- Thread starter
- #581
I made a clear, reasonable point. It appeared to me, based on your words, that we agree that there can be "more socialism" and "less socialism". Was I wrong? Were you kidding, maybe?My central premise is that "people reject socialism because they're stupid and scared"?I'm not exactly sure of what has you so upset.Oy. Okay.
Whether you want to admit it or not, you illustrated my point for me. So, thanks for that.
.
No, I didn't. You're playing a game. Whenever anyone isn't on board with more socialism, you accuse them of binary thinking rather than address their argument. It's a cop out. Instead of just recognizing that there are good reasons to be wary of socializing more of our society under government, you simply reject them outright and label their objections "binary" or whatever.
Honestly, this tactic must be distributed somewhere in the progressive talking points. I see it in several forms. Usually, it's when someone is arguing for liberty in the face of more government control. They're accused of being anarchists simply because they don't like the latest plan to inject more socialism into the mix. Who's really engaging in binary thinking, Mac?
I don't like rhetorical techniques that are just distractions. It's perfectly valid for someone to say (in a thread discussing some new policy proposal, for example): "That's socialism. If we keep pushing for more of that, we'll end up like Venezuela". But instead of addressing their concerns, instead of explaining why socialism is justified in this case, instead of expressing some respect for the concept of limited government, you accuse them of binary thinking. Suddenly no one is discussing the topic, we're quibbling about whether 100% liberty is possible. No one was demanding 100% liberty in the first place, but the strawman has entered the room and the argument dissolves.
I find it frustrating when the term "socialism" is thrown around (and I don't care which side does it), because the way it's presented is so vague and squishy. Vague and squishy isn't helpful in a complicated conversation. I constantly argue here, to little or no avail, that government size, depth, influence and cost usually run along a continuum. Some people want MORE of it, some people want LESS.
So, it was nice to see your "more socialism or less socialism" post. It was refreshing, and it was nice to to see that someone (seemingly) agrees with me that this stuff is a matter of degree. Nowhere have I argued for more or less, I was just making a general comment.
So again, thanks for what I thought was a reasonable and thoughtful comment, and I'll be sure not to thank you for such comments in the future.
I'm sorry to have disappointed you. But I don't agree with your central premise. I don't think people reject socialism because they're stupid and scared. I think they understand it well enough, and they reject it because they don't want government lording over them at every turn.
I don't even really think of things in terms of socialism vs capitalism. The continuum I see is more state control over society or less. Socialism is more state control over society and, in my view, we need a damned good reason if we're going to grant government that control.
Okay. News to me. But that does happen a lot here.
Thanks.
.
It's implied, yes. You're free to deny it, of course. It's the refrain of progressives and Democrats whenever people don't cheer for their plans - "They just don't get it!"
You chose to make assumptions and inferences that were in your mind only, and ran wild with them. I guess I'm used to that here.
.