Page 49 of 51 FirstFirst ... 394748495051 LastLast
Results 481 to 490 of 509

Thread: Progressivism/Socialism/Communism; a failed Ideology

  1. #481
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    new zealand.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,194

    Re: Progressivism/Socialism/Communism; a failed Ideology

    Quote Originally Posted by danielpalos View Post
    Capitalism died in 1929 and socialism has been bailing us out in the US, ever since. It is like Palmolive, you are soaking in it. Only the right wing, never gets it.
    As you can see from americans comments you are both talking about completely different things. His argument like that of many americans is simply the creating of a really stupid way of doing socialism and then insisting that that is the only way it can be done.

  2. #482
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    US, California - federalist
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    13,323

    Re: Progressivism/Socialism/Communism; a failed Ideology

    Quote Originally Posted by soylentgreen View Post
    As you can see from americans comments you are both talking about completely different things. His argument like that of many americans is simply the creating of a really stupid way of doing socialism and then insisting that that is the only way it can be done.
    yes, the right wing only alleges to be for Capitalism, in Socialism threads.

  3. #483
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    581

    Re: Progressivism/Socialism/Communism; a failed Ideology

    Quote Originally Posted by bomberfox View Post
    Some don't seem to understand relentless outrage is free expression.
    Freedom of speech does cover the right to relentlessly express your outrage. It obviously also covers saying something others will find outrageous.

    If someone wishes to argue over the value of a statement, or the proper way to express an idea, I do not have any problem with that. In fact, the whole point about protecting freedom of speech is that disagreements should be settled on the basis of argumentation and not on the basis of force. My problem lies entirely with the authoritarian types who will try by virtually all means necessary to prevent an open discussion to take place. It's the crazies on the far left who call theaters with fake bombs and fire threats to have events cancel, who doxx those with whom they disagree, who seek to drown people in a barrage of noise, who make widespread use of libel and slander, who pound on doors and windows so as to discourage dissenting voices from being heard, etc. Those all happened recently in both the US and Canada.

    I never said it concerned everyone left of center. It concerns only radicals who adhere to some version of identity politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by bomberfox View Post
    You have no idea what you are talking about.
    That is a pointless personal attack that is both off-topic and without foundation. Moreover, I actually know what I am talking about.

    The theory behind identity politics is set to explain the totality of social facts as emerging from the conflicts of groups between groups. The parallels between that and Marxism go in fact a lot further than the expansion of the class conflict into that of group conflict because it is often argued that there is also a form of group conscience: ideas are thought to be incommensurate across groups, rendering language itself meaningless. And, as with Marx, language is a tool used by the powerful to subjugate the powerless.

    The primary impulse behind this view is a problem that emerged in epistemology during the 20th century. The more modern view of how knowledge is justified would be exemplified by people such as Rudolph Carnap or Karl Popper, though Carnap held a much stronger position on the possibility of knowledge during his early career. For people who didn't read them, it's the idea that you can make sense of facts and adjudicate between competing explanations of those facts. Carnap's early views would allow someone to accept an explanation, while Popper would say that ideas can at best be falsified -- never proven, but potentially disproven. An important critique of that point of view was made by Quine in the 1950s and, if I recall, he borrowed an example from Duhem, hence the name of the Duhem-Quine problem. Formally, it emerges as a consequence of the fact that theories are underdetermined by facts. For example, auxiliary assumptions are required to test any hypothesis, meaning you always test the conjunctions of all those claims and never any single claim alone. Quine expanded the idea and said in his original paper that, in a certain sense, you always test ALL of your knowledge at once. That problem can also be stated in terms of the admissible plurality of explanations for any given set of facts: many perfectly rational ways exist to look at the same data.

    The postmodern response to this conundrum in terms of epistemology is social constructivism.

  4. #484
    Guru bomberfox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    3,293

    Re: Progressivism/Socialism/Communism; a failed Ideology

    Quote Originally Posted by TheEconomist View Post
    Freedom of speech does cover the right to relentlessly express your outrage. It obviously also covers saying something others will find outrageous.

    If someone wishes to argue over the value of a statement, or the proper way to express an idea, I do not have any problem with that. In fact, the whole point about protecting freedom of speech is that disagreements should be settled on the basis of argumentation and not on the basis of force. My problem lies entirely with the authoritarian types who will try by virtually all means necessary to prevent an open discussion to take place. It's the crazies on the far left who call theaters with fake bombs and fire threats to have events cancel, who doxx those with whom they disagree, who seek to drown people in a barrage of noise, who make widespread use of libel and slander, who pound on doors and windows so as to discourage dissenting voices from being heard, etc. Those all happened recently in both the US and Canada.

    I never said it concerned everyone left of center. It concerns only radicals who adhere to some version of identity politics.



    That is a pointless personal attack that is both off-topic and without foundation. Moreover, I actually know what I am talking about.

    The theory behind identity politics is set to explain the totality of social facts as emerging from the conflicts of groups between groups. The parallels between that and Marxism go in fact a lot further than the expansion of the class conflict into that of group conflict because it is often argued that there is also a form of group conscience: ideas are thought to be incommensurate across groups, rendering language itself meaningless. And, as with Marx, language is a tool used by the powerful to subjugate the powerless.

    The primary impulse behind this view is a problem that emerged in epistemology during the 20th century. The more modern view of how knowledge is justified would be exemplified by people such as Rudolph Carnap or Karl Popper, though Carnap held a much stronger position on the possibility of knowledge during his early career. For people who didn't read them, it's the idea that you can make sense of facts and adjudicate between competing explanations of those facts. Carnap's early views would allow someone to accept an explanation, while Popper would say that ideas can at best be falsified -- never proven, but potentially disproven. An important critique of that point of view was made by Quine in the 1950s and, if I recall, he borrowed an example from Duhem, hence the name of the Duhem-Quine problem. Formally, it emerges as a consequence of the fact that theories are underdetermined by facts. For example, auxiliary assumptions are required to test any hypothesis, meaning you always test the conjunctions of all those claims and never any single claim alone. Quine expanded the idea and said in his original paper that, in a certain sense, you always test ALL of your knowledge at once. That problem can also be stated in terms of the admissible plurality of explanations for any given set of facts: many perfectly rational ways exist to look at the same data.

    The postmodern response to this conundrum in terms of epistemology is social constructivism.
    Since you have provided literally no examples of these extremists, i cant know what the hell you are talking about.

    Actually vast swaths of political movements all throughout history can be described as identity politics. You engage in it and i engage in it. It is politics based on furthering the interests based on groups you identify with. Labor, middle class, upper class, child labor laws, womenís rights, etc. identity politics.

    Postmodernism more carefully defined is a rejection of the modernist grand historical narratives so you thinking postmodernists are projecting grand historical narratives of oppressor/oppressed is hilarious.

    Social construction literally describes things that are defined by society. Postmodernism in your thinly veiled reference to muh cultural marxism is not even a good description of postmodernism. Marxism is within the modernist tradition which postmodernism would reject key tenets of marxism. Your understanding of postmodernism is really akin to Jordan Petersonís. Your penchant for word salad says you are totally a Peterson fan.
    Last edited by bomberfox; 10-09-19 at 07:09 PM.

  5. #485
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    US, California - federalist
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    13,323

    Re: Progressivism/Socialism/Communism; a failed Ideology

    Government must be socialism under our form of Capitalism.

  6. #486
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    581

    Re: Progressivism/Socialism/Communism; a failed Ideology

    Quote Originally Posted by bomberfox View Post
    Since you have provided literally no examples of these extremists, i cant know what the hell you are talking about.
    An example would be the police forced to escort students 2 by 2 in and out of a lecture hall when Shapiro gave a talk.

    Quote Originally Posted by bomberfox View Post
    Actually vast swaths of political movements all throughout history can be described as identity politics. You engage in it and i engage in it. It is politics based on furthering the interests based on groups you identify with. Labor, middle class, upper class, child labor laws, womenís rights, etc. identity politics.
    (a) this expands the definition in a way literally no one uses it
    (b) even by that standard, I don't play identity politics as it is anntithetical to individualism

    Quote Originally Posted by bomberfox View Post
    Postmodernism more carefully defined is a rejection of the modernist grand historical narratives so you thinking postmodernists are projecting grand historical narratives of oppressor/oppressed is hilarious.
    That is what they say, but that is just plain false.

    Quote Originally Posted by bomberfox View Post
    Social construction literally describes things that are defined by society. Postmodernism in your thinly veiled reference to muh cultural marxism is not even a good description of postmodernism. Marxism is within the modernist tradition which postmodernism would reject key tenets of marxism. Your understanding of postmodernism is really akin to Jordan Petersonís. Your penchant for word salad says you are totally a Peterson fan.
    Social constructivism is the position that reality is itself a social fact. The idea that we share existence in a world that exists independently of perception is its antithesis. And that is the position postmodern philosophy offers with regards to ontology and epistemology. I didn't get that bit from Peterson. For one thing, he never mentions debates in epistemology during the 20th century. The radical rejection of the empiricist point of view seems to be quite fundamental to me: without that, the entire argument about group dynamics becomes an empirical hypothesis -- one that doesn't hold under scrutiny. Boiling down everything to the social environment is not tenable. Steven Pinker has an entire book about it: The Blank Slate.

    And, so far, all you did was throw insults. It's quite a pathetic sight. You can console your ego with having the last word, assuming all you will keep doing is throwing crap without substance.

  7. #487
    Guru bomberfox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    3,293

    Re: Progressivism/Socialism/Communism; a failed Ideology

    Quote Originally Posted by TheEconomist View Post
    An example would be the police forced to escort students 2 by 2 in and out of a lecture hall when Shapiro gave a talk.



    (a) this expands the definition in a way literally no one uses it
    (b) even by that standard, I don't play identity politics as it is anntithetical to individualism



    That is what they say, but that is just plain false.



    Social constructivism is the position that reality is itself a social fact. The idea that we share existence in a world that exists independently of perception is its antithesis. And that is the position postmodern philosophy offers with regards to ontology and epistemology. I didn't get that bit from Peterson. For one thing, he never mentions debates in epistemology during the 20th century. The radical rejection of the empiricist point of view seems to be quite fundamental to me: without that, the entire argument about group dynamics becomes an empirical hypothesis -- one that doesn't hold under scrutiny. Boiling down everything to the social environment is not tenable. Steven Pinker has an entire book about it: The Blank Slate.

    And, so far, all you did was throw insults. It's quite a pathetic sight. You can console your ego with having the last word, assuming all you will keep doing is throwing crap without substance.
    Postmodernism is the rejection of the modernist’s position that history can be boiled down to grand narratives. You should read the actual authors instead of referring to them second hand.
    Yeah no people who stand up to disrupt a talk isnt going to slide us into authoritarianism. There isnt a cabal of postmodernists saying that reality is a social construct. That is just Ben Shapiro blather, someone who doesnt even bother debating actual academics. Nobody is breaking everything down to social constructivism. Empiricism is still in place much to Shapiro’s chagrin.
    Actually i provided corrections to your ridiculously uninformed definitions.
    Last edited by bomberfox; 10-10-19 at 03:55 PM.

  8. #488
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    US, California - federalist
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    13,323

    Re: Progressivism/Socialism/Communism; a failed Ideology

    True free market capitalism has no Government, so it cannot "just be" in our Mixed-Market economy where Government is the socialism part and the private sector is the capitalism part.

  9. #489
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    581

    Re: Progressivism/Socialism/Communism; a failed Ideology

    Quote Originally Posted by bomberfox View Post
    Yeah, no people who stand up to disrupt a talk isn't going to slide us into authoritarianism.
    The disruption of public discourse and efforts made to censor views one opposes is itself an authoritarian impulse.

    Quote Originally Posted by bomberfox View Post
    There isn't a cabal of postmodernists saying that reality is a social construct. That is just Ben Shapiro blather, someone who doesn't even bother debating actual academics. Nobody is breaking everything down to social constructivism.
    That doesn't come out of the imagination of any conservative commentator. I pointed out Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate specifically because he collects many arguments that take very radical positions on human psychology. Arguing that men and women would be psychologically identical was it but for differentiated socialization and the peculiar norms of western societies is rather commonplace. He talks about professors being attacked based on a tangential reading of their works by activists specifically because they pointed out the possibility that biology might play a role in human psychology.

    If you prefer first-hand references, Judith Butler is an example of that kind of radical position. A big part of her argument is designed to detach gender from biology.

    As for radical academics, they are the ones avoiding debates. Shapiro has a simple rule: if you disagree with him and you attend his talk, you get to challenge him before everyone else. A professor could get at any one of his talks and challenge his views on any subject of their liking. I also recall Denis Prager offering to donate thousands of dollars to some charity in exchange for a public debate with a far-left professor on any topic of their choice. Jordan Peterson also publicly challenged anyone on the far-left to a debate on any topic of their liking... All of them are lined up, waiting to debate discrimination, public policy, culture, ethics, etc.

    I have seen some professors trying to argue with them. To their credit, it is courageous to show up in person in a room filled with people who disagree with you and try to make your point nonetheless. However, all the defenses of ideas such as "white privilege" or "systemic discrimination" that I have seen in those discussions were absurdly weak. It's not even remotely surprising: in both cases, the concept relies on a latent factor that cannot be observed procedurally and whose only sign of existence are disparate outcomes. The model is observationally equivalent to other plausible explanations that do not rely on a floating force no one can pin down. Moreover, other explanations do not preclude discrimination: it says that real discrimination is a matter of twisting procedures, so you can in principle point to how people behave or how a protocol organizes decision-making to establish discrimination...


    I do not deny that some people on the left are reasonable and might disagree with me over how much discrimination there is in a country like the United States, just as they may disagree with me about the best way to handle it. I might effectively be cherry-picking only the crazies and arguing with a minority of uninfluential nobodies. I doubt that I am given how many public figures even on the left made public statements about some people being too radical. We have comedian poking fun at the woke crowd, Bill Maher mocking them every other week, and a Democrat got filmed complaining about how the left is filled with mean-spirited liars and how the right is kinder to her than the left...

    If you're part of the people who think that ideas should be debated, not censored and that these people are just lunatics, I have no bone to pick with you.

  10. #490
    Guru bomberfox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    3,293

    Re: Progressivism/Socialism/Communism; a failed Ideology

    Quote Originally Posted by TheEconomist View Post
    The disruption of public discourse and efforts made to censor views one opposes is itself an authoritarian impulse.



    That doesn't come out of the imagination of any conservative commentator. I pointed out Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate specifically because he collects many arguments that take very radical positions on human psychology. Arguing that men and women would be psychologically identical was it but for differentiated socialization and the peculiar norms of western societies is rather commonplace. He talks about professors being attacked based on a tangential reading of their works by activists specifically because they pointed out the possibility that biology might play a role in human psychology.

    If you prefer first-hand references, Judith Butler is an example of that kind of radical position. A big part of her argument is designed to detach gender from biology.

    As for radical academics, they are the ones avoiding debates. Shapiro has a simple rule: if you disagree with him and you attend his talk, you get to challenge him before everyone else. A professor could get at any one of his talks and challenge his views on any subject of their liking. I also recall Denis Prager offering to donate thousands of dollars to some charity in exchange for a public debate with a far-left professor on any topic of their choice. Jordan Peterson also publicly challenged anyone on the far-left to a debate on any topic of their liking... All of them are lined up, waiting to debate discrimination, public policy, culture, ethics, etc.

    I have seen some professors trying to argue with them. To their credit, it is courageous to show up in person in a room filled with people who disagree with you and try to make your point nonetheless. However, all the defenses of ideas such as "white privilege" or "systemic discrimination" that I have seen in those discussions were absurdly weak. It's not even remotely surprising: in both cases, the concept relies on a latent factor that cannot be observed procedurally and whose only sign of existence are disparate outcomes. The model is observationally equivalent to other plausible explanations that do not rely on a floating force no one can pin down. Moreover, other explanations do not preclude discrimination: it says that real discrimination is a matter of twisting procedures, so you can in principle point to how people behave or how a protocol organizes decision-making to establish discrimination...


    I do not deny that some people on the left are reasonable and might disagree with me over how much discrimination there is in a country like the United States, just as they may disagree with me about the best way to handle it. I might effectively be cherry-picking only the crazies and arguing with a minority of uninfluential nobodies. I doubt that I am given how many public figures even on the left made public statements about some people being too radical. We have comedian poking fun at the woke crowd, Bill Maher mocking them every other week, and a Democrat got filmed complaining about how the left is filled with mean-spirited liars and how the right is kinder to her than the left...

    If you're part of the people who think that ideas should be debated, not censored and that these people are just lunatics, I have no bone to pick with you.
    I dont really think these people are just lunatics first off.

    The bolded is the way i view the vast majority of ideas should be handled, even flat earthers and creationism. Not treating everyone like lunatics mind you. Saying the vast majority however does have a thin line. Ive seen people being given major platforms and treat people who advocate for people to be slaughtered for being what they are as if the idea is open to debate. Things like that for example, should be rightfully supressed.
    I just find their claims overblown and even yours. There is quite a lot to pick apart in that when i can but there is something i think you should know about gender, it is already detached from biology by definition. It is a social construct by definition. Sex is what people refer to when describing biological sex. I can only suggest you give this some thought. Perhaps i was wrong to address you in the way i have, my apologies. I’ll return to this later.
    Last edited by bomberfox; 10-10-19 at 10:39 PM.

Page 49 of 51 FirstFirst ... 394748495051 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •