If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE

IJBMer Updates

1127112721274127612771387

Comments

  • "you duck spawn, refined creature, you try to be cynical, yokel, but all that comes out of it is that you're a dunce!!!!! you duck plug!"
    ^^ I should probably respond to that in some witty way.
  • edited 2017-05-07 20:53:41
    Stormtroper, don't vague-blog about me on other sites. My issue with
    your views is that you insist on painting all ideologies to the left of
    mainstream social democracy with the same brush as the sort of corrupt,
    terminally inept and oppressive authoritarian Marxism-Leninism which
    defines your country's current political system, and derail any
    discussion of more progressive, liberal-democratic, law-abiding forms of
    socialist thought in action with foamy-mouthed red-baiting. Because
    clearly the rebel government of Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War
    is the same as Albania under Enver Hoxha or the last days of the First
    French Republic. It's the kind of sanctimonious rhetoric which, in an
    American political context, is constantly used to shut down
    conversations about even mild social democratic reforms which you do not
    seem to understand; and for the record, as a pragmatic libertarian
    socialist, I fully support the Venezuelan social democratic opposition,
    as it is infinitely preferable to the current perversion of distributism
    which prevails, so please don't give me shit about Western academics
    not understanding your plight.

    Truth be told, the one doing most to make me shut up (and the other stuff) was Jane (known here IIRC as Super Lazuli), not you. However, you and others did join up, backed her up and ignored that that's what she was doing, so same thing.

    As for the socialism stuff, no, I do not believe there's an important difference in those forms of socialism. Socialists can preach all they want about how some socialists will believe anarchy stuff, some will believe democratic stuff, or whatever, but when push comes to shove virtually all these will chant in unison supporting and opposing the same things, so I do believe I'm justified in dismissing those differences as besides the point.

    For instance, I have no intention whatsoever to forget that less than a year ago Chávez was still an idol for the left-of-mainstream-social-democracy that you mention, and Maduro an important figure for them, before turning to not-real-socialism. Or the bawling over the Caribbean mummy half a year ago. Those are just recent examples, of course, the same thing happened with virtually all socialists throughout history to the point of becoming a cliché, one which I have the first-hand experience to assert is well founded.

    But all this is irrelevant for my experiences at HH, because no one ever brought up anything other than social democracy "socialism" or dictatorship-of-the-proletariat socialism, usually with me being the one doing the distinction between them while others feel offended on the latter's behalf regardless of context. You claim I don't understand, but I do and that's why I often phrase things differently and use US related analogies to explain myself, yet a common pattern at HH was putting little effort in seeing where I'm coming from, apparently figuring that if I lash out against socialism it's because I'm some right-wing stereotype arguing about "uninfluential" abstractions, ignoring the obvious fact that the reason I'm passionate about this is because, unlike them, for me it's a very real thing.

    You claim you do care about our situation. I think I can trust you over this, however I can say without a shadow of doubt that Jane does not care one bit (despite posting similar disclaimers), so forgive me if I didn't feel I was being empathized with as others joined her in dismissing our problems.
  • Creature - Florida Dragon Turtle Human
    Socialists can preach all they want about how some socialists will
    believe anarchy stuff, some will believe democratic stuff, or whatever,
    but when push comes to shove virtually all these will chant in unison
    supporting and opposing the same things

    Not many people in the US identify as "socialists", but what you're describing seems to be a pretty common behavior for some issues and not others.  What I mean is that the phrase "when push comes to shove" depends on the issue -- for example, liberals/progressives in the US are very united when it comes to reproductive rights, generally united when it comes to advocating for a single-payer healthcare system, and noticeably less united when it comes to opposing Syria's Bashar al-Assad, so depending on the issue, them "chanting in unison" may or may not happen.

    Anyway, Hugo Chávez was, while certainly less unpopular amongst the U.S. left than the U.S. right, still not particularly popular amongst the U.S. left, where quite a few people had qualms over his respect (or lack thereof) for things like human rights, among other issues.
  • Remember that the political compass in the US is tilted to the right. Socialists on average would loathe to be lumped up with them.
  • JHMJHM
    Here, There, Everywhere
    Jane dislikes you not because you disagree, but because this is like half of what you post about, if not more, and you're really high-handed and asinine about it, like you've already won the argument and you're bitch-slapping the plebs. I'm tempted to say, "Game on," but this gets a bit tiresome, so I'll just tell you what I think of what you've said thus far.

    There are people who are dumbfucks about Russia and Cuba on the left in the US in the same way the right was all gung-ho about Pinochet and the Contras back in the '80s. It's disgusting, but it doesn't say much about the ideologies or any inherent tendencies within them, only about the myopia of their adherents. There are plenty of stupid lefties, as your current government so elegantly demonstrates. Here, stupid rightists are far more common. Interestingly, both your ruling lefties and our ruling rightists are rather socially conservative and alarmingly authoritarian, in your case even worse than ours. Perhaps their inability to countenance new ideas or accept dissent is as much the issue as their inept interpretation of what constitutes Marxist praxis? I would say so. People who can't accept being wrong will always fail. Kleptocracies always fail. The world may not be just, but it does punish stupidity fairly well in the long run.

    When you say all socialists want something that will lead to X bad thing, not only do you treat people like me with roughly the same respect as you would a deranged Twitter Maoist, but you treat different definitions of the redistribution of wealth and abolition of current late-capitalist market systems as a bloc when their means and ultimate aims can be quite diverse. Most socialists do not believe in an absolute control economy or seizing personal and private property willy-nilly; nor are they gold-hoarding mercantilists who seek to pursue extreme protectionist policies which turn the receipt of foreign goods into a nightmare of tariffs and supermarket hoarding. You understand socialist theory through your own narrow, national lens and apply it everywhere that you see the word, and in the process demean and wildly misrepresent a body of literature and ideas far bigger and more diverse than you acknowledge. Did you know that there are non-Marxist socialists? That there are neo-Marxists who vehemently disavow the Soviet Union and follow the likes of Gramsci? That Karl Popper, known positivist philosopher, friend of Hayek and intense anti-Marxist, was himself a socialist? I can take all this in good faith and say you've only educated yourself so far as maybe reading the Communist Manifesto and having a decent idea of what market and command economies are—which, contrary to popular belief, don't really define capitalism or socialism, but I digress. The problem is, I think you're better informed than that. So what am I supposed to take away? That you reject new ideas which don't fit how you look at the world? Everyone does this to some degree, but her it feels almost bold.
  • edited 2017-05-08 02:42:28
    ☭Unstoppable Sex Goddess☭
    I have no idea what you guys are talking about (thankfully, last time I read up on politics I learned about what the difference between liberal and conservative is and it actually made my view on both groups worse) but commend you for doing such thorough research on the topic. 

    To be fair Lazu is dismissive about a TON of different things, not just that. So don't take it that to heart.

    What is a Twitter Taoist?
  • edited 2017-05-08 05:27:30
    Creature - Florida Dragon Turtle Human
    You mean a Twitter Maoist?  Probably referring to Mao Tse-Tung, the first leader of communist China, and also an obnoxious dictator.  Took after Russian communism and tried to make it happen in China.

    A Twitter Maoist is presumably someone who talks about Maoism, a specific strain of communism, on Twitter, and presumably someone who talks about it poorly, since a lot of political wanker on Twitter tends to be rather poor anyway.

    A Taoist would be advocating a spiritual philosophy about living in harmony with things.

    Anyway, I probably know a little more about politics than you do, but enough to know that the labels are not something I like but rather something I think often forces people into pigeonholes with regards to positions on issues and ideological affiliations.

    Also I'm hesitant to talk about Jane behind her back, since that seems rude, but I admit that I don't like her dismissiveness either, yet despite my distaste for it, I feel a bit sympathetic since she probably just leads a stressful life and goes to HH to unwind, rather than to see controversies that irritate her, and she's simply letting that known.

    I'd rather she do it differently, but...well, do not hate humans, for theirs is already a hard lot. :P
  • ☭Unstoppable Sex Goddess☭
    Alright I get that. Doubt anything I can throw at her would mean anything even if I wanted to go full 100% offensive though. She'd just roll her eyes and go [Potassium].
  • JHMJHM
    Here, There, Everywhere
    She has a lot of crap on her plate, but she's been getting better about just brushing aside her problems instead of talking them out. I'm not going to get into it, but push comes to shove, she's good people, and I consider her a real friend.

    Anyway, yeah, I felt like "Twitter Maoist" was clearer than "tankie" for no-wonks, but it's still kind of obtuse if you're not familiar with the history. Long story short, tankies are the Nazi apologists of the left.
  • He who laments and can't let go of the past is forever doomed to solitude.
    Those are the guys that fall under "Likes tank more than actual politics". My favorite joke is "Smashing the state one window at a time"
  • "you duck spawn, refined creature, you try to be cynical, yokel, but all that comes out of it is that you're a dunce!!!!! you duck plug!"
    What is a Twitter Taoist?
    I like to imagine that in this very moment, somewhere out in the Web, there is a heated discussion between a born-again Confucianist and a self-professed Taoist accusing the former of conflating the entirety of the school with peddlers of immortality potions.
  • Relevant update: I marched again today. We got blocked off then got tear gassed again, but this time it didn't affect me even though they fell very close to me. I think the wind helped.

    But enough with resisting socialism on the streets, time to do it on internet forums as well.

    Jane dislikes you not because you disagree, but because this is like
    half of what you post about, if not more, and you're really high-handed
    and asinine about it, like you've already won the argument and you're
    bitch-slapping the plebs. I'm tempted to say, "Game on," but this gets a
    bit tiresome, so I'll just tell you what I think of what you've said
    thus far.



    There are people who are dumbfucks about Russia and Cuba on the left in
    the US in the same way the right was all gung-ho about Pinochet and the
    Contras back in the '80s. It's disgusting, but it doesn't say much about
    the ideologies or any inherent tendencies within them, only about the
    myopia of their adherents. There are plenty of stupid lefties, as your
    current government so elegantly demonstrates. Here, stupid rightists are
    far more common. Interestingly, both your ruling lefties and our ruling
    rightists are rather socially conservative and alarmingly
    authoritarian, in your case even worse than ours. Perhaps their
    inability to countenance new ideas or accept dissent is as much the
    issue as their inept interpretation of what constitutes Marxist praxis? I
    would say so. People who can't accept being wrong will always fail.
    Kleptocracies always fail. The world may not be just, but it does punish
    stupidity fairly well in the long run.



    When you say all socialists want something that will lead to X bad
    thing, not only do you treat people like me with roughly the same
    respect as you would a deranged Twitter Maoist, but you treat different
    definitions of the redistribution of wealth and abolition of current
    late-capitalist market systems as a bloc when their means and ultimate
    aims can be quite diverse. Most socialists do not believe in an absolute
    control economy or seizing personal and private property willy-nilly;
    nor are they gold-hoarding mercantilists who seek to pursue extreme
    protectionist policies which turn the receipt of foreign goods into a
    nightmare of tariffs and supermarket hoarding. You understand socialist
    theory through your own narrow, national lens and apply it everywhere
    that you see the word, and in the process demean and wildly misrepresent
    a body of literature and ideas far bigger and more diverse than you
    acknowledge. Did you know that there are non-Marxist socialists? That
    there are neo-Marxists who vehemently disavow the Soviet Union and
    follow the likes of Gramsci? That Karl Popper, known positivist
    philosopher, friend of Hayek and intense anti-Marxist, was himself a
    socialist? I can take all this in good faith and say you've only
    educated yourself so far as maybe reading the Communist Manifesto and
    having a decent idea of what market and command economies are—which,
    contrary to popular belief, don't really define capitalism or socialism,
    but I digress. The problem is, I think you're better informed than
    that. So what am I supposed to take away? That you reject new ideas
    which don't fit how you look at the world? Everyone does this to some
    degree, but her it feels almost bold.

    Well, that's not true, I did post quite a bit on the video games thread and Glenn's thread, I probably even posted more in the US politics thread (about stuff unrelated to socialism) than anywhere about socialism, plus every now and then in all those short-lived threads.

    But that's not as important as something else; I was very rarely the one to bring up in the first place. For instance, let me remind you that during the argument that sparked the discussion we're having now the very first thing Jane did was derailing it to being about socialism (specifically my hate for it) and I had to be the one to rerail it (before Alduin/Elektross revealed that, yeah, it was about socialism). Similar stuff happened elsewhere, like that one where others were already insulting socialism but me joining in was too much, and so on.

    See what I said about not trying to understand where I'm coming from? That I'm very rarely the one to bring it up is not an unimportant detail in understanding my posting habits. That I post often about socialism is moreso a reflection of how often socialism is posted about, which is a lot.

    About the gung-ho stuff, I think I nailed it when I mentioned anti-anti-socialism. I'm repeating myself here but whatever: Heapers won't identify with socialist regimes and they may even make fun of 'tankies' or whatever from time to time, but god forbid someone comes and actually cares about that stuff, that if someone takes it much more seriously than some random Joe in the US or somewhere there must be some underlying right-wing reason and at that point I get questioned about whether I hate welfare or something. All this in a forum that is absolutely not casual at all when it comes to US politics.

    As for the stuff about dumb lefties/righties, no, I'm not willing to ignore the adherents when it comes to judging a governmental ideology. I'm very sorry but ideologies don't put themselves into practice, their adherents do, and if said ideology is doomed to fail due to its adherents, whatever value it may have elsewhere, I'd say it's pretty worthless to use it as a basis of government.

    However, I'll admit (and have admitted at least once here) that socialists are usually good at figuring out a (non-socialist) society's grievances.

    As for that last paragraph, I've read the commie manifesto, The Open Veins of Latin America (or however it's translated), The State and Revolution, the other stuff Ironweaver recommended to me plus the other stuff he's linked throughout this forum, Revolution Betrayed before I got tired of Trotsky's whining, part of the manga version of Das Kapital because of course I did, and shitload of articles and stuff back when I was obsessed about trying to understand the world around me, plus frequenting socialist forums.

    Not the most comprehensive reading, I'm aware, I'll keep at it, but I feel I've done my due diligence, I've done more reading than the average socialism supporter and should be allowed to have strong opinions about it.

    Also I'm very well aware of the cultural hegemony dude and trivia about important, smart figures being socialists, thank you very much.

    From that last part you seem to think that the reason I'm dismissive about these things is because I haven't run into them, and that I haven't run into them because I refuse to look further into it for national reasons. Quite the opposite, the PSUV is what drives me to look more into it, even if the underlying reason is 'know your enemy'. Once upon a time my opinion about it was something along the lines of "they say they're socialists doing a socialist revolution but they lie a lot about stuff so that's probably not true", it wasn't until I looked further that I learned (don't deny it) how orthodox many of their ideas are, how much less tame the orthodox version of their other ideas are, and how much genuine support they had among socialists over it. If it weren't for this my opinion on socialism would be a boring shrug.

    Well, I'm sorry but it's been a constant that the more I read about socialism, the lower my opinion on it gets. If you think you have a resource that will be an exception, be my guest, I promise I'll put effort in looking through it.

    Also I'm hesitant to talk about Jane behind her back, since that seems
    rude, but I admit that I don't like her dismissiveness either, yet
    despite my distaste for it, I feel a bit sympathetic since she probably
    just leads a stressful life and goes to HH to unwind, rather than to see
    controversies that irritate her, and she's simply letting that known.

    If it matters, I don't care if she ends up reading this. As far as I'm concerned you can tell her if you feel the need to, she most likely already knows what I think about her anyways.
  • Creature - Florida Dragon Turtle Human
    > Heapers won't identify with socialist regimes and they may even make fun of 'tankies' or whatever from time to time

    I've seen a lot of political/philosophical/ideological terminology thrown around on HH but I don't remember ever seeing that term before.

    > I'm very sorry but ideologies don't put themselves into practice, their
    adherents do, and if said ideology is doomed to fail due to its
    adherents, whatever value it may have elsewhere, I'd say it's pretty
    worthless to use it as a basis of government.

    I interpret this as being that the ideology itself is an unimportant label, and at most a guiding principle, rather than something to be categorically opposed or supported.  Rather, I'd rather focus on the specific issues, and their implementation and their political viability due to framing (where ideology can come into play but is more typically a distraction or a tool than anything more substantive).

    (Note that I personally consider myself to be a "conservative".  Anyone else is free to decide what they would label me, of course, since I can't control how they think, but I can certainly tell them what I think.)
  • "you duck spawn, refined creature, you try to be cynical, yokel, but all that comes out of it is that you're a dunce!!!!! you duck plug!"
    I'm pretty sure there's a nifty name for a stance that an ideology is only worth as much as what is applied in practice by its adherents. Damned if I know it, but I have a hunch it begins with 'P'. Positivism, pragmatism, phenomenology, so on.
  • I've seen a lot of political/philosophical/ideological terminology
    thrown around on HH but I don't remember ever seeing that term before.

    I think I've seen it before, maybe I'm wrong. At any rate 'Twitter Marxist' is the one I've seen the most, although of course that's internet specific.
  • I think it's a good time to post this.

    I... umm... I wanted to apologize to the thread regulars for the incident over the last few days.

    I often keep a mental note on things to post, sometime it's a silly joke or something weird I found out, and I wait patiently until an opportunity comes up. For example, I was waiting since forever to mention that there's a manga version of Das Kapital out there.

    Sometimes what I mean to post is some potentially contentious thing, and I wait until the chance comes up to post it in which I think it won't cause drama. I think I'm good at it, it usually doesn't cause trouble and even when I think I'm risking it it turns out I was worrying too much.

    And so something happens at HH, I am heavily embittered about it, so I wait (about two months) really, really wanting to let my grievances out, so what seems like a good opportunity shows up and I take it. Turns out I made a bad call, my rant didn't go by without raising a fuss, I caused drama to be imported and I know this was something many of you did not want to see.

    So, umm... I'm sorry about that. I'll try to do better next time.

    P.S. Just now I was looking for a link to that Das Kapital manga and turns out there's at least one other such manga out there, part of a large series of manga versions of important philosophy/sociology works.

    I'm pretty sure there's a nifty name for a stance that an ideology is
    only worth as much as what is applied in practice by its adherents.
    Damned if I know it, but I have a hunch it begins with 'P'. Positivism,
    pragmatism, phenomenology, so on.

    It's not the same thing but maybe you're thinking of pragmatism.
  • ☭Unstoppable Sex Goddess☭
    I remember hearing somebody say that pragmatism can't be the opposite of dogmatism because dogmatism is inherently bad. Does that idea hold water or is it wrong?
  • Bovarian Mammarian
    "dogmatism is inherently bad" is one of those phrases like "only the Sith deal in absolutes"
  • Creature - Florida Dragon Turtle Human
    Sometimes insisting on principles is a good idea, but not always, and you occasionally get those people who start spouting random Jefferson quotes to justify their (typically) libertarian opinions and they can get pretty darn annoying.
  • "you duck spawn, refined creature, you try to be cynical, yokel, but all that comes out of it is that you're a dunce!!!!! you duck plug!"
    As far as I remember, philosophically pragmatism is the idea that what should be considered true depends on whether it results in a functioning outcome. Slightly different to the common meaning of the word. But I have to say I know little about this doctrine.
  • "In a mad world, only the mad are sane!"-Akira Kurosawa, Ran
    I've seen some marching mentioned, but how active are people here politically in terms of protesting, lobbying, badgering Congresscritters/MPs and the like? Arguing on the relative merits of Posadism is pointless if you don't put the ideas into practice with some legwork, and an idiot with half an understanding of the implications of his own ideology is worth about the same as a clever fellow who only bickers online about the finer points of shit the crowds won't care about.
  • Well, I should add that the protests aren't so much anti-socialism as anti-government.

    But yeah, the protests have been raging for over a month now with no signs of stopping, drawing heavy crowds despite the heavy repression (e.g. this). The opposition congresscritters are very involved in them, lobbying the shit out of foreign governments and the OAS when not in the middle of protests getting a dose of tear gas.

    Perhaps I should update the Venezuelan politics thread more often.
  • "In a mad world, only the mad are sane!"-Akira Kurosawa, Ran
    Awesome that you have the balls to not be discouraged by the fuzz. I also appreciate the updates, it doesn't feel like they're sparse to me.

    I myself do lobby work for an org against extreme poverty, some general social entrepeneurship charity  work (collecting donations, etcetera), sometimes write articles about security issues which bend leftish (latest was a Manning apologia), plus attended a few protests against Trump shenanigans over here (which, admittedly, isn't really focused on local issues). Still feels like it's hobbyism, but whatevs, I've met MPs and am now strongly convinced the animal rights party is the only one not falling prey to neoliberal centrism (or outright fash stupidity). 
  • He who laments and can't let go of the past is forever doomed to solitude.
    I've come to learn that University marxists attacked anti-maduro protestors here in the University of Panama. I feel really incensed by this. Those XX century socialisst are really a bunch of unionists with delusions of a great evil propagated by the protests againt Maduro. At least we at the UTP aren't involved in politics at all.
  • ^^ I can't say I haven't been discouraged, I'm clearly not made for this, but...





    At the very least I don't think I'll go alone again (stuff happened at the last minute and either I had to go alone or not go).





    ^ Yeah, this has spread well outside our borders, with stuff happening in Panama, Spain, the US and Canada, although I haven't had the chance to see exactly what they've been about.
  • Guess who's getting teeth pulled in two days?
  • Bovarian Mammarian
  • edited 2017-05-14 01:47:20
    This is terrible, but there's also the fact that apparently the marketing push for Wonder Woman is so terrible that this is all there is.



    WB gonna WB

    Please save us AT&T
  • Bovarian Mammarian
    oh hay Anonus
  • Creature - Florida Dragon Turtle Human
    Joly Alexandre (født 1972)[1], bedre kendt under sit kunstnernavn Jaws Underground, er en fransk psykedelisk trance musiker og producer. I 2007 udgav han sit første debutalbum, Lost In The Sound, på det fransk baserede pladeselskab Pete The Moon Label. I 2008 udgav han sit andet album, Algorythme, og har udgivet yderligere fire album fra 2009 til 2014.

    Dutch is nearly intelligible in English without any formal familiarity.
Sign In or Register to comment.