RE: Socialism

RE: Socialism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Aswad -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 2:36:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Actually, my apologies. Apology accepted. We're cool. quote: I still feel like people should've been able to understand. Could've and should've, though, are different, and I suppose I didn't to appreciate that. Reality is a harsh mistress. A certain balance must be struck between defiance and submission, or the options will be narrowed to surrender and defeat. quote: This whole thread, in the way it's gone, irks me. There's a rule of thumb that applies in some schools of software engineering thought: build one to throw away. An expression that is also applicable here is to "stop throwing good money after bad money." In short, cut your losses and start a new thread with a better OP. quote: I really don't think I was that difficult to understand if people honestly tried to get what I meant. It wasn't. If you haven't googled "affective threshold" yet, this is the time to do it. Even if people applied Aswad's Razor (which Aswad himself often fails to), you'd still snag on affective threshold. That is why I usually try (although I have admittedly expended slightly less effort in that direction lately, for personal reasons) to keep a tone that presents the material factually and divorced from emotion, while attempting to address potential misunderstandings up front and attempting to build a context and a clear premise when I think that is necessary to get a reasonable replies. I decided early on that I would rather expend ten times the effort up front, than expend a hundred times the effort in steady downpayments as a thread grows. That is similar to engineering, where there is a significant multiplier between the stages when it comes to catching and correcting errors: idea » requirement spec » design » review » refinement » plan » review » refinement » scaffolding » prototype » review » scaffolding » production model » fine tuning » final QA » launch » update » maintenance. Now, clearly, a vent needn't go through such a process; it's not worth the investment, in and of itself. But the results still depend on spending enough effort in the right places. If the world is to learn anything, ever, it must learn this: Quality is a habit. quote: They could've matched up what I was saying to the closest good idea to understand; hell, they could've told me what words may've better expressed myself if they honestly wanted to help communication. But it's degraded quite a bit despite the true possibility for a better view. Where slack is perceived, it is either tolerated, or taken up by the one perceiving it. I often tolerate slack, as I've no desire to become the next Noam Chomsky, which is the inevitable result of not picking one's battles. quote: And, I mean, I even saw that this could happen, so I buffered the thing with disclaimers both before and after citing my own views as the consquence of irrational thought. Good enough. [;)] Anyway, it served its purpose for me, but I probably wasn't the primary target audience. If you always try to be the neutral third party in your own threads, ignore ad hominem attacks, and maintain a result centric mindset while attempting to communicate clearly and factually (which includes bearing in mind the distance between your thoughts and those of the recipients, as well as their affective thresholds), you will probably find that the impression people have gotten of you (which is a definite factor in affective thresholds and goodwill in interpreting what is said) will slowly improve, along with the quality of the discourse that follows a post you make. Not trying to be harsh here or anything; I did far worse in this department myself before I met my girl. But some constructive criticism of your strategy is in order, based on the results. This was mine, and it was aimed at improving the situation. Health, al-Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 2:38:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed Indeed. Communication works both ways. But there are so few savants in the socratic method. Lovely. [:D] Health, al-Aswad.

thompsonx -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 2:45:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord So anything I say, you're going to take with the assumption that I'm secretly just hateful? CL: The hatefulness expressed in your posts does not seem to be secret. thompson

ModeratorEleven -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 2:48:44 PM)
Ok folks, enough. If you can't discuss this without getting personal, please find something else to do or somewhere else to do it. XI

Zensee -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 2:49:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord So anything I say, you're going to take with the assumption that I'm secretly just hateful? I'd hardly characterise your OP as secretive in its hatefulness. And that tone of accusation has continued and amplified over the intervening pages. I am always a bit suspicious when people use absolutes like always, never, everything, anything and nothing when describing the motives and actions of others. I take each thing you say and consider it individually but within the context you provide. The pattern of frustration, repetition and blaming is yours not mine. Z.

Aswad -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 2:51:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee Not sure what caring for an accident victim has to do with clear verbal communication, Aswad. It seems you got the analogy of going beyond strict requirements. quote: While a listener does have their own responsibility in communication, surely the bulk of it rests with the originator making sure they organise their ideas and present them clearly. Quite. And if said girl crosses the road while obscured by a bus again, I'll certainly point it out to her while tending to her. But the point stands that it reflects well on a listener to go beyond their responsibilities in attempting to make benign sense of what was said, as well as keeping their responses constructive (including attempting to communicate constructive criticism of the delivery of the original communication). I have found that while there are a few idiots and malicious people out there, one can usually find a good idea or good intention at the root of what people say. And I have also found that assuming people have good intentions, or at least a point, in what they say, is good for communication and also good for my mental and spiritual well-being. A further point is that this is a forum, in practice a public venue and even a community in some sense. That means that being a good member of the community imposes certain responsibilities in order to have a functioning community, and included in these are the responsibility for picking up some slack, assuming good faith and holding responses to the same standard of communication as one would have liked to see in the post replied to. Obviously, we're all human, and it takes effort to make a habit of such a thing, and there will be lapses, but that doesn't mean that it's not worth it to make that effort. Doesn't take Ghandi to see that. quote: The topic as stated, was that a bunch of people whose way of being in the world was incomprehensible or unpalatable to the OP, were lumped in a category equally misunderstood by the OP but understood, in context, to be a category of bottomless, vitriolic contempt. I think that is a fair description. Sounds like a fair description of a vent to me, which is what the OP was qualified as. I have addressed CL seperately on the topic of communication, so I did not address your comments regarding his posting. Health, al-Aswad.

philosophy -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 2:54:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord that guy who works parttime at the 7-11 demanding the same rights and privledges as a rich business man.. they're the damn contradiction. ...okies, in order to get past any lingering unpleasantness about the intellectual ability of arts majors, i went back to the OP. The above quoted part seems, to me, to be the point of confusion in your perception. i vaguely remember someone on these boards talking about how the US revolution was, essentially, a desire to move away from the divine right of kings. In essence, it was a (partially) successful bid to institute a society where the individual.....regardless of birth.......had the same sort of opportunities as anyone else. Nowadays kings aren't what they used to be......so what's the nearest equivilant? Politicians? Nope.......they serve at our whim and are subject to being brought down by a hostile press. Not very kingly. Now business-people may be nearer the mark. Once they get past a certain level of power/money they seem less susceptible to the laws of society than the rest of us. Now thats a kingly virtue. So, back to the quote.......the guy who works part-time at the 7-11 and the successful businessman do have the same rights and priviliges. They also have the same responsibilities to society and the same right to demand things from society. That is not socialism......although the word society does occur in the vicinity. That is actually the Great American Social Experiment at play. Enjoy [:)]

Zensee -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 2:59:48 PM)
I appreciate your perspective and diplomacy Aswad. I have attempted, in my own sometimes less decorous manner, to 'constructively criticise' the weakness in CL intellectual technique, on several threads, but he seems resistant to my attempts. I hope you have better results. Z.

CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 3:36:40 PM)
With "rights and privledges", I was referring to the ability to obtain services with one's own income to the same degree (which isn't the case in a capitalist society, but is, as I understand it to be, in a socialist society). Such as the right to medical care, which seems like it leans more towards the rich in a capitalist society while it's more equal in a socialist one. I guess it was probably one of the more cryptic parts of the OP. Darn tired rants.

Aswad -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 3:39:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee I appreciate your perspective and diplomacy Aswad. And I generally appreciate yours; your nick seems apt. quote: I have attempted, in my own sometimes less decorous manner, to 'constructively criticise' I've butted heads with CL on religion threads; he's an adamant atheist, and I am... for the lack of a better word... a priest. Usually, we get along fine, despite the disagreements, as we understand each other's styles of communication. CL is blunt and frankly honest about communicating his thoughts, and I respect and appreciate that. A consequence of that is that I must exercise more discipline when I disagree with him. The alternative would be to respond in a manner that exceeds mere bluntness. Such is required to deal with bluntness without giving rise to conflict. Everyone claims to prefer honesty, but few can deal with it... ...unless you count this thread as dealing with it. The mods clearly don't count it thus. I'm not pointing fingers or judging anyone here, just stating my perception of the facts of human communication and communities.. Like with physical violence, the spiral of verbal violence can end a few ways, but here's my preferred one: When enough people choose to be barriers to violence, rather than propagators of it. It is not any one person I would admonish, but rather all persons. Health, al-Aswad.

CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 3:39:37 PM)
There's no right way to view it, so attempts at instruction are pretty futile. The view of ways of interacting you have are not mine, nor do I believe they will be. Please don't assume I have the same common goals, even if my goals aren't malicious.

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 3:42:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy Nowadays kings aren't what they used to be......so what's the nearest equivilant? Politicians? Nope.......they serve at our whim and are subject to being brought down by a hostile press. Not very kingly. Now business-people may be nearer the mark. Once they get past a certain level of power/money they seem less susceptible to the laws of society than the rest of us. Now thats a kingly virtue. At that level their crimes are corporate conspiracies.

meatcleaver -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 4:04:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord With "rights and privledges", I was referring to the ability to obtain services with one's own income to the same degree (which isn't the case in a capitalist society, but is, as I understand it to be, in a socialist society). Such as the right to medical care, which seems like it leans more towards the rich in a capitalist society while it's more equal in a socialist one. I guess it was probably one of the more cryptic parts of the OP. Darn tired rants. The taxpaying poor pay a bigger proportion of their income in taxes than the rich, who virtually pay nothing at all and even less in America than in Europe. Take a good look at who pays in a capitalist society and you will find that capitalist societies are social welfare for the rich, as it is the vast bulk of the taxpayers who have income tax taken out of their salaries by the government that pay for the running of society, not the rich. The rich pay for an army of fancy lawyers and accountants to avoid paying their fair share of tax to the society that allows them to accummulate the wealth they have. When it comes to dying for ones country, it is almost invariably the tax avoiding rich one is asked to die for, not ones family and home. I've never understood why anyone would put on a uniform and be a mercenary for the rich, especially when the same rich are happy to see a soldier and his family go without healthcare. When it comes to ordinary people claiming capitalism is better than socialism (the west has a synthesis of the two), I can't help but feel the cheese has slipped off their cracker.

NorthernGent -> RE: Socialism (2/16/2008 2:25:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I suppose it was my way of disagreeing in a way. I still feel like people should've been able to understand. Could've and should've, though, are different, and I suppose I didn't to appreciate that. This whole thread, in the way it's gone, irks me. I really don't think I was that difficult to understand if people honestly tried to get what I meant. They could've matched up what I was saying to the closest good idea to understand; hell, they could've told me what words may've better expressed myself if they honestly wanted to help communication. But it's degraded quite a bit despite the true possibility for a better view. And, I mean, I even saw that this could happen, so I buffered the thing with disclaimers both before and after citing my own views as the consquence of irrational thought. Yet, still.. I mean, this is kind of messed up, you know? At least, that's how I see it. I understood perfectly, CL. Your title, "Socialism", was followed by a series of ill-conceived, half-baked views. Incidentally, I doubt any of the people on this thread are socialists; you've being taken to task for a lazy OP, rather than any unswerving support for Socialism, which is ironic considering you're contention that Socialism is attractive to the lazy. And, you'll find in life that no one will swerve ill-conceived views simply because you add a disclaimer. What would you say to a student in your class who gave a 30-minute presentation and finished by saying, "everything I've just said could quite easily be utter bollocks"? He/she would get laughed out of court, surely. You have a duty to yourself to ensure your post is considered and is underpinned by at least a modicum of restraint (i.e. don't let your emotions run away with your mind).

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Socialism (2/16/2008 3:03:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Incidentally, I doubt any of the people on this thread are socialists Actually, I doubt if anyone on this thread is anything but socialist. Ask them if a child should be denied life-saving medicine, or an operation, because the child's parents cannot afford it? Only the capitalists will say "yes". The socialists will say "Hell no!"

Aswad -> RE: Socialism (2/16/2008 4:15:53 AM)
Hell, yes. Unless somebody else pays for it. [:D]

CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/16/2008 2:11:33 PM)
While part of me loathes bumping this thread.. Half-baked? No, you don't understand; you read the title and thought that that was it. That the title was the subject instead of a hint at it. Which isn't always going to be a poor assumption, but it happened to be this time. In It's the damn social ideals that have me right now. The ones which seem to be predicated on the self-serving assumption that resources exist, that by holding any excuse of a "job" would justify one's taking of such resources. That they want money and health care. But they're not willing to perform services equal to those that they demand. And then they want their god damn booze. of the OP, I described the sort of people I meant. Again, "[t]he ones which seem to be predicated on the self-serving assumption [..]". Not, "everyone who is a socialist or has some sort of socialist idealogy" or "socialism as a political concept" as should've been obvious in.. Also, it's not about the political notion of "socialism" I'm ranting about but the reason that some people support socialist institutions. Do you not see the words "that some people support socialist institutions"? It's in the first line of the OP. How did you miss it? Sure, the lines after, if you didn't think about it, may've seemed like a contradiction. Could've thought that out or opted with what was obviously the highlighted point instead of the confusion. Admittedly, I could've been clearer. I could've bumped down the reading level and made it so you could've just looked at the title and gotten it all upfront. But I didn't. I don't feel guilty, though; perhaps I'm too busy being in shock that it was so misunderstood. I am still idealistic, afterall. So leave me be about it. I wrote something that confused people. Big deal. I'll not make such complicated things in the future. Karana knows On Abortion: Is a fetus human? went right over most peoples' heads, too.. they read the title and missed the point entirely. In that case, though, I had assumed the OP was too long and people just didn't want to read that much.

Zensee -> RE: Socialism (2/16/2008 2:42:02 PM)
The OP was edited after the fact, so we can't be sure what was changed or whether we missed disclaimers and qualifiers added later. Taking your audience to task in this case, seems rather unfair. Offering to speak in little words all the dumb asses can understand is just salting the wounds. Considering that a dozen or so people who appear quite capable of using polysyllabic words and writing complex yet cogent sentences, all read the same thing from your OP, finding fault with your readers is mighty uncharitable. If the results are the same it is almost certain that the source is to blame. In this case hostility breeds hostility. It's no more complex than that. Personally, when I've made a mistake I don't want to admit to, there comes a point where even I get tired of the machinations my ego performs trying to dodge responsibility. Then it's time to offer an unqualified apology (very therapeutic) and make a note to myself to A) think twice before speaking - and B) not let my ego run my mouth. My results have been far from perfect but the incidents have reduced over the years and the amount of time spent indulging a self-destructive ego is diminishing. Z.

LadyEllen -> RE: Socialism (2/16/2008 2:47:22 PM)
So CL, what youre bemoaning is those who appeal to socialist ideals, who are yet not socialists as such, but appeal to the ideals because they aspire to access the resources otherwise unavailable to them because theyre not prepared to put in the work required to acquire them through their own efforts? E

CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/16/2008 3:28:46 PM)
Yup, that's it. :) Zensee: The edits were mostly little characters here and there, and if you check the time stamp, the last one was made before the majority of people who participated in this thread even saw it (unless they saw it and then didn't respond until the next day). There's no dodging what I said, but that's not a problem. The case against my post is built on that it can be misunderstood if only partially read and parts ignored. That doesn't fly no matter how many people are guilty of only reading part of it.

Page: << < prev 16 17 [18] 19 20 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125