your insistence that yes, socialism has been abused. (which it has just like any other ideology), that's irrelevant to the fact that socialised healthcare is proven to be compatible with capitalism and democracy, so socialised healthcare really shouldn't cause the "Stalin in disguise!" cries.

tgftv,

I don't disagree.  What I object to is the attempt to claim that "Mao and Stalin" weren't Socialist.  It is an attempt to wash away the bad aspects of socialism and, a Rippounet demonstrates, seek to jump into the "no true Scotsman" fallacy with both feet by defining away any abuses as "not socialism".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These days, if you're even somewhat remotely sane, it probably makes you an honorary liberal.

The case of a self described conservative, that is playing, with a full deck, to some extent, and probably loses his "true conservative" cred in the process.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/03/health

Quote

David Frum is a conservative, but he grew up in Canada and lacks an American conservative's instinctive revulsion toward national health care. Today he writes that maybe American conservatives should put aside their revulsion too. After all, the debacle over the Republican health care plan suggests that the public is unwilling to see health coverage withdrawn from millions of people. Democrats seem to have finally won the battle over ensuring health coverage for all, and that means Republicans can't control costs by simply denying health care to anyone who can't afford it. They have to figure out other ways to bring down costs:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

These days, if you're even somewhat remotely sane, it probably makes you an honorary liberal.

The case of a self described conservative, that is playing, with a full deck, to some extent, and probably loses his "true conservative" cred in the process.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/03/health

Quote

David Frum is a conservative, but he grew up in Canada and lacks an American conservative's instinctive revulsion toward national health care. Today he writes that maybe American conservatives should put aside their revulsion too. After all, the debacle over the Republican health care plan suggests that the public is unwilling to see health coverage withdrawn from millions of people. Democrats seem to have finally won the battle over ensuring health coverage for all, and that means Republicans can't control costs by simply denying health care to anyone who can't afford it. They have to figure out other ways to bring down costs:

Have we though?  I hope so but am not yet convinced of this optimistic outlook. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Just now, Nasty LongRider said:

Have we though?  I hope so but am not yet convinced of this optimistic outlook. 

Yeah, I agree with what you are saying. It's prudent to be cautious here.

I mean let's not put up a sign in the background that says "mission accomplished!!!", until the mission is in fact accomplished.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Lindsey Graham is having one of those days where he's doing something worthwhile. Or seems to be - I guess it depends on what he wants to achieve in the end. I assume he's trying to force the FBI to admit there's no evidence, but who knows how deep he's gone down the rabbit hole himself on the whole wiretap conspiracy.

Quote

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) says the Senate will stall on confirming President Trump’s deputy attorney general if the FBI refuses to provide evidence of wiretaps against Trump.

“Congress is going to flex its muscle here and you see that all over the place,” Graham said Wednesday on NBC’s “Today.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/324033-graham-well-stall-doj-nominee-if-fbi-doesnt-comply-on-wiretaps

Edited by denstorebog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would those of you who decided, once again, to go down the rabbit hole chasing trolls please open another thread?

Thank you OGE, denstorebog and NastyLongrider for getting back on topic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Would those of you who decided, once again, to go down the rabbit hole chasing trolls please open another thread?

Thank you OGE, denstorebog and NastyLongrider for getting back on topic!

Broader political subjects are verboten in the US Politics thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Broader political subjects are verboten in the US Politics thread?

3 pages of off topic discussions usually results in someone asking to start a new thread if they'd like to talk about it.  Whether an argument about the definition of socialism is a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy definitely falls into that category IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 hours ago, mormont said:

Nevertheless, he publicly rejects the label of neo-Nazi. Why? Largely (as I say) for propaganda reasons. Nazi isn't a label anyone wants. People don't want to agree with Nazis.

Which shows there's no point in trying to apply 'self defining' to neo-Nazis, because they have a track record of being dishonest in public about what they privately self-define as. In fact, it's a deliberate tactic of theirs. So we have no choice but to define them by their actions instead.

I'm pretty sure nazis didn't invent racism so it's plausible to me that someone can be completely racist and not a nazi at the same time.

It just seems backwards to me that someone would go "Yeh I'm going to preach openly about a white only state, hating jews, ally with open nazis and push ethnic cleansing but I'm not going to say I'm a nazi because THAT would make me look bad"

I mean there's enough there to show he's blatantly and openly racist without claiming he's lying about the not being a nazi part but everything else he's being honest about. 

It's kinda useless imo to attempt to define what people are privately because anything you come up with is going to be completely made up.

Edited by DunderMifflin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Broader political subjects are verboten in the US Politics thread?

Yes, they are. The first two letters of the title of the thread should tell you whether or not esoteric discussions on a Chinese and a Soviet ruler should be on topic or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

It just seems backwards to me that someone would go "Yeh I'm going to preach openly about a white only state, hating jews, ally with open nazis and push ethnic cleansing but I'm not going to say I'm a nazi because THAT would make me look bad"

Nevertheless, that's exactly what many neo-Nazis including Spencer do - and we know they do it, and have been doing it for many years. There are private conversations about it that have been leaked. They believe resistance to their message is due to the bad associations of the word 'Nazi' and so they need to deny the label while pushing the agenda. That's the whole reason Spencer invented the 'alt-right' terminology.

It makes perfect sense if you understand that they believe all of the above hateful crap is self-evidently true, and need some explanation for why people won't agree with it. In fact, they're now delighted because they believe that's exactly what Trump has managed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mormont said:

Nevertheless, that's exactly what many neo-Nazis including Spencer do - and we know they do it, and have been doing it for many years. There are private conversations about it that have been leaked. They believe resistance to their message is due to the bad associations of the word 'Nazi' and so they need to deny the label while pushing the agenda. That's the whole reason Spencer invented the 'alt-right' terminology.

It makes perfect sense if you understand that they believe all of the above hateful crap is self-evidently true, and need some explanation for why people won't agree with it. In fact, they're now delighted because they believe that's exactly what Trump has managed.

He's publicly said that he rejects the Nazi label due to the negative connotation. That's not private.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

He's publicly said that he rejects the Nazi label due to the negative connotation. That's not private.

But he advocates things Nazi's advocate publicly as well.  So he rejects the label but adopts the philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.