When I was young we were locked in an ideologic battle with the Soviet Union where they were trying to propagate their system and we were trying to propagate ours. And we were inundated with pro-democracy/capitalist propaganda -- and a ton of anti-communist propaganda.
And I believed every word of it.
But, what confused me was why so many countries (especially poor ones) chose Communism -- Cuba is the most obvious example but far from the only one.
Later, it dawned on me that Communism simply met their particular needs better.
Many had been abused by colonialists and unscrupulous capitalists taking advantage of a poor people with a corrupt government. Eventually, we even passed laws (like anti-bribery) against our own corporations while operating overseas.
Oh boy. Tell me...did it occur to you that Communists are tyrants who seize power, murder their opposition and brutally oppress the population? People don't "choose" to live under tyranny. ... according to capitalist ideology and propaganda
Finished that for you....
The truth is: neither is perfect -- each has strengths and weaknesses. And, to be successful over time, both rely on intelligent leadership who puts the interests of the country and its people first -- and is not bound by either ideology or theology. Instead, they just do the right thing for country and its people.
Just, wow. Tell that to the 100 million people Communism has killed.
How about you tell that to the 1/4 million Afghans that we killed? Or even the 6 kids we murdered last week.
Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoquelogical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.[1][2][3]
According to Russian writer, chess grandmaster and political activist Garry Kasparov, whataboutism is a word that was coined to describe the frequent use of a rhetorical diversion by Soviet apologists and dictators, who would counter charges of their oppression, "massacres, gulags, and forced deportations" by invoking American slavery, racism, lynchings, etc.[4] Whataboutism has been used by other politicians and countries as well. Whataboutism is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.[5][6][7]
Now you've mastered the same Whataboutism for defending the PRC.
No, rather you've mastered a version of gas lighting: pointing the finger at others in order to distract from your own crimes.
To you, it's OK that we murder children. But an allegation that China is teaching them communism provokes outrage from you.
I would actually see the "teaching" of Xi Jinping thoughts as "brainwashing", given the age of the children, and the lack of a broad range of information accessible to them. Is that why you are so biased towards the PRC, because you lack a broad range of information access? Perhaps you too are brainwashed by PRC propaganda.
I don't think it's me who's been brainwashed
Is your only approach to debate "I know you are but what am I?"
Jfc, this is the height of tedium, you're such a waste of time.
GeorgeBMac said: I would think it would be something like: the gaming company identifies the user as a student (by their age) and only opens up their gaming platform to them between 8:00-9:00pm Friday, Saturday and Sunday.
Apple already does similar with controls on things like Apple Cash that can only be used by a child under a parent's Family Plan.
I can't remember if I already mentioned this, but there are also huge cultural differences. I recently was listening to a podcast a Korean friend of mine was on, and he was talking about the differences between Korea, Canada, and the USA in terms of how people react to this kind of thing. In Korea, he was saying the idea of even questioning not adhering to this kind of thing would be much less common. So, they might not even need much in terms of systems in place, if families (and their child/social development philosophy) is in line with it.
sdw2001 said: ... There is no real freedom of speech in the U.K., Germany or Canada for that matter. ...
Yeah, that's playing out right now in Canada (though is the USA doing any better?), especially around freedom of the press. The emperor funds the media companies and sends tax-payer gifts to the ones who do his bidding, while those not on the dole, have to even fight in court for the right to attend gov't press events and hope to be able to ask questions, etc.
crowley said: ... Who is arguing that the USA, or any other Western country should turn into the Soviet Union? Practically no one. ...
I don't think we're arguing *should*... it just will happen. Economics is more a social science than one of math.
crowley said: ... And the goals of each should be pretty clear, giving people what they need to live their lives fruitfully and happily; the ultimate aim of socialist policies. That goal is often not best delivered with a profit mindset, and actually it can be the profit focus that undermines the efficacy of the capitalist system. ...
Without the profit aspect, what is the driver? I agree that profit driver can get out of control, especially in light of corruption, but IMO it is easier to keep in check, than are the problems with socialism/Communism. It is way easier to put checks and balances which keep gov't from being corrupted by that profit, than it is to keep them from being corrupted by their hunger for power and own self-interests. (We're seeing that in spades during this pandemic! The phrase 'drunk with power' comes to mind.)
crowley said: ... And that's the extreme position, that socialism is tyranny, period. ...
Until human nature is fixed, that is the inevitable path. Spoiler alert, human nature isn't getting fixed, no matter how many Star Trek episodes one watches.
crowley said: There is freedom of speech in every meaningful way in the UK, Germany and Canada. Maybe not in the hysterical sense that it is interpreted in the USA, but no one has ever told me I can't say anything I've wanted to say when I've been in any of those places, even when it's been critical of the government or authority. Down with the Queen, and the Church, and the Parliament. In any case, aren't you arguing that these aren't socialist countries? What point are you even trying to make other than flexing some nationalist muscles?
Well fortunately (or unfortunately for those living in these places), we seem to be witnessing that crumble right before our eyes. That used to be the case, because we were riding on some statements put on paper (with no foundation), hitching a free-ride on a Judeo-Christian culture built over centuries. The USA had something way more special, as the Constitution has grounding, but even that won't last if the people don't hold the government to it, the judicial aspect goes corrupt to enforce it, etc.
sdw2001 said: ... Outside of defense, law enforcement and public infrastructure, the government generally cannot do anything as well as the private sector can. ...
I might add health-care to the list with some stipulations. I don't think capitalist models suit it well, at least not at the hospital/patient/doctor level... and of course we're all witnessing runaway big-pharma and how destructive that can be at this point. I don't think a pure socialist type health-care system works, but neither does a pure capitalist one. We need some kind of hybrid system. I've been relatively happy with Canada's system until more recently. I think it's a fairly good shot at a blend.
sdw2001 said: ... Socialism is the government controlling the means of production. Anything else is not Socialism. ...
Hmm, I suppose that is technically true, but wouldn't it be better to look at it more on a spectrum, where you have socialism at one end (well, excluding Communism, Totalitarianism, etc.) and laissez-faire / crony-capitalism at the other? If you tip too far either way, you end up with problems because neither keeps human nature in check.
IMO, we've been way too much towards the laissez-faire end of the spectrum, so some correction is good. But, it seems we're rapidly trying to head towards that other end, at least in what too many seem to want.
crowley said: .. Yes you can call a trans female a guy in a dress. If you do it in certain professional circumstances or in a particularly abusive way then you might get in trouble for it. And rightly so because it's unprofessional and/or abusive. I have no desire to call any trans female (I know a couple) a "guy in a dress", so I don't consider that a meaningful freedom, it's an insane, sociopathic one, and I think it's a much greater freedom for transgender people to be able to go about their day without being abused.
Yes you can hold worship services, you just might be limited to location and attendance, because of course, that's what a pandemic lockdown is for, and it would be insane to have anything different. Not a meaningful freedom, an insane, sociopathic one, and I think it's a much greater freedom to have a country free from highly contagious, killer viruses. ...
I won't chase down these rabbit holes any further beyond a couple *necessary* comments. While it certainly has been a good thing to have some correction against abuse of these people, we've gone WAY, WAY beyond that correction, into abuse of anyone not supporting their positions. No matter how you want to look at it, that is dangerous. For example, what if we'd made it unthinkable to be able to try and convince people that smoking was harmful?
And, the problem isn't that churches should be included in lockdown orders or not, but the lockdown orders in the first place (beyond a week or two to try and buy some time). Unless someone can show me some new data, the science on this was quite clear prior to 2019 and can be read about in the WHO guidelines from that time period (along with all the studies cited backing the position up).
sdw2001 said: There it is. You'd rather have the government tell you where and when you can have a religious service because they tell you there is a threat, and they will keep you safe. Liberty be damned. Freedom of movement, of association, of worship, of protest be damned. Unless you're holding a Black Lives Matter sign, right? Either you think people can make their own decisions, or you think government needs to decide. Obviously you're chosen the latter. I choose the former. Give me the data on the virus and I will decide whether or not I gather with others. I, as a free person, will decide whether to wear a mask, subject to any rules in government buildings or from private business owners.
I tend to agree with you, but I'm curious if you think there could never be any limitations on that. (Kind of the 'on paper' vs reality problem.) I get the slippery slope gain of power/loss of freedoms thing, but it also seems there could be some limited (both time/power) exceptions. The problem here wasn't so much the immediate reaction (ie. two weeks to flatten the curve) but that it lasted WELL beyond two weeks. And, two weeks is being generous given the scientific literature. This should have never dragged on or went further than that, once we learned the nature of what we were dealing with.
crowley said: I don't really understand why so much of the USA, the richest, most powerful country in the world is so afraid so much of the time. I sometimes wonder if it's because you guys were born in glorious revolution, that you'll always be scarred with the memories of revolution, or if the American Dream is really just a delusional positive spin on a much deeper American Fear that you're paralysed to do anything about. Other western countries seem to have a much better grounding of their place in the world, and don't indulge in nearly as much of this hysteria. I don't think I even heard the word tyranny outside of a historical context until I started being interested in American politics, and it's absolutely everywhere. It's nuts.
I think it's because we know how fragile and expensive the freedoms are, and how easily they are lost.
waveparticle said: I am with George. "The truth is: neither is perfect -- each has strengths and weaknesses. And, to be successful over time, both rely on intelligent leadership who puts the interests of the country and its people first -- and is not bound by either ideology or theology. Instead, they just do the right thing for country and its people."
Me too, except that will never happen. Again, social science, not pure math/philosophy.
GeorgeBMac said: It's because FauxNews and its clones constantly stoke fear and hatred. It's their primary product. Maybe their only product.
The U.S. prides itself on a "free press" but has not come to terms with the power of propaganda and how its supposedly free press can be used to propagate ideological extremism. Generally, it does that not by telling out right lies, but by only telling one side of the story or twisting the dial just enough that a lie appears to be true.
And, all the while it pushes fear and hate: "The world is filled with evil and bad guys and only we can save you, the good guys!"
As long as you realize it isn't just Fox, I'll mostly agree. All you have to do is find some of those 'surperclips' montages where you can almost overlay the 'message' as said by pretty much every news channel. Fox is just the foil to the rest of the mainstream.
GeorgeBMac said: And here we want to teach Critical Race Theory... We condemn the Taliban the for imposing their religion on women -- while Texas so called "Christians" just did the same -- and our Supreme Court just looked the other way.
Abortion is NOT a religion-only issue.
waveparticle said: You failed to defend this abortion law is not authoritative. Texas Republicans got control of the legislation by maybe 55% or 60% margin. Yet they are able to pass a law that is objected to by 40% or 45% of the population. And you think this is not authoritative. I cannot imagine majority of Texas women is for this law that infringes on their freedom.
Moral right and wrong aren't determined by popularity.
crowley said: I don't really understand why so much of the USA, the richest, most powerful country in the world is so afraid so much of the time. I sometimes wonder if it's because you guys were born in glorious revolution, that you'll always be scarred with the memories of revolution, or if the American Dream is really just a delusional positive spin on a much deeper American Fear that you're paralysed to do anything about. Other western countries seem to have a much better grounding of their place in the world, and don't indulge in nearly as much of this hysteria. I don't think I even heard the word tyranny outside of a historical context until I started being interested in American politics, and it's absolutely everywhere. It's nuts.
I think it's because we know how fragile and expensive the freedoms are, and how easily they are lost.
waveparticle said: I am with George. "The truth is: neither is perfect -- each has strengths and weaknesses. And, to be successful over time, both rely on intelligent leadership who puts the interests of the country and its people first -- and is not bound by either ideology or theology. Instead, they just do the right thing for country and its people."
Me too, except that will never happen. Again, social science, not pure math/philosophy.
GeorgeBMac said: It's because FauxNews and its clones constantly stoke fear and hatred. It's their primary product. Maybe their only product.
The U.S. prides itself on a "free press" but has not come to terms with the power of propaganda and how its supposedly free press can be used to propagate ideological extremism. Generally, it does that not by telling out right lies, but by only telling one side of the story or twisting the dial just enough that a lie appears to be true.
And, all the while it pushes fear and hate: "The world is filled with evil and bad guys and only we can save you, the good guys!"
As long as you realize it isn't just Fox, I'll mostly agree. All you have to do is find some of those 'surperclips' montages where you can almost overlay the 'message' as said by pretty much every news channel. Fox is just the foil to the rest of the mainstream.
GeorgeBMac said: And here we want to teach Critical Race Theory... We condemn the Taliban the for imposing their religion on women -- while Texas so called "Christians" just did the same -- and our Supreme Court just looked the other way.
Abortion is NOT a religion-only issue.
waveparticle said: You failed to defend this abortion law is not authoritative. Texas Republicans got control of the legislation by maybe 55% or 60% margin. Yet they are able to pass a law that is objected to by 40% or 45% of the population. And you think this is not authoritative. I cannot imagine majority of Texas women is for this law that infringes on their freedom.
Moral right and wrong aren't determined by popularity.
Morality is not an absolute standard. It is very debatable. In Chinese culture younger people has to obey older people. This is Chinese morality. Do you support it? Ethics is an absolute thing. European philosopher has written a book on this. You know his name.
sdw2001 said: 3. We have background checks, and while I generally support them, I question their efficacy. I oppose any further restrictions not just on Constitutional grounds, but efficacy grounds. There are things we could do, like banning private sales or requiring checks from non FFL dealers (e.g. a father to son sale, neighbor, etc.). But there's no evidence this would reduce gun crime or death rates. Is it socialism? It's certainly a loss of liberty to pass more restrictions.
Yeah, I don't think most people outside the USA (and these days, a lot of those in it) understand the reason for the right to bear arms. It isn't primarily for home protection or hunting. It is a right that exists to back up the other rights. In other words, at least in theory, a right to 'transition' a government that has gotten out of control.
As for what works or doesn't, I'll just put this out there. Americans have always owned a lot of guns. Only more recently have the problems involving guns so dramatically increased. To put it simply, I don't think the issue is the presence of guns. I've seen no argument to counter that, only the idea that less guns *might* make it harder to carry out such attacks. That may be true, but maybe we should try to figure out why the attacks in the first place, no?
crowley said: Sure, no evidence that lockdowns work, except that New Zealand has had one confirmed case, and both it and Australia are a case study in how to manage a pandemic.
Only if you cherry pick the countries/areas you graph. It's also kind of amazing that even though restrictions and implementation points varied, the curves roughly have followed the expected models for a respiratory virus.
GeorgeBMac said: TMay bought into Trump's smear campaign -- which morphed into a hatred of communism because it sounds much better than a hatred of a country who is beating us at our own game: capitalism. But weirdly, although he claims to hate communism, China seems to be the only communist country he hates.
But, I think you are right that this is a cultural thing: Trumpism is a cultural phenomena -- it is the last bastion of the chest thumping, flag waving misguided idiots who think America is perfect and has an obligation to remake the world in its own image.
I think there were a lot of reasons to hate Communism long before Trump came along. The boogyman just changed from Russia to China briefly. While all countries have their troubled histories, and the USA isn't always what it claims, etc. you're not really going to say China is just another capitalist country like the USA, right? Exaggeration and propaganda aside, there are a lot of issues with China, and I do think they are a threat of left unchecked.
re: Trumpism - Yes, that certainly exists, but I think it was a lot more that Trump wasn't the alternatives for most of us. I have no illusion that America is perfect, but I think some of the ideologies and foundations are 2nd to none. I don't like the warmonger, 'neocon' (extremely bi-partisan, btw!) push to regime-change every country that threatened the supremacy of America, but I also don't think opposing countries with problematic ideologies and practices is necessarily bad either.
GeorgeBMac said: .. And we need to challenge it at every opportunity because it is the greatest threat to our democracy.
... The greatest, most powerful weapon we have against it is to shine the light of truth on it.
Well, we certainly agree on this point (which, btw, was what Trump meant with his 'enemy of the people' commentary). The question is what does one do when the entire system is setup to promote misinformation and censor any opposing information?
waveparticle said: Morality is not an absolute standard. It is very debatable. In Chinese culture younger people has to obey older people. This is Chinese morality. Do you support it? Ethics is an absolute thing. European philosopher has written a book on this. You know his name.
I think ethics is simply a study of morality. Morality is absolute (or effectively non-existent), take your pick. You might be confusing morality and law. Law is an attempt (hopefully!) to regulate behavior to moral standards. But, laws can also be completely immoral.
But, you're probably right about Chinese culture, which is why these kind of gaming restrictions might work effectively there (while they seem unimaginable here w/o a bunch of tech to enforce them).
Comments
Jfc, this is the height of tedium, you're such a waste of time.
Yeah, that's playing out right now in Canada (though is the USA doing any better?), especially around freedom of the press. The emperor funds the media companies and sends tax-payer gifts to the ones who do his bidding, while those not on the dole, have to even fight in court for the right to attend gov't press events and hope to be able to ask questions, etc.
I don't think we're arguing *should*... it just will happen. Economics is more a social science than one of math.
Without the profit aspect, what is the driver? I agree that profit driver can get out of control, especially in light of corruption, but IMO it is easier to keep in check, than are the problems with socialism/Communism. It is way easier to put checks and balances which keep gov't from being corrupted by that profit, than it is to keep them from being corrupted by their hunger for power and own self-interests. (We're seeing that in spades during this pandemic! The phrase 'drunk with power' comes to mind.)
Until human nature is fixed, that is the inevitable path. Spoiler alert, human nature isn't getting fixed, no matter how many Star Trek episodes one watches.
Well fortunately (or unfortunately for those living in these places), we seem to be witnessing that crumble right before our eyes. That used to be the case, because we were riding on some statements put on paper (with no foundation), hitching a free-ride on a Judeo-Christian culture built over centuries. The USA had something way more special, as the Constitution has grounding, but even that won't last if the people don't hold the government to it, the judicial aspect goes corrupt to enforce it, etc.
I might add health-care to the list with some stipulations. I don't think capitalist models suit it well, at least not at the hospital/patient/doctor level... and of course we're all witnessing runaway big-pharma and how destructive that can be at this point. I don't think a pure socialist type health-care system works, but neither does a pure capitalist one. We need some kind of hybrid system. I've been relatively happy with Canada's system until more recently. I think it's a fairly good shot at a blend.
Hmm, I suppose that is technically true, but wouldn't it be better to look at it more on a spectrum, where you have socialism at one end (well, excluding Communism, Totalitarianism, etc.) and laissez-faire / crony-capitalism at the other? If you tip too far either way, you end up with problems because neither keeps human nature in check.
IMO, we've been way too much towards the laissez-faire end of the spectrum, so some correction is good. But, it seems we're rapidly trying to head towards that other end, at least in what too many seem to want.
I won't chase down these rabbit holes any further beyond a couple *necessary* comments. While it certainly has been a good thing to have some correction against abuse of these people, we've gone WAY, WAY beyond that correction, into abuse of anyone not supporting their positions. No matter how you want to look at it, that is dangerous. For example, what if we'd made it unthinkable to be able to try and convince people that smoking was harmful?
And, the problem isn't that churches should be included in lockdown orders or not, but the lockdown orders in the first place (beyond a week or two to try and buy some time). Unless someone can show me some new data, the science on this was quite clear prior to 2019 and can be read about in the WHO guidelines from that time period (along with all the studies cited backing the position up).
I tend to agree with you, but I'm curious if you think there could never be any limitations on that. (Kind of the 'on paper' vs reality problem.) I get the slippery slope gain of power/loss of freedoms thing, but it also seems there could be some limited (both time/power) exceptions. The problem here wasn't so much the immediate reaction (ie. two weeks to flatten the curve) but that it lasted WELL beyond two weeks. And, two weeks is being generous given the scientific literature. This should have never dragged on or went further than that, once we learned the nature of what we were dealing with.
Me too, except that will never happen. Again, social science, not pure math/philosophy.
As long as you realize it isn't just Fox, I'll mostly agree. All you have to do is find some of those 'surperclips' montages where you can almost overlay the 'message' as said by pretty much every news channel. Fox is just the foil to the rest of the mainstream.
Abortion is NOT a religion-only issue.
Moral right and wrong aren't determined by popularity.
As for what works or doesn't, I'll just put this out there. Americans have always owned a lot of guns. Only more recently have the problems involving guns so dramatically increased. To put it simply, I don't think the issue is the presence of guns. I've seen no argument to counter that, only the idea that less guns *might* make it harder to carry out such attacks. That may be true, but maybe we should try to figure out why the attacks in the first place, no?
Only if you cherry pick the countries/areas you graph. It's also kind of amazing that even though restrictions and implementation points varied, the curves roughly have followed the expected models for a respiratory virus.
I think there were a lot of reasons to hate Communism long before Trump came along. The boogyman just changed from Russia to China briefly. While all countries have their troubled histories, and the USA isn't always what it claims, etc. you're not really going to say China is just another capitalist country like the USA, right? Exaggeration and propaganda aside, there are a lot of issues with China, and I do think they are a threat of left unchecked.
re: Trumpism - Yes, that certainly exists, but I think it was a lot more that Trump wasn't the alternatives for most of us. I have no illusion that America is perfect, but I think some of the ideologies and foundations are 2nd to none. I don't like the warmonger, 'neocon' (extremely bi-partisan, btw!) push to regime-change every country that threatened the supremacy of America, but I also don't think opposing countries with problematic ideologies and practices is necessarily bad either.
Well, we certainly agree on this point (which, btw, was what Trump meant with his 'enemy of the people' commentary). The question is what does one do when the entire system is setup to promote misinformation and censor any opposing information?
But, you're probably right about Chinese culture, which is why these kind of gaming restrictions might work effectively there (while they seem unimaginable here w/o a bunch of tech to enforce them).