POLL: A Question for Lefties re: Socialism

[Mac1958]

A question for anyone who thinks of themselves as being anything to the Left of Dead Center:

I'm constantly told that the Left wants America to be just like Venezuela, that's there is essentially no difference between Venezuela and social democratic countries like Canada, Australia, Germany & Finland.

So, do you want America to be just like Venezuela, and if so, WHY, dammit!
.

Honestly, Mac, I haven't been around USMB long but in that time I've come to respect if not often agree with the centrist tone of your posts seemingly anchored squarely to a confluence of ideological intersubjectivity. You do quite well as a crossroads or a "five forks" so to speak, of meeting places. In the end we all choose one of those forks in the road, even if in our refusal to do so, a road crew must come and divert the individual lanes thereof to one's right or left in order to represent choice of path.

That being said, in this thread a whiff of intellectual dishonesty rising about from somewhere, faintly, between the lines. Just a pellucid gray-blue tendril. From what you wrote in some other post, in some other thread, I gather you're a numbers guy? Thus your primacy of thought is given to economics? Also seems to be a bit of the humanist mixed in there amid all the digital accounting and forecasting? Very admirable a tendency to espouse among the cold calculus of counting.

To understand the truth in the real intersubjective fear beneath the accusations of alarmism you proselytize so passionately, you must get beyond the surface strata of "Chicken-Little-ism" you read as unnecessary conflation in other posters anti-socialism rants. While the underlying numbers of functioning economies and their polynomial prognosticators very obviously make vital spheres of any civilization go around in complex balance, the amalgamation of philosophies on which the same civilization was founded become ideologies which act as object vehicles to advance or devolve them, and not "can be" but rather are more dangerous when misinterpreted or misused than thermonuclear weapons.

Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. However, is all understanding of knowledge, or knowledge gained for that matter, representative of the truth? Can the truth be interpreted in more than one way? How many truths can exist in aggregate or aggregations of the definitions of truth--subjectively-- before truth becomes something else when desired to be arrived at objectively? Everyone it seems these days wants to talk about radical political philosophies--you know, the sexiest ones like socialism, communism, anarchism and the "N" one. What most of us fail to analyze, however, are the uniting philosophies our founders derived from antiquity and brought together in the formation of our American civilization.

Our founding fathers epistemic interpretive conclusion was among, if not the first--in near Modernist history at least, to bring the individual citizen's unique persona and personality into the question of equalization with the feudal lord and even the monarch from antiquity, to the forefront of the political philosophy of being or existing within a governed social structure, rather than assigning to him, as was done from ancient times, a group identifier or identity. In effect, for the first time, the everyman's freedom and right(s) was to be made as important as was for millennia that of the highborn alone.

In truth, while the political theories of our founders did not vanquish the historical aristocracy from the social strata so much as renaming it, it did greatly limit their social and political authority over the commoner. Further, the common man was armed with an unprecedented tool in the form of well paid hard labor for great reward, and awarded the great trust of self-editing his own behaviors to be in accordance with the law through personal responsibility, rather the since time out of mind doctrine of having the law imposed on him to coerce socially acceptable behavior at sword point.

In the middle of this great American experiment the lowest caste could meet the highest caste in the middle to form a new, historically unheard of caste: the middle class. Barring excessive familial social advantage, we all start from humble beginnings and yet the true magnificence of our system is in our ability to move up, branch out, become better--all dependent upon the willingness and measure of our personal effort. We the people were never intended to be a species of citizen who received government, but rather a body of citizenry who forged our own through suffrage, and if need be, rebellion. Our government was never meant to be something that happened to us, but for us--willingly--and by our own contractual handshake of permission.

The episteme or the core interpretation of the knowledge of governing observed by Moore, Marx, Engels and others to become the philosophies and derived ideological products of socialism is antithesis to the above described political, social, economic and epistemological interpretations of our founders. While you assert with reasonable if not somewhat exasperated dialectic that today's American democratic socialism proffered by now mainstreamed elements of the Democratic party is nothing similar to Marxist-Leninist theory or historical application, I would agree to disagree agreeably--in the spirit of an annoyingly over complicated Hegelian dialectic sense.

Neither universal healthcare, nor universal education, nor nationalized living wages are socialist institutions--I will grant you that much. However, beneath the surface strata of those proposed levels of infrastructural economic interventionism, is a decades running cultural ideological revolution starkly the opposite in every way to the nature of our founders ideology. That below the surface radical political and cultural philosophy aligns with historical Marxist-Leninist authoritarian socialism and in solid truth is as deadly for our American way of life as a nuclear demolition charge on a timer ticking down to zero.

The middle class is where the poor and wealthy meet. Original American political theory holds and-- surprisingly well-- provides the poor man with, the tools to rise up if not to the very top then at least past the middle. Marx and Engels viewed both the upper class--and its product the middle class--as eternal enemies of the poor working class who could never be upwardly mobile in a capitalist society and were in fact, fixed in place with economic oppression not unlike some kind of social prison.

What true socialism--the full Monty--calls for is cultural, social and political revolution. What it promises the oppressed working class is ownership of their destinies by means of ownership of government infrastructure from the top down. What true socialism implemented results in is not the elimination of the wealthy, but rather the nationalization and centralization of all wealth into the hands of the few who call themselves the government of the People. Fewer, more wealthy rich men.

So yes, in closing, so-called American democratic socialism is neither an advertisement for Moor's Utopia, nor Marx's manifesto, nor even homicidally angry young Lenin's Bolshevism. However, Mac, the de facto political ideology of today's radical Left is all of the preceding and more in the form of political correctness, moral relativism, factual relativism, patriotic relativism, censorship of opposition, violent youth movements, coerced and forced speech, denial of biological fact, fear of hate speech and so on. Democratic socialism is the surface of a much deeper than it first appears glacial lake of very dark ideological chasms. Perhaps . . . America could float well enough on its surface, and yet if that boat were to ever capsize or be intentionally sunk, all of our greatest nightmares would become reality.

To neither heed history's warnings nor listen for a moment to what your Chicken Little's have to say is, in my humble opinion, the opposite of the veritable mature cooler head. Sometimes the best intended desire to unite the saner voices of opposition can rob one of sight faster even than crying wolf.

Remember . . . government is not something our founders or first American ancestors intended to happen to them or to later generations. "By the people . . . ." Yes? Neither reliance on government nor forced acceptance of government was ever intended to be in the cards. "For the people." American men and women rise or fall by their own effort. Poverty is not a disease requiring a government cure. The "antidote" to being poor is already inborn within all of us. The wealthy will always exist. Unless of course, we follow the socialist way of stripping them all of their fortunes, demote them to work in the fields, imprison them or shoot them at dawn.

Thanks for the thoughtfulness and civility. A few random thoughts:

I really don't try to be centrist, or this, or that. It's just the way my little brain works - I'm very curious to see and understand and appreciate both ends of issues. I've had two careers in my life: I was in "the media" for 18 years, and I've been a financial advisor (you nailed it) for about 20. And here's something I only recently realized: In both professions, I have had to carefully and humbly locate, consume and analyze facts from every possible source, ask a lot of questions, make sure I had the whole story, and then produce work (articles, books, reports, financial strategies) based on all of that effort. So again, it's just the way my little brain works, and it's why I'm not intellectually/emotionally married to an ideology. At least, so far. I feel very fortunate about that.

So, when I'm here, I do a lot of observing of behaviors and tactics and occasionally belch out my opinion. I'm not trying to change any minds or "beat" anyone. I've long since realized that's pure folly in a place like this, and I'm really not into vicious personal insults and childish name-calling. So that's that.

To (mercifully) move on: In terms of the word "truth", It essentially means anything, or nothing, at this point. The term means little more than "stuff I agree with". There are things on which a vast majority can agree, at least to some degree, but this notion that a person or tribe has a vice-like grip on some some singular "Truth" seems pretty silly to me.

Now, some really random responses:

• The point I continually make here (and take much heat from the Right on), is that conservatives have been conditioned to conflate Euro-social democracy with pure socialism. I have yet to figure out if it's because I know talk radio doesn't address the distinction, or because they're just playing a partisan game. Or some of both. But either way, they're burning energy fighting a ghost, and they clearly don't realize it. While they're doing that, the culture is changing, and they're falling behind.
  
• Leaning on the Constitution or what the Founding Fathers intended simply will not be enough. The hardcore Left has spent the last couple of generations doing everything they can to denigrate the Constitution and remove as many American traditions as they can. They have made it clear that they want to "fundamentally change" this country, and our schools are churning out kids who literally can't explain the First Amendment, but they can sure tell you where the nearest Safe Space is or what a micro-aggression is. That's significant, that's culture-shifting, and the Right is doing a pathetic job of addressing it.
• Yes, as you'd see in the link at the end of the second line of my sig, I'm profoundly, passionately against what the hardcore Left (I refer to them as the "Regressive Left", that's another issue) has done to freedom of speech & expression via political correctness and Identity Politics. And if you want to assign those behaviors to tenets of Marxism, I won't argue. The people who have taken over the Left are not liberal, they are illiberal Leftist authoritarians, and they're your/our biggest enemy.

Okay, I'm worn out...
.

 

[Norman]

I am not left of center but my question to Mac is, what makes you think it's possible for US to become just like Finland? An almost 100% white nation that is smaller than one of our cities population wise.

Two different countries will never be "just like" each other. This all exists on a continuum.
.

Always with the continuum.

I meant that what makes you think US could become a social democracy from the current position? The social democracies just like social security in US started from a position of strength. Now people can't even figure their genders as a result of those policies among other things.

Where is the money going to come from?

Haha...you noticed too huh?
Mac1958 loves the word continuum.

Indeed, I have to use it frequently for people locked in simplistic, binary little worlds.

Doesn't seem to work for them.
.

The extreme centrism of Mac is noted.

I get the sense from him that he is a door mat who is not allowed to have opinions of his own. He comes from a very diverse environment so I bet that this means there are all sorts of political opinions going about. The obvious solution is to bend over and proclaim that you are in the exact center and trying to understand everyone.

I have yet to see Mac take a strong stand for what HE actually believes in. That would be a welcome change. All the talk about the continuum is only about not offending other people.

Please read the second line of my sig. It's specifically for comments like yours. The link at the end of the second line of my sig provides of list of my specific positions on the issues. I'll be happy to discuss any upon request. Have you done that? So much for that one, huh?

And my use of the word "continuum" to describe political and economic systems only offends and triggers those whose thought processes have been simplified down to binary, all-or-nothing status. They don't want to burn time thinking outside their little box, because they have been specifically conditioned NOT to. So the thought that much of life exists on continuum is just a bit beyond them.

And by the way, I happily take incoming from both ends every single day here. In this very thread, in fact. Do you?

I don't have a nice, big, warm, cozy, comfy ideological Safe Space in which I can hide and from which I can fling poo.

And I don't need one.
.

I have read it before, I think it's bullshit. Especially the horseshoe theory is a false equivalency of galactic proportions. Only a completely blind idiot would fall for it. The left and the right are very different, and further left and right even further so.

I know you aren't a blind idiot, so then I suspect the answer is the convenience of saving face in an environment where there are variety of different views which you don't want to take sides in. Not surprisingly all your opinions can be summed by "it's safe, there is something for everyone and I won't have to take a stance".

As for continuum, it's a platonic construct that doesn't exist. It's clear that you don't have a safe space indeed, instead invent the imaginary "continuum" which can be waved to explain everything while saying nothing. You should start building up that safe space where you can safely express your real opinions, preferences and find the truth. Stop being your wife's boyfriend's bitch is what I am saying.

 

[Mac1958]

I am not left of center but my question to Mac is, what makes you think it's possible for US to become just like Finland? An almost 100% white nation that is smaller than one of our cities population wise.

Two different countries will never be "just like" each other. This all exists on a continuum.
.

Always with the continuum.

I meant that what makes you think US could become a social democracy from the current position? The social democracies just like social security in US started from a position of strength. Now people can't even figure their genders as a result of those policies among other things.

Where is the money going to come from?

Haha...you noticed too huh?
Mac1958 loves the word continuum.

Indeed, I have to use it frequently for people locked in simplistic, binary little worlds.

Doesn't seem to work for them.
.

The extreme centrism of Mac is noted.

I get the sense from him that he is a door mat who is not allowed to have opinions of his own. He comes from a very diverse environment so I bet that this means there are all sorts of political opinions going about. The obvious solution is to bend over and proclaim that you are in the exact center and trying to understand everyone.

I have yet to see Mac take a strong stand for what HE actually believes in. That would be a welcome change. All the talk about the continuum is only about not offending other people.

Please read the second line of my sig. It's specifically for comments like yours. The link at the end of the second line of my sig provides of list of my specific positions on the issues. I'll be happy to discuss any upon request. Have you done that? So much for that one, huh?

And my use of the word "continuum" to describe political and economic systems only offends and triggers those whose thought processes have been simplified down to binary, all-or-nothing status. They don't want to burn time thinking outside their little box, because they have been specifically conditioned NOT to. So the thought that much of life exists on continuum is just a bit beyond them.

And by the way, I happily take incoming from both ends every single day here. In this very thread, in fact. Do you?

I don't have a nice, big, warm, cozy, comfy ideological Safe Space in which I can hide and from which I can fling poo.

And I don't need one.
.

I have read it before, I think it's bullshit. Especially the horseshoe theory is a false equivalency of galactic proportions. Only a completely blind idiot would fall for it. The left and the right are very different, and further left and right even further so.

I know you aren't a blind idiot, so then I suspect the answer is the convenience of saving face in an environment where there are variety of different views which you don't want to take sides in. Not surprisingly all your opinions can be summed by "it's safe and I won't have to take a stance".

As for continuum, it's funny that the continuum is a platonic construct that doesn't exist. It's clear that you don't have a safe space indeed, instead invent the imaginary "continuum" which can be waved to explain everything while saying nothing. You should start building up that safe space where you can safely express your real opinions, preferences and find the truth.

This is why I don't burn a lot of time trying to hash this out here. Let's try something basic.

If we went to Single Payer, would that make us completely socialist? NO. If we then added, let's say, banks, would that make us completely socialist? NO. But it would certainly be one more step on the continuum to the Left. If when then added, let's say, production and distribution of textiles, would that make us completely socialist? NO. But it would be one more step.

That's a continuum.

Is this really that difficult to understand? Really?

And by the way, neither end of the spectrum has a stranglehold on "The Truth", whatever that words means to you. In practice, it actually means nothing more than "stuff I agree with".
..

 

[Mac1958]

I know you aren't a blind idiot, so then I suspect the answer is the convenience of saving face in an environment where there are variety of different views which you don't want to take sides in. Not surprisingly all your opinions can be summed by "it's safe, there is something for everyone and I won't have to take a stance".

Obviously you didn't read the link at the end of the second line of my sig, which clearly proves this statement wrong, but I can't force you.

If this makes you feel better about the fact I'm not paralyzed by a simplistic ideology, that's fine with me.
.

 

[Norman]

Two different countries will never be "just like" each other. This all exists on a continuum.
.

Always with the continuum.

I meant that what makes you think US could become a social democracy from the current position? The social democracies just like social security in US started from a position of strength. Now people can't even figure their genders as a result of those policies among other things.

Where is the money going to come from?

Haha...you noticed too huh?
Mac1958 loves the word continuum.

Indeed, I have to use it frequently for people locked in simplistic, binary little worlds.

Doesn't seem to work for them.
.

The extreme centrism of Mac is noted.

I get the sense from him that he is a door mat who is not allowed to have opinions of his own. He comes from a very diverse environment so I bet that this means there are all sorts of political opinions going about. The obvious solution is to bend over and proclaim that you are in the exact center and trying to understand everyone.

I have yet to see Mac take a strong stand for what HE actually believes in. That would be a welcome change. All the talk about the continuum is only about not offending other people.

Please read the second line of my sig. It's specifically for comments like yours. The link at the end of the second line of my sig provides of list of my specific positions on the issues. I'll be happy to discuss any upon request. Have you done that? So much for that one, huh?

And my use of the word "continuum" to describe political and economic systems only offends and triggers those whose thought processes have been simplified down to binary, all-or-nothing status. They don't want to burn time thinking outside their little box, because they have been specifically conditioned NOT to. So the thought that much of life exists on continuum is just a bit beyond them.

And by the way, I happily take incoming from both ends every single day here. In this very thread, in fact. Do you?

I don't have a nice, big, warm, cozy, comfy ideological Safe Space in which I can hide and from which I can fling poo.

And I don't need one.
.

I have read it before, I think it's bullshit. Especially the horseshoe theory is a false equivalency of galactic proportions. Only a completely blind idiot would fall for it. The left and the right are very different, and further left and right even further so.

I know you aren't a blind idiot, so then I suspect the answer is the convenience of saving face in an environment where there are variety of different views which you don't want to take sides in. Not surprisingly all your opinions can be summed by "it's safe and I won't have to take a stance".

As for continuum, it's funny that the continuum is a platonic construct that doesn't exist. It's clear that you don't have a safe space indeed, instead invent the imaginary "continuum" which can be waved to explain everything while saying nothing. You should start building up that safe space where you can safely express your real opinions, preferences and find the truth.

This is why I don't burn a lot of time trying to hash this out here. Let's try something basic.

If we went to Single Payer, would that make us completely socialist? NO. If we then added, let's say, banks, would that make us completely socialist? NO. But it would certainly be one more step on the continuum to the Left. If when then added, let's say, production and distribution of textiles, would that make us completely socialist? NO. But it would be one more step.

That's a continuum.

Is this really that difficult to understand? Really?

And by the way, neither end of the spectrum has a stranglehold on "The Truth", whatever that words means to you. In practice, it actually means nothing more than "stuff I agree with".
..

No shit Sherlock, no one is denying this (correction: at least the amount of people you seem to think). You are the one that seems to be confusing effective rhetoric with a dialectic argument. And probably intentionally so you can go on with the continuums and not taking a stance.

No one is actually arguing that national health care is full blown socialism. It's just a slur.

 

[Mac1958]

Always with the continuum.

I meant that what makes you think US could become a social democracy from the current position? The social democracies just like social security in US started from a position of strength. Now people can't even figure their genders as a result of those policies among other things.

Where is the money going to come from?

Haha...you noticed too huh?
Mac1958 loves the word continuum.

Indeed, I have to use it frequently for people locked in simplistic, binary little worlds.

Doesn't seem to work for them.
.

The extreme centrism of Mac is noted.

I get the sense from him that he is a door mat who is not allowed to have opinions of his own. He comes from a very diverse environment so I bet that this means there are all sorts of political opinions going about. The obvious solution is to bend over and proclaim that you are in the exact center and trying to understand everyone.

I have yet to see Mac take a strong stand for what HE actually believes in. That would be a welcome change. All the talk about the continuum is only about not offending other people.

Please read the second line of my sig. It's specifically for comments like yours. The link at the end of the second line of my sig provides of list of my specific positions on the issues. I'll be happy to discuss any upon request. Have you done that? So much for that one, huh?

And my use of the word "continuum" to describe political and economic systems only offends and triggers those whose thought processes have been simplified down to binary, all-or-nothing status. They don't want to burn time thinking outside their little box, because they have been specifically conditioned NOT to. So the thought that much of life exists on continuum is just a bit beyond them.

And by the way, I happily take incoming from both ends every single day here. In this very thread, in fact. Do you?

I don't have a nice, big, warm, cozy, comfy ideological Safe Space in which I can hide and from which I can fling poo.

And I don't need one.
.

I have read it before, I think it's bullshit. Especially the horseshoe theory is a false equivalency of galactic proportions. Only a completely blind idiot would fall for it. The left and the right are very different, and further left and right even further so.

I know you aren't a blind idiot, so then I suspect the answer is the convenience of saving face in an environment where there are variety of different views which you don't want to take sides in. Not surprisingly all your opinions can be summed by "it's safe and I won't have to take a stance".

As for continuum, it's funny that the continuum is a platonic construct that doesn't exist. It's clear that you don't have a safe space indeed, instead invent the imaginary "continuum" which can be waved to explain everything while saying nothing. You should start building up that safe space where you can safely express your real opinions, preferences and find the truth.

This is why I don't burn a lot of time trying to hash this out here. Let's try something basic.

If we went to Single Payer, would that make us completely socialist? NO. If we then added, let's say, banks, would that make us completely socialist? NO. But it would certainly be one more step on the continuum to the Left. If when then added, let's say, production and distribution of textiles, would that make us completely socialist? NO. But it would be one more step.

That's a continuum.

Is this really that difficult to understand? Really?

And by the way, neither end of the spectrum has a stranglehold on "The Truth", whatever that words means to you. In practice, it actually means nothing more than "stuff I agree with".
..

No shit Sherlock, no one is denying this (correction: at least the amount of people you seem to think). You are the one that seems to be confusing effective rhetoric with a dialectic argument. And probably intentionally so you can go on with the continuums and not taking a stance.

No one is actually arguing that national health care is full blown socialism. It's just a slur.

Does that mean that you DO understand and agree with my use of the term "continuum", or not?

Maybe calm down and focus a bit.
.

 

[Norman]

Two different countries will never be "just like" each other. This all exists on a continuum.
.

Always with the continuum.

I meant that what makes you think US could become a social democracy from the current position? The social democracies just like social security in US started from a position of strength. Now people can't even figure their genders as a result of those policies among other things.

Where is the money going to come from?

Haha...you noticed too huh?
Mac1958 loves the word continuum.

Indeed, I have to use it frequently for people locked in simplistic, binary little worlds.

Doesn't seem to work for them.
.

The extreme centrism of Mac is noted.

I get the sense from him that he is a door mat who is not allowed to have opinions of his own. He comes from a very diverse environment so I bet that this means there are all sorts of political opinions going about. The obvious solution is to bend over and proclaim that you are in the exact center and trying to understand everyone.

I have yet to see Mac take a strong stand for what HE actually believes in. That would be a welcome change. All the talk about the continuum is only about not offending other people.

Please read the second line of my sig. It's specifically for comments like yours. The link at the end of the second line of my sig provides of list of my specific positions on the issues. I'll be happy to discuss any upon request. Have you done that? So much for that one, huh?

And my use of the word "continuum" to describe political and economic systems only offends and triggers those whose thought processes have been simplified down to binary, all-or-nothing status. They don't want to burn time thinking outside their little box, because they have been specifically conditioned NOT to. So the thought that much of life exists on continuum is just a bit beyond them.

And by the way, I happily take incoming from both ends every single day here. In this very thread, in fact. Do you?

I don't have a nice, big, warm, cozy, comfy ideological Safe Space in which I can hide and from which I can fling poo.

And I don't need one.
.

I have read it before, I think it's bullshit. Especially the horseshoe theory is a false equivalency of galactic proportions. Only a completely blind idiot would fall for it. The left and the right are very different, and further left and right even further so.

I know you aren't a blind idiot, so then I suspect the answer is the convenience of saving face in an environment where there are variety of different views which you don't want to take sides in. Not surprisingly all your opinions can be summed by "it's safe and I won't have to take a stance".

As for continuum, it's funny that the continuum is a platonic construct that doesn't exist. It's clear that you don't have a safe space indeed, instead invent the imaginary "continuum" which can be waved to explain everything while saying nothing. You should start building up that safe space where you can safely express your real opinions, preferences and find the truth.

And by the way, neither end of the spectrum has a stranglehold on "The Truth", whatever that words means to you. In practice, it actually means nothing more than "stuff I agree with".
..

This epic line deserves a response of its own. No the truth does not mean whatever I want it to mean. Science is what is used to discover the truth, and it doesn't give a toss about my opinions.

This is the end product of your extreme centrism. Even the truth is too much for you to accept as that would mean again taking a stance in not tolerating bullshit.

No one has a stranglehold on truth, but I have to say, the regressive left certainly does try to override the truth by chanting. Very hard to accept the differences in races and sexes for example. The truth is not in their interest.

 

[Mac1958]

Always with the continuum.

I meant that what makes you think US could become a social democracy from the current position? The social democracies just like social security in US started from a position of strength. Now people can't even figure their genders as a result of those policies among other things.

Where is the money going to come from?

Haha...you noticed too huh?
Mac1958 loves the word continuum.

Indeed, I have to use it frequently for people locked in simplistic, binary little worlds.

Doesn't seem to work for them.
.

The extreme centrism of Mac is noted.

I get the sense from him that he is a door mat who is not allowed to have opinions of his own. He comes from a very diverse environment so I bet that this means there are all sorts of political opinions going about. The obvious solution is to bend over and proclaim that you are in the exact center and trying to understand everyone.

I have yet to see Mac take a strong stand for what HE actually believes in. That would be a welcome change. All the talk about the continuum is only about not offending other people.

Please read the second line of my sig. It's specifically for comments like yours. The link at the end of the second line of my sig provides of list of my specific positions on the issues. I'll be happy to discuss any upon request. Have you done that? So much for that one, huh?

And my use of the word "continuum" to describe political and economic systems only offends and triggers those whose thought processes have been simplified down to binary, all-or-nothing status. They don't want to burn time thinking outside their little box, because they have been specifically conditioned NOT to. So the thought that much of life exists on continuum is just a bit beyond them.

And by the way, I happily take incoming from both ends every single day here. In this very thread, in fact. Do you?

I don't have a nice, big, warm, cozy, comfy ideological Safe Space in which I can hide and from which I can fling poo.

And I don't need one.
.

I have read it before, I think it's bullshit. Especially the horseshoe theory is a false equivalency of galactic proportions. Only a completely blind idiot would fall for it. The left and the right are very different, and further left and right even further so.

I know you aren't a blind idiot, so then I suspect the answer is the convenience of saving face in an environment where there are variety of different views which you don't want to take sides in. Not surprisingly all your opinions can be summed by "it's safe and I won't have to take a stance".

As for continuum, it's funny that the continuum is a platonic construct that doesn't exist. It's clear that you don't have a safe space indeed, instead invent the imaginary "continuum" which can be waved to explain everything while saying nothing. You should start building up that safe space where you can safely express your real opinions, preferences and find the truth.

And by the way, neither end of the spectrum has a stranglehold on "The Truth", whatever that words means to you. In practice, it actually means nothing more than "stuff I agree with".
..

This epic line deserves a response of its own. No the truth does not mean whatever I want it to mean. Science is what is used to discover the truth, and it doesn't give a toss about my opinions.

This is the end product of your extreme centrism. Even the truth is too much for you to accept as that would mean again taking a stance in not tolerating bullshit.

No one has a stranglehold on truth, but I have to say, the regressive left certainly does try to override the truth by chanting. Very hard to accept the differences in races and sexes for example. The truth is not in their interest.

An example of my point.

Now, why do you have such a problem with the term "continuum" when you just agreed with my examples of the word? Is it the word itself that bothers you? Would you like another word used? "Saxophone", something like that?
.

 

[Norman]

Haha...you noticed too huh?
Mac1958 loves the word continuum.

Indeed, I have to use it frequently for people locked in simplistic, binary little worlds.

Doesn't seem to work for them.
.

The extreme centrism of Mac is noted.

I get the sense from him that he is a door mat who is not allowed to have opinions of his own. He comes from a very diverse environment so I bet that this means there are all sorts of political opinions going about. The obvious solution is to bend over and proclaim that you are in the exact center and trying to understand everyone.

I have yet to see Mac take a strong stand for what HE actually believes in. That would be a welcome change. All the talk about the continuum is only about not offending other people.

Please read the second line of my sig. It's specifically for comments like yours. The link at the end of the second line of my sig provides of list of my specific positions on the issues. I'll be happy to discuss any upon request. Have you done that? So much for that one, huh?

And my use of the word "continuum" to describe political and economic systems only offends and triggers those whose thought processes have been simplified down to binary, all-or-nothing status. They don't want to burn time thinking outside their little box, because they have been specifically conditioned NOT to. So the thought that much of life exists on continuum is just a bit beyond them.

And by the way, I happily take incoming from both ends every single day here. In this very thread, in fact. Do you?

I don't have a nice, big, warm, cozy, comfy ideological Safe Space in which I can hide and from which I can fling poo.

And I don't need one.
.

I have read it before, I think it's bullshit. Especially the horseshoe theory is a false equivalency of galactic proportions. Only a completely blind idiot would fall for it. The left and the right are very different, and further left and right even further so.

I know you aren't a blind idiot, so then I suspect the answer is the convenience of saving face in an environment where there are variety of different views which you don't want to take sides in. Not surprisingly all your opinions can be summed by "it's safe and I won't have to take a stance".

As for continuum, it's funny that the continuum is a platonic construct that doesn't exist. It's clear that you don't have a safe space indeed, instead invent the imaginary "continuum" which can be waved to explain everything while saying nothing. You should start building up that safe space where you can safely express your real opinions, preferences and find the truth.

This is why I don't burn a lot of time trying to hash this out here. Let's try something basic.

If we went to Single Payer, would that make us completely socialist? NO. If we then added, let's say, banks, would that make us completely socialist? NO. But it would certainly be one more step on the continuum to the Left. If when then added, let's say, production and distribution of textiles, would that make us completely socialist? NO. But it would be one more step.

That's a continuum.

Is this really that difficult to understand? Really?

And by the way, neither end of the spectrum has a stranglehold on "The Truth", whatever that words means to you. In practice, it actually means nothing more than "stuff I agree with".
..

No shit Sherlock, no one is denying this (correction: at least the amount of people you seem to think). You are the one that seems to be confusing effective rhetoric with a dialectic argument. And probably intentionally so you can go on with the continuums and not taking a stance.

No one is actually arguing that national health care is full blown socialism. It's just a slur.

Does that mean that you DO understand and agree with my use of the term "continuum", or not?

Maybe calm down and focus a bit.
.

Of course I understand what you mean. It's just in no way significant to about anything. Again, it seems that you are confusing slurs for an argument.

 

[Mac1958]

Of course I understand what you mean. It's just in no way significant to about anything. Again, it seems that you are confusing slurs for an argument.

Then I don't know why you complain when I point out the obvious. And if it's "in no way significant", I'm sure you won't mind if our health care and financial systems are nationalized. It's just the continuum, no big deal. It's not REAL socialism.

And the term "socialism" is just a "slur"? That's it? Interesting. Thanks for pointing that out.
.

 

[Norman]

Of course I understand what you mean. It's just in no way significant to about anything. Again, it seems that you are confusing slurs for an argument.

Then I don't know why you complain when I point out the obvious. And if it's "in no way significant", I'm sure you won't mind if our health care and financial systems are nationalized. It's just the continuum, no big deal. It's not REAL socialism.

And the term "socialism" is just a "slur"? That's it? Interesting. Thanks for pointing that out.
.

It seems like you are intentionally misinterpreting what I said, not clever.

I never said nationalizing the health care is not significant. The discovery that people use these words as slurs is in no way significant, nor does it explain much of anything. Nor does it have much to do with your continuum, in my experience the people fully get there is a continuum, they just reject certain things.

And obviously soialism is not "just a slur". But right wingers are conditioned to attack the enemy and slur them, calling them socialists. Socialism is very bad and most people know this... truth, so yes, it's a slur at least in America.

 

[Mac1958]

Of course I understand what you mean. It's just in no way significant to about anything. Again, it seems that you are confusing slurs for an argument.

Then I don't know why you complain when I point out the obvious. And if it's "in no way significant", I'm sure you won't mind if our health care and financial systems are nationalized. It's just the continuum, no big deal. It's not REAL socialism.

And the term "socialism" is just a "slur"? That's it? Interesting. Thanks for pointing that out.
.

It seems like you are intentionally misinterpreting what I said, not clever.

I never said nationalizing the health care is not significant. The discovery that people use these words as slurs is in no way significant, nor does it explain much of anything.

And obviously soialism is not "just a slur". But right wingers are conditioned to attack the enemy and slur them, calling them socialists. Socialism is very bad and most people know this... truth, so yes, it's a slur.

So again, I don't know what you're complaining about. You agree that this stuff exists on a continuum, although the word clearly bothers you.

I suspect you get cranky that I'm not an obedient partisan, and that I think for myself, so you try to discredit me by making stuff up.

That's fine with me. I have no such needs, but it's the internet, anything goes.
.

 

[Norman]

Of course I understand what you mean. It's just in no way significant to about anything. Again, it seems that you are confusing slurs for an argument.

Then I don't know why you complain when I point out the obvious. And if it's "in no way significant", I'm sure you won't mind if our health care and financial systems are nationalized. It's just the continuum, no big deal. It's not REAL socialism.

And the term "socialism" is just a "slur"? That's it? Interesting. Thanks for pointing that out.
.

It seems like you are intentionally misinterpreting what I said, not clever.

I never said nationalizing the health care is not significant. The discovery that people use these words as slurs is in no way significant, nor does it explain much of anything.

And obviously soialism is not "just a slur". But right wingers are conditioned to attack the enemy and slur them, calling them socialists. Socialism is very bad and most people know this... truth, so yes, it's a slur.

So again, I don't know what you're complaining about. You agree that this stuff exists on a continuum, although the word clearly bothers you.

I suspect you get cranky that I'm not an obedient partisan, and that I think for myself, so you try to discredit me by making stuff up.

That's fine with me. I have no such needs, but it's the internet, anything goes.
.

What? I just pointed out an error in your analysis, and you just ignore it?

What bothers me is that you fall back to this continuum as in any way relevant to explaining almost anything, when it's not. What also bothers me is that it sounds like you are a push over who wants to please everyone, which is probably why you do the above.

 

[Mac1958]

Of course I understand what you mean. It's just in no way significant to about anything. Again, it seems that you are confusing slurs for an argument.

Then I don't know why you complain when I point out the obvious. And if it's "in no way significant", I'm sure you won't mind if our health care and financial systems are nationalized. It's just the continuum, no big deal. It's not REAL socialism.

And the term "socialism" is just a "slur"? That's it? Interesting. Thanks for pointing that out.
.

It seems like you are intentionally misinterpreting what I said, not clever.

I never said nationalizing the health care is not significant. The discovery that people use these words as slurs is in no way significant, nor does it explain much of anything.

And obviously soialism is not "just a slur". But right wingers are conditioned to attack the enemy and slur them, calling them socialists. Socialism is very bad and most people know this... truth, so yes, it's a slur.

So again, I don't know what you're complaining about. You agree that this stuff exists on a continuum, although the word clearly bothers you.

I suspect you get cranky that I'm not an obedient partisan, and that I think for myself, so you try to discredit me by making stuff up.

That's fine with me. I have no such needs, but it's the internet, anything goes.
.

What? I just pointed out an error in your analysis, and you just ignore it?

What bothers me is that you fall back to this continuum as in any way relevant to explaining almost anything, when it's not. What also bothers me is that it sounds like you are a push over who wants to please everyone, which is probably why you do the above.

Well yes, since most of life falls along a continuum, since life can be complicated, I see no value in simplistic, shallow, binary thinking. It's counter-productive, as we're witnessing.

And since I take incoming from both ends every day - as you know - it's clear that I'm not trying to "please" anyone. Most people here are hardcore partisans who don't care much for independents. For obvious reasons. So I'm bitched at pretty frequently here. By both ends. The FIRST line of my sig addresses THAT.

Believe what you'd like, make stuff up, ignore the fact that I "take stands" constantly (including this conversation). I don't get it, but I don't have to.
.

 

[Norman]

Of course I understand what you mean. It's just in no way significant to about anything. Again, it seems that you are confusing slurs for an argument.

Then I don't know why you complain when I point out the obvious. And if it's "in no way significant", I'm sure you won't mind if our health care and financial systems are nationalized. It's just the continuum, no big deal. It's not REAL socialism.

And the term "socialism" is just a "slur"? That's it? Interesting. Thanks for pointing that out.
.

It seems like you are intentionally misinterpreting what I said, not clever.

I never said nationalizing the health care is not significant. The discovery that people use these words as slurs is in no way significant, nor does it explain much of anything.

And obviously soialism is not "just a slur". But right wingers are conditioned to attack the enemy and slur them, calling them socialists. Socialism is very bad and most people know this... truth, so yes, it's a slur.

So again, I don't know what you're complaining about. You agree that this stuff exists on a continuum, although the word clearly bothers you.

I suspect you get cranky that I'm not an obedient partisan, and that I think for myself, so you try to discredit me by making stuff up.

That's fine with me. I have no such needs, but it's the internet, anything goes.
.

What? I just pointed out an error in your analysis, and you just ignore it?

What bothers me is that you fall back to this continuum as in any way relevant to explaining almost anything, when it's not. What also bothers me is that it sounds like you are a push over who wants to please everyone, which is probably why you do the above.

Well yes, since most of life falls along a continuum, since life can be complicated, I see no value in simplistic, shallow, binary thinking. It's counter-productive, as we're witnessing.

And since I take incoming from both ends every day - as you know - it's clear that I'm not trying to "please" anyone. Most people here are hardcore partisans who don't care much for independents. For obvious reasons. So I'm bitched at pretty frequently here. By both ends. The FIRST line of my sig addresses THAT.

Believe what you'd like, make stuff up, ignore the fact that I "take stands" constantly (including this conversation). I don't get it, but I don't have to.
.

Your arguments are so DEEP, while my arguments are so SHALLOW, because... "continuum". This, I find very simplistic and serving only as a way to dismiss.

Arguing in these conversations is not the same as taking a stance detailing what it is you believe in and why. A total push over can still argue. Again, you are intentionally misinterpreting what I say.

 

[Mac1958]

Then I don't know why you complain when I point out the obvious. And if it's "in no way significant", I'm sure you won't mind if our health care and financial systems are nationalized. It's just the continuum, no big deal. It's not REAL socialism.

And the term "socialism" is just a "slur"? That's it? Interesting. Thanks for pointing that out.
.

It seems like you are intentionally misinterpreting what I said, not clever.

I never said nationalizing the health care is not significant. The discovery that people use these words as slurs is in no way significant, nor does it explain much of anything.

And obviously soialism is not "just a slur". But right wingers are conditioned to attack the enemy and slur them, calling them socialists. Socialism is very bad and most people know this... truth, so yes, it's a slur.

So again, I don't know what you're complaining about. You agree that this stuff exists on a continuum, although the word clearly bothers you.

I suspect you get cranky that I'm not an obedient partisan, and that I think for myself, so you try to discredit me by making stuff up.

That's fine with me. I have no such needs, but it's the internet, anything goes.
.

What? I just pointed out an error in your analysis, and you just ignore it?

What bothers me is that you fall back to this continuum as in any way relevant to explaining almost anything, when it's not. What also bothers me is that it sounds like you are a push over who wants to please everyone, which is probably why you do the above.

Well yes, since most of life falls along a continuum, since life can be complicated, I see no value in simplistic, shallow, binary thinking. It's counter-productive, as we're witnessing.

And since I take incoming from both ends every day - as you know - it's clear that I'm not trying to "please" anyone. Most people here are hardcore partisans who don't care much for independents. For obvious reasons. So I'm bitched at pretty frequently here. By both ends. The FIRST line of my sig addresses THAT.

Believe what you'd like, make stuff up, ignore the fact that I "take stands" constantly (including this conversation). I don't get it, but I don't have to.
.

Do you again see how you are using the "continuum" as a way to dismiss legitimate arguments? Because your arguments are so DEEP, while my arguments are so SHALLOW. This, I find very simplistic and serving only as a way to dismiss.

Arguing in these conversations is not the same as taking a stance detailing what it is you believe in and why. A total push over can still argue. Again, you are intentionally misinterpreting what I say.

As much as each tribe wants to make life simple and black & white, it just isn't.

And you're making an important error about my intent: When I see an argument or an opinion or a claim, my first impulse is to look for the opposing argument(s) so that I can compare and contrast them in my little brain. I don't take an argument, particularly from someone I know to be partisan, at face value.

So yes, when I see a partisan argument I immediately look for and consider contrary data. Guilty. I'm under zero obligation to fall in line with a tribe, because I don't belong to one.
..

 

[Two Thumbs]

A question for anyone who thinks of themselves as being anything to the Left of Dead Center:

I'm constantly told that the Left wants America to be just like Venezuela, that's there is essentially no difference between Venezuela and social democratic countries like Canada, Australia, Germany & Finland.

So, do you want America to be just like Venezuela, and if so, WHY, dammit!
.

they don't want it to be like Ven, they just want to do everything that was done there, feeling that magically it won't work out the same.


In 2030, the eu will ban the gas engine, Fin braces it's economy on oil, Fin looks like Ven in 10 years, unless the completely kneel before Germany

 

[sparky]

Outlandish non sequitur comparitives are the penchant of those who simply have no debate skills.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Is CAR capitalist or not?

As deepest darkest Africa goes.........not really.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Is CAR capitalist or not?

As deepest darkest Africa goes.........not really.

Sigh, are we really going to go this pathetically slow?

Do I need to ask the blatantly obvious questions?