Jump to content
Pebbles Bagley

When Did it Become Acceptable to Bring Politic of Hate into SL?

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, SeikariTheMierianShadow said:

^583F757FF6B5C5F7DC0CA4CA4CE926D21BD099CCDE16F26E7B^pimgpsh_fullsize_distr.jpg

Well, it looks brown to me but my synaesthesia doesn't extend to smell. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sukubia Scarmon said:

This thread was not enjoyable, especially not the part about socialism, welfare and lazyness. I have a good friend in SL who's a Trump supporter (I'm not, but I'm german so I do not vote for anyone in the US myself, d'uh) - we argued about that specific point. Obviously, we didn't agree - however, I listen to his points, and he listened to mine, and we came to the conclusion that it's complicated. I understood his perspective a little better, and he mine. I have a friend who's ultraleft,  who has some ideas and notions I do disagree with. Same with her. I listen to her, she to me, we try to understand each others perspective a little better, and keep that in mind. That's how I like my political discussions - civil and with empathy. Trying to understand, not to attack a percieved weakness.
However, for some it's a thing of passion. And I think that's okay as well. Heated diskussions can be good as well. As long as people can calm down again, I guess.

There's a club owner in world that's a support of the that dude and sometimes she mute his stream if an-Trump artist is played. She doesn't believe in politics in the club --- but sometimes brings them up in her MM group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

Image result for Any rational adult 2020

IBTL?

Rational adults don't run for national political office.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Orwar said:

maxresdefault.jpg

You owe me a beer.  A spewed mine on my cat and my laptop when I saw this!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Tolya, it's very apparent you are triggered by 'socialism', and have fears of some lazy person getting an education on your dime (as you stated earlier).  But what do you propose as the economic system by which the US should govern?   I'm afraid Capitalism isn't doing very well...something about the smoke near my daughters apartment and the fact that I can barely afford my increasing home insurance premium contributes to this belief.

Triggered by socialism?  No, not at all, although apparently a large number of Forumites are triggered by anyone who gainsays their fantasy world where it will work for anyone beyond the party elite. 

I am triggered by people who can't be bothered to deal with facts, who decide that when they don't like the definition of a word (ie. socialism) they decide to "rebrand" it (ie. claim non-socialist economies are socialist) because they want to follow the latest fad (ie. calling themselves socialists) and then resort to insults and making statements they have zero way of knowing if they're true.  Socialism itself, have it if you want - it's worked out real well for Venezuela and Cuba.

Sorry capitalism isn't working out for you personally.  Given that wages are growing at the fastest pace in years in the US, incomes are finally growing faster at the lower end of the scale than the higher, that capitalism is what rebuilt Western Europe and allows it to provide such generous social programs (for the time being anyway) and that the expansion of global capitalism over the last few decades has moved hundreds of millions of people out of extreme poverty and started creating real prosperity in dozens of countries around the world, it seems to be working pretty well for the majority of folks who live under it.

Sure, I know you'll claim none of this is true and someone will chime in with a trite "Faux News" bit, but the people who actually bother to educate themselves beyond what comes out of the television know it's true.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is person (a near-neighbour) on a region over from my home region. They have a election billboard on their front lawn. Trump 2020. I don't have any problem with them doing this.  If anything, in a democracy I much prefer a person to be open about their political beliefs rather than closed/closeted

if I was a US voter (which I am not) then I personally would never vote for Mr Trump.  His attitude toward inter-sectional issues leaves me cold. But that my SL near-neighbour may overlook this, in their support of Mr Trump for some other supposed benefit, then I will not ever deny them the opportunity (thru their billboard)  to be open about this

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

Triggered by socialism?  No, not at all, although apparently a large number of Forumites are triggered by anyone who gainsays their fantasy world where it will work for anyone beyond the party elite. 

Which would not be me.  

 

50 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

I am triggered by people who can't be bothered to deal with facts, who decide that when they don't like the definition of a word (ie. socialism) they decide to "rebrand" it (ie. claim non-socialist economies are socialist) because they want to follow the latest fad (ie. calling themselves socialists)

Odd, because that would be you—defining the word so narrowly as to make it ridiculous, and ignoring other very valid dictionary definitions in your selective cut and paste. I don't, never have, called myself a socialist. I have not waved socialism on this thread nor anywhere else as the Utopian ideal. However, it is a matter of fact that we are not living in a purely capitalistic society, nor are the Europeans or lots of other places. Saying those countries do NOT have some socialist policies is the height of misinformation. I did not, nor do I recall anyone in this thread saying the US or European economies are pure socialist economies. You are putting up straw men, because the facts just are not in your corner. As far as rebranding, you've been the one doing that in this thread. You call Bernie Sanders a socialist, but if you use your strict definition of the word, then he is clearly not. But then you termed him socialist-lite, claiming to rebrand. Having your cake and eating it too. Doesn't fly. Mixed metaphors notwithstanding.

Edited by Seicher Rae
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I don't care what people put int their profile or say. I like that they have the freedom to express themselves even if I don't agree as long as its within the TOS.

Everyone is different with different views, some people may not like my views either but at least I, and others, have the freedom to express.

If I see something I don't like I don't start an argument or do something to start issues, LL gave us the tools like mute and block so we can use them if needed.

Personally I don't think Ive ever muted anyone. I just don't hang around places that don't fit me.

Let people be people, freedom is a great thing. The more people don't let people be people the less freedom we will have.

Edited by SneakyBooger
typo
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Seicher Rae said:

Which would not be me.  

 

Odd, because that would be you—defining the word so narrowly as to make it ridiculous, and ignoring other very valid dictionary definitions in your selective cut and paste. I don't, never have, called myself a socialist. I have not waved socialism on this thread nor anywhere else as the Utopian ideal. However, it is a matter of fact that we are not living in a purely capitalistic society, nor are the Europeans or lots of other places. Saying those countries do NOT have some socialist policies is the height of misinformation. I did not, nor do I recall anyone in this thread saying the US or European economies are pure socialist economies. You are putting up straw men, because the facts just are not in your corner. As far as rebranding, you've been the one doing that in this thread. You call Bernie Sanders a socialist, but if you use your strict definition of the word, then he is clearly not. But then you termed him socialist-lite, claiming to rebrand. Having your cake and eating it too. Doesn't fly. Mixed metaphors notwithstanding.

Odd, because I am not the one who came up with the definition I used - it came from Webster.  Actual real "socialism" is by DEFINITION, any VALID definition, a state where the means of production are socially (call it by government or collective or whatever) owned. Your inability to grasp this simple FACT, the definition of a word that has been used in this manner for generations, is just plain ridiculous.  I do not recall whether it was you or someone else, but to pretend that one knows better what sort of economy Denmark has better than its own PM is truly the height of arrogant ignorance.

You are now trying to put words in my mouth.  Where did I remotely claim any country in Europe is "purely" capitalistic?  In point of fact, on one post I mocked libertarians for their delusion a pure capitalistic free market would be a utopia.

Bernie Sanders is an AVOWED socialist - he's said so over and over, and he's a fan of the SOVIET style and the VENEZUELA style of socialism - he's on film saying so.  He's done a nice job of rebranding himself as merely being interested in Northern European "socialism"

But, how about something far more interesting:

https://www.worlddata.info/average-*****size.php

Who knew Canadians were an inch bigger than Americans...

Edited by Tolya Ugajin
ETA you'll have to fill in the stars yourself...
  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

Who knew Canadians were an inch bigger than Americans...

Oh, I did.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

Odd, because I am not the one who came up with the definition I used - it came from Webster.  Actual real "socialism" is by DEFINITION, any VALID definition, a state where the means of production are socially (call it by government or collective or whatever) owned. Your inability to grasp this simple FACT, the definition of a word that has been used in this manner for generations, is just plain ridiculous.  I do not recall whether it was you or someone else, but to pretend that one knows better what sort of economy Denmark has better than its own PM is truly the height of arrogant ignorance.

 

I guess you find it ridiculous somewhere like Stanford uses a different broader definition?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/

meaning derives from usage, the thoughts and books written by those claiming to be Socialist relevant and a very different usage to the straw man that you prefer as a label of contempt and ridicule to prevent debate and to protect your interests. There is no-rebranding Socialism has always been a very broad range of opinion including market economies.

Arrogance and determined ignorance is not a good platform for projecting an attractive world view.

Edited by Aethelwine
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Norman Thomas ( six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America ) " We are socialists because we believe we live now in a world that requires a great deal of thoughtful planning ahead of time. We are socialists because we live in a world that is peculiarly interdependent, and to a degree quite unknown in earlier times. [...] We are socialists because we believe in this kind of world - in this anarchy of nations - we need to have a concept that the great purpose of life is to manage our extraordinary scientific and technological achievements and our resources for the common good. It’s not easy and it cannot be the byproduct of a game where everybody seeks the maximum profit for himself, either men or nations in that role. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

:::stuff and blah::: and putting words in my mouth and things typical for this sort of conversation

This is a good little starter article, that you'll no doubt decry as faux news because it comes from the WaPo. But it has a video, and so may aid in your comprehension: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/05/what-is-socialism/

However for a better discussion, that makes my point, try this one https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/  But you'll probably want to call them ignorant, too. 

You're the one who spouted how governments change, and that we're all going to be under a single ruler in the coming generations. Guess what? Language changes. Definitions of social constructs change, too. But keep clinging to one, and only one, definition of socialism and deny that any other exists. You'll be wrong, but go ahead, you do you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

I guess you find it ridiculous somewhere like Stanford uses a different broader definition?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/

meaning derives from usage, the thoughts and books written by those claiming to be Socialist relevant and a very different usage to the straw man that you prefer as a label of contempt and ridicule to prevent debate and to protect your interests. There is no-rebranding Socialism has always been a very broad range of opinion including market economies.

Arrogance and determined ignorance is not a good platform for projecting an attractive world view.

Hahaha. I posted my response to Tolya and then read the other comments I hadn't seen. I read yours and see you included the same link to Stanford's philosophy site. :)  Thank you for your comments along with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And while Tolya is harping on the PM of Denmark, here's something else he wrote, when Trump was throwing around the word "socialism": 

The translation:

I am participating at all times in a competition with the Americans about who has the best social model: Denmark or the United States? Because I know Denmark would win every time. Contrary to the United States, we have found a good balance between freedom and the community.

Yes, we pay a lot in taxes (and the taxes could surely be a little laverej too), but we get so much again.

Our children can get an education - no matter who you are and where you come from.

We can come to the hospital and get some help if we get sick. Whether we have a special insurance or a lot of money in the bank.

And if you become unemployed, run into problems or otherwise need a helping hand, the community is ready to seize and help you back on a right hand.

If there is one area where the Americans can beat Denmark, it is enough that they are better at praising themselves (some might exactly want to say brag about the things they are good at). We Danes probably look more critically at ourselves and our small country, while the Americans in big words and gestures rejoice in everything that goes well.

Maybe we just need to get better at bragging more about everything that we actually do really well. 😄

What are you most proud of about Denmark?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

But if I'm to be entirely honest, instead of scholarly articles and links, I'm much more wanting to do the following in response to the counterarguments being flopped about:

anigif_enhanced-28513-1429829386-2.gif.13eb7be7227445bde45ddb755a365ec0.gif

eyeroll2.gif.b31a9fb69637d57eea841e337b67433f.gif

649614729_taytayawkwar.gif.20c636170e5cbb9f897e98b54a77c90a.gif

and maybe even

 

 

Edited by Seicher Rae
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fwiw: Bernie is not my candidate of choice. That would be Mayor Pete. I prefer his more centrist positions. He won't get the nomination, though. The people I support never do, I'm kind of kryptonite like that. However, even if the choice comes down to Satan and Trump as @Orwar posted I'll vote for Satan as the lesser of two evils. I hope that the Sanders supporters who did the really stupid thing last time of saying and doing "If Bernie doesn't get the nomination we just won't vote" (or worse, voted for Trump!) don't do that this time. I think that cost us 2016.  The Dems got complacent and lost. I hope they don't do the same thing and assume that there's no way anyone would vote for four more years of surreal times, because you can bet that they will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Seicher Rae said:

I hope that the Sanders supporters who did the really stupid thing last time of saying and doing "If Bernie doesn't get the nomination we just won't vote" (or worse, voted for Trump!) don't do that this time. I think that cost us 2016.

I'll vote for Sanders in the primary. If he or Warren is the nominee, I'll cast a symbolic vote for them in the general election. If it's anyone else, I won't vote for president in the general election. Don't worry, it won't cost anyone the election thanks to the electoral college.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aethelwine said:

I guess you find it ridiculous somewhere like Stanford uses a different broader definition?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/

meaning derives from usage, the thoughts and books written by those claiming to be Socialist relevant and a very different usage to the straw man that you prefer as a label of contempt and ridicule to prevent debate and to protect your interests. There is no-rebranding Socialism has always been a very broad range of opinion including market economies.

Arrogance and determined ignorance is not a good platform for projecting an attractive world view.

Well, that is certainly a long scholarly article.  Let me see if I can sum it up:

1:  Socialism has lots of definitions (which the article then declines to offer up), but clearly makes this point relevant to its definition: " but socialism, unlike capitalism, requires that the bulk of the means of production workers use to yield goods and services be under the effective control of workers themselves, "  This, of course, is simply a restatement of the very definition I've put forth that so many seem to rile against

2:  We then move on to defining socialism in contrast to capitalism (apparently because our goal is to improve on capitalism and so we need to say "this is what's bad about capitalism, socialism is better), during which we assert "In contrast to capitalism, socialism can be defined as a type of society in which, at a minimum, (i) is turned into (i*):i*) The bulk of the means of production is under social, democratic control."

This of course is again the same definition.  Here I'll repeat, as I have before, that this is NOT a feature of the Scandanavian nations today.

3:  After that, we discuss debates as to the degree of some aspects of capitalism we want to keep and still call ourselves "socialist" while of course, retaining that minimum requirement stated above, namely that "The bulk of the means of production is under social, democratic control."".  This includes an aside to admonition us that socialism is not statism (a nice way to distance "our socialism" from that failed socialism of Stalin, but, of course, we're not rebranding here, oh most certainly not). 

4:  We move on to a rather lengthy exaltation of our ideals and hopes and dreams as socialists, and the evils of capitalism - none of which alters a whit the prior minimal requirement for a society to be defined as "socialism", namely "The bulk of the means of production is under social, democratic control."

5:  We then move on to a lengthy discussion of how we design socialist institutions.  We begin with central planning, including how it's failed when actually tried, but how we're sure we can do better.  Then we talk about "market socialism" - which apparently you do not hold to be a "rebranding" of socialism at all, despite it being a grudging admission that some capitalist features (markets being listed earlier as a feature of capitalism) should be retained.  But, of course, these "market socialism" models (and they are all models) all retain that pesky central feature that DEFINES socialism, namely, "the bulk of the means of production is under social, democratic control.".   The economic democracy model retains ownership by the state, but leases the means of production to to workers (so now controlled by workers).  The Carensian model features uniform post-tax income (a de facto acknowledgement that the government own both the means as well as the fruits of production and controls its distribution).  And so on - all wonderful ideas for how we can adapt capitalist features into our socialist economy (because it's always failed in the past and here's how we make it work) while maintaining the ownership of the means of production by society, not individuals.

I'm not real sure what you intended to accomplish by having me read this long (albeit well reasoned, researched, and written) article.  It does a great job of reinforcing the definition of socialism I provided, and lays out a whole host of attempts to rebrand socialism with capitalist features while retaining that core principle.  Nowhere does it make the unfounded suggestion that merely having an advanced welfare system (ie. as the Northern European countries have) qualifies as "socialism".   But, I will give you this, providing this article (assuming you actually read it first, which is questionable, as you seem to have stopped at the "forty definitions" statement at the beginning, and then not noticed that, in effect, your scholar backs me up) was the best attempt at refuting me.

So, I'll leave you with this, as it is time for bed and I've really lost interest in this subject:

 

image.png.1014776a6799838444280db1157ac89c.png 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

"The bulk of the means of production is under social, democratic control."

Is present in just about every society including the USA. If it wasn't for regulations factories would be polluting more, workers would have no contracts of employment etc. (like the Capitalist system was as advocated when socialist thought developed).

Trump announced a flavored vape ban last year, and has since backed down to just banning some flavors in closed pod systems. That is regulation of the market, by a system under social and democratic control. Regulations counter productive to those trying to quit smoking, but social, democratic regulation all the same. That is not to say Trump should be less socialist, just that he and his administration should look beyond the power and influence of special interest groups (Big Tobacco, Juul etc) and make policy based on the social good instead.

Dismissing socialism because of a narrow straw man view of it, is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. It just makes the person being dismissive look daft and unreasonable to anyone outside the echo chamber of Right wing US politics.

Edited by Aethelwine
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2020 at 1:58 PM, Samie Bagley said:

In these last two days, I had encounters with Trump supporters who filled their profiles with hateful messages. Specifically, profile pictures showing gun violence, groups promoting lies that were discredit by US and UK intelligence, and groups promoting violence toward others. All were reported to LL.

As a result of these encounter and awareness of LL's permissible attitude toward the introduction of politics of hate in SL, I am no longer a premium member. I refuse to financially support an organization that allows the spewing of hate as evidenced by my encounters with MAGATS.

I am deeply disappointed at LL's lack of action in the insertion of politics into SL, and even more disappointed with the LL's inaction toward the infusion of politics of hate in SL.  I am wondering of anyone else has had similar experiences and how people have handled/reacted/felt in these situations. 

 

Best regards,

 

-Pebbles

I had to actually unfollow my rl father on face book because of the political posts he makes.. (born again Christian Trump supporter) I am not sure why the Trump supporters have such hate in their hearts..

  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...