Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 368: Stimulating the American People

(+) Yeah! (+)

You have been pissing me off for awhile. It may have been when you learned what the NO True Scotsman Fallacy was and decided to misuse it a lot. Or when you don't address policy and say empty pathetic platitudes while your fellow humans suffer and die in the name of austerity idk

But in fairness I am indeed offended at your callous disregard for human life.

---

masterplum posted...

Chris getting awfully offended by a random one liner

it's more that it was a particularly stupid one liner in a series of stupid posts
---

The No True Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy

Edit: The No True No True Scotsman Fallacy
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

You have been pissing me off for awhile. It may have been when you learned what the NO True Scotsman Fallacy was and decided to misuse it a lot. Or when you don't address policy and say empty pathetic platitudes while your fellow humans suffer and die in the name of austerity idk

But in fairness I am indeed offended at your callous disregard for human life.

It seems part of your tenseness stems from you thinking your line of thinking is more righteous than mine, which if true is an extremely dangerous path you really dont want to go down.

Having said that Ill try to reduce my unnecessary quips

---

I don't even understand what the no true scotsman post was trying to say.

Anyway I am back at my computer and my lifetime of punting Plum around in mafia has not sated my blood lust so let's cue up the sound track of my life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg92RrNhB8s

I wanted the Hamilton song but this is funnier.

So the problem with using No True Scotsman fallacy talk about progressiveness is the term progressive is inherently subjective and naturally shifts over time. In 1800 if you were against slavery you were very progressive for the times. in 202 if you are against slavery you are just about every elected official in the US (I am sure there are obvious examples otherwise, just spare me and accept the point.)

So a lot of people who identify themselves as progressives have certain benchmarks they believe are core to who they are.

Reforming healthcare
lifting people out of poverty through a living wage
humane immigration policies
Social justice in a myriad of forms

To be very broad.

Now a Scot is always a Scot. Born a Scot, lived a Scot, so the fallacy of suddenly not calling someone a Scot because they like the color blue is ridiculous, and thus an obvious appeal to purity that makes no sense.

However the term progressive means something to different people. A person who identifies as progressive has every right to say 'you aren't progressive enough for me because you don't believe in x' just as a conservative person can feel the same way. Doesn't make either 'right', but neither is a logical fallacy. It is a person (or sometimes a group) giving their opinion on someone.

"He says he is progressive, but he doesn't support a living wage, so I don't think of him as much of a progressive."

It isn't capricious. It is a fairly well defined belief system. So if you wanted to say "I don't think you need to support a living wage to be a progressive" that's... a valid opinion in terms of logic. I can contest that, I can be upset that is a thought, but I wouldn't go around calling it a logical fallacy because it isn't one.

Also there is nothing wrong with believing you are more righteous than other people. Yes, I believe it is a more righteous world view to believe people should be lifted out of poverty and that allowing people to die from either starvation or the cold or lack of medical care is callous. If you think these things are controversial I have no use for your opinion in my world. No one asked the Nazis opinions about what we should do about the Jewish population after World War II, just as I would not ask a Republican Senator how to help the sick and poor if I could get away with it.

---

I appreciate your thorough articulation of progressiveness. I see what you are saying.

In terms of righteousness, I think the error you are making is you are (possibly implicitly) assuming people who are more conservative than you like starvation and people dying from lack of medical care which isnt true at all. I dont want people to starve to death. I just dont think people starving in South Sudan is any more honorable than people starving in America. You do. There is no correct opinion out of those.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1369098770319876100?s=19

Bruh

lmao

---

masterplum posted...

I just dont think people starving in South Sudan is any more honorable than people starving in America. You do

wat in tarnation
---

Conservatives are noted for their major belief of ending imperialism and smashing the influence of western capital that keeps the global south in so much poverty, true. That's definitely their whole thing.

masterplum posted...

I appreciate your thorough articulation of progressiveness. I see what you are saying.

In terms of righteousness, I think the error you are making is you are (possibly implicitly) assuming people who are more conservative than you like starvation and people dying from lack of medical care which isnt true at all. I dont want people to starve to death. I just dont think people starving in South Sudan is any more honorable than people starving in America. You do. There is no correct opinion out of those.

Actually not at all. I am very globalist minded. Also I am not assuming anything - it is about what you choose to not comment on. Ted Cruz went to Cancun while people were dying and instead of using his influence to raise awareness, money, or to pull strings to get things accomplished. AOC raised 5 million dollars for the people of Texas who she technically does not directly represent because she cares.

I am a believer in the phrase 'charity starts at home.' I am 100% on board with the goal that not a single person should go to bed hungry in this entire world. Like, no disagreement at all. However if we cannot accomplish that within our own borders first then I see no evidence we could ever accomplish it other countries as well. You for sure misunderstand my opinion on things if you believe I think anyone starving is honorable. It is the reason why I wish to tax billionaires to old standards so that we can use that money to take care of our citizens and then as a prosperous nation use money we no longer need to provide for the health of our citizens to benefit the broader world until no one is starving. Unfortunately we cannot get past step one because 0 republicans voted to raise people out of starvation wages.

---

I think you conflate Conservative with Republican the same way I conflate liberal with Democrat. I am definitely not a Republican. I dont find the need to comment on Ted Cruz because hes an asshole and I dont have anything to add to that conversation

---

'Fun' Fact: There are three to four times as many people in poverty in the United States than the entire population of the South Sudan.

So actually if we were able to to get that situation sorted, we could probably easily help the 8.5 million people in poverty in South Sudan!

---

masterplum posted...

I think you conflate Conservative with Republican the same way I conflate liberal with Democrat. I am definitely not a Republican. I dont find the need to comment on Ted Cruz because hes an asshole and I dont have anything to add to that conversation

WELL I guess you don't get much of an argument from me. Although I don't know how you are conservative if you want to help other countries this much and want open borders. Are you sure you aren't really far left and just hit your head and forgot half of it?

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

WELL I guess you don't get much of an argument from me. Although I don't know how you are conservative if you want to help other countries this much and want open borders. Are you sure you aren't really far left and just hit your head and forgot half of it?

Pragmatic libertarian is what I would honestly describe myself as. Im libertarian in the the most literal sense, I dont trust people with power to take care of others. That includes Billionaires and corporations, but also governments and Unions. My two biggest voting issues are prison reform and ending protectionist trade policies.

It generally ends with me getting in arguments with everyone.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

WELL I guess you don't get much of an argument from me. Although I don't know how you are conservative if you want to help other countries this much and want open borders. Are you sure you aren't really far left and just hit your head and forgot half of it?

Globalism is historically associated with conservatives and liberals, and not with the left after Stalin changed course from trying to spread socialism across the world to turning the USSR into a mighty empire.

But that is just the path history took in our world; it could have taken another path. Conservatism ultimately is about a worldview about human nature, and specifically whether organizations of people into a society can produce good change. The conservative view is that, in general and in the long run, it cannot. The arc of the moral universe sways to and fro but it has no direction. All we can do is try our best, in the time and with the resources given to us, to push it toward justice as best we can.

---

If you don't trust people in power to take care of others I've got a great book for you to check out about how we can create a classless, stateless, moneyless society

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Although I don't know how you are conservative if you want to help other countries this much and want open borders.

Immigration has always been an issue that has crossed some weird lines on both sides of the political spectrum. The business side of the right has generally been pro-immigration, it's been the culture side that has been staunchly against it. Of course, the culture war side of the Republican party has been winning the fight for control of the GOP since Reagan and Trump obviously put xenophobia and racism at the center of his campaign.

On the left I think there's historically been a bit more unity on pro-immigration but I've still seen "took our jobs!"/protectionism types that oppose it on those grounds.

I kind of feel foreign aid is in somewhat of a similar boat in that it has been the hard, sharp turn towards nationalism in the GOP that has turned them against it.

What I'm getting at here is these aren't necessarily some bedrock issues where I think the right is unified on them. Or, well, they weren't but now that Trump's cult has seized control and started exiling any who dare disagree maybe they are now but that's a more recent development.

---

fuming posted...

If you don't trust people in power to take care of others I've got a great book for you to check out about how we can create a classless, stateless, moneyless society

Communism is honestly interesting in theory, but the amount of political power required to enforce it Im convinced is just entirely corrosive.

I dont think its happenstance every communist government turned into a dictatorship. The frame work for a dictatorship is already set up. All you need is one leader who wants it to be one

---

xp1337 posted...

Immigration has always been an issue that has crossed some weird lines on both sides of the political spectrum. The business side of the right has generally been pro-immigration, it's been the culture side that has been staunchly against it. Of course, the culture war side of the Republican party has been winning the fight for control of the GOP since Reagan and Trump obviously put xenophobia and racism at the center of his campaign.

The Pandemic sort of made them show their true colors on what they think of immigration. they love to use it as a political tool and a way to create a villain.

But we had a global pandemic. The greatest excuse we've ever had in recent memory to shut down the fucking border and crack down on immigration. But because of the economic dependence on Mexico and more specifically labor from Mexico, the subject was never really brought up by the right.

---

masterplum posted...

I dont trust people with power to take care of others. That includes Billionaires and corporations, but also governments and Unions

ahhh yes the hypocrisy.

Don't trust people in power, but trust people in power to take care of their workers. lol.

---

trust no one not even yourself

---

Liberterian is just a word for politically ignorant. People that identify as libertarian just never look deep enough at the ramifications of their world view.

---

xp1337 posted...

trust no one

-Forsaken NPC

red13n posted...

ahhh yes the hypocrisy.

Don't trust people in power, but trust people in power to take care of their workers. lol.

Many people have been screwed over by unions that protected older lazy employees over themselves. Its not the standard case, but thats not the point. Its the potential for abuse.

which ties back to why Dictator Bernie Sanders is so abhorrent to me. Do I think a dictator Bernie Sanders would actually be that bad? Eh... not really. The problem is the government structure that would be set up to enable a dictator Bernie to exist would also let a dictator Donald or a Dictator MTG to exist. You dont just get to depose of dictators you dont like, otherwise they wouldnt be dictators.

---

the example of "dictator bernie sanders" is a bit ridiculous though because Bernie Sanders would never want to be a dictator. I think a lot of the reason people in this topic have spoken positively about "dictator Bernie Sanders" is that they don't think he is the power hungry type, so they feel more comfortable with him in the role than someone who would be.

fuming posted...

the example of "dictator bernie sanders" is a bit ridiculous though because Bernie Sanders would never want to be a dictator. I think a lot of the reason people in this topic have spoken positively about "dictator Bernie Sanders" is that they don't think he is the power hungry type, so they feel more comfortable with him in the role than someone who would be.

Which is my point exactly. I think the difference in my politics versus most of the board is I read DICTATOR berniesanders while others read dictator BERNIESANDERS

---

masterplum posted...

. I think the difference in my politics versus most of the board is I read DICTATOR berniesanders while others read dictator BERNIESANDERS

If this is what you really think the difference is frankly your thinking isn't worth very much.

masterplum posted...

Many people have been screwed over by unions that protected older lazy employees over themselves. Its not the standard case, but thats not the point. Its the potential for abuse.

Which is probably one one thousandth of the employees that would get screwed over without a union.

Which is what you are advocating for.

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/09/974605448/kentucky-election-reform-effort-gets-bipartisan-backing

I think this is a smart play by Kentucky democrats. I think the current Republican party is a minority fueled by intense hatred, and if the fervor wears off people are going to fall off by the truckload. If you are going to lose by a landslide anyways, concede

---

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/4599232001

---

masterplum posted...

Many people have been screwed over by unions that protected older lazy employees over themselves. Its not the standard case, but thats not the point. Its the potential for abuse.

You mean as opposed to the thousands upon thousands of workers who've been screwed over by their employers because they have no union? Ahh yes, the 'potential' is so much worse than the actual abuse.

---

Corrik7 posted...

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/4599232001

Damn stupid slogan.

---

Reminder that masterplum has stated in this very topic series that any involvement of the state in business is communism.

Seriously man, look up anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndaclism. Those seem like a much better ideologies for you than one that mainly exists to hand power to corporations.

masterplum posted...

Communism is honestly interesting in theory, but the amount of political power required to enforce it Im convinced is just entirely corrosive.

I dont think its happenstance every communist government turned into a dictatorship. The frame work for a dictatorship is already set up. All you need is one leader who wants it to be one

Also this is entirely not true. Look up the Spanish Civil War and Catalonia in particular. That wasnt a dictatorship. The people who put an end to it while western democracies did nothing (to appease Hitler), however, were for dictatorships and indeed established one.

Then if you read that and go oh but that wasnt a central government of a country! then I would point you to France in 1946 when the Parti Communiste (co-founded by Ho Chi Minh!) governed as the largest party. Did they turn France into a dictatorship? Of course not, it was probably more democratic then than it is now! At the end of the day, you are only thinking about one type of communism: Marxism-Leninism (aka Stalinism), which is far from the only form of it. You also need to keep in mind that the communist parties that you are thinking of were controlled by Communist International and ultimately answered to Stalin. They are not exactly representative of true communists.


---

Lightning Strikes posted...

Reminder that masterplum has stated in this very topic series that any involvement of the state in business is communism.

what

---

Our discussion of price freezes my friend. Though you were being quite general!

---

Not having any government intervention at all is fairly nonsensical. That basically would result in feudalism. Liberty from the government and becoming a serf doesnt seem like much more liberty to me

---

Corrik7 posted...

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/4599232001

Propaganda is a helluva thing

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Propaganda is a helluva thing

*facepalm*

---

Inviso posted...

*facepalm*

Just say what you mean so I can tell you youre wrong again.

---

Corrik7 posted...

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/4599232001

Oh no.

They were so close to making Americans forget about the issues with police again.

At least they still managed to distract from the student loans thing!

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Just say what you mean so I can tell you youre wrong again.

I'm just saying that perhaps instead of complaining about "propaganda", maybe you should re-evaluate YOUR brilliant and successful propaganda strategy of yelling at people about how smart and right you are to zero effect.

---

Im gonna preempt Inviso once again saying the left is bad because the slogan is bad they should do something different and point out that the Activists wanting to defund the police called for money to be shuffled around from militarizing police to objectively positive things like social workers and medical aid.

Then the propaganda of the Right that the Left wants to get rid of Police took hold, in no small part to moderates like Inviso seeing that and immediately bending like a twig because on the subject of the Police, like many other things, theyd rather criticize the tactics of the left than contribute to countering the actions of the right.

Edit: I fucking nailed it

---

You're damn right I'd rather criticize the tactics of the left. You know why? Because we can't counter the actions of the right until the left get their heads out of the asses and start playing to fucking WIN instead of just sitting atop their lofty, moral high ground. I'm sick of the left's tactics because it's reached a point where I genuinely believe you don't give a shit about the policies you preach. You just wanted to spread an aura of righteousness around while doing absolutely NOTHING to strategically get your policies passed. It's just a constant stream of learned helplessness where you say the system is rigged against you (when it's not entirely, as evidenced by AOC's upset victory and now the Nevada Democratic party) to avoid any introspection. For fuck's sake, it genuinely feels like I, someone constantly criticizing you and your awful tactics, want progressive policies to succeed more than you do.

---

Inviso posted...

It's just a constant stream of learned helplessness where you say the system is rigged against you (when it's not entirely, as evidenced by AOC's upset victory and now the Nevada Democratic party)

"It's not rigged. It's just heavily slanted against progressive candidates, idiot."

---

The righteousness is all you, my dude.

Literally every time we do this, I get the distinct impression you arent even reading my posts. Like speaking objectively, the fault of Defund the Police is that the Right turned it into the Left wants to abolish police, and your immediate response is that the Left is at fault here.

Inviso posted...

For f***'s sake, it genuinely feels like I, someone constantly criticizing you and your awful tactics, want progressive policies to succeed more than you do

Like this is even sillier than when Ushiromiya said Im gonna become a Republican. At least his is based in horseshoe nonsense, yours is just based self-righteousness.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

"It's not rigged. It's just heavily slanted against progressive candidates, idiot."

I get that argument, but I guess where I disagree is that it's a systemic slant. I see no reason, based on the make-up and political leanings of our country as a whole, to think that the voters just aren't as keen on progressive policies as progressives think they are. And progressives constantly using strategies tailored to a false notion of popularity (rather than tailored to making them more appealing to a larger audience) is why progressives struggle to succeed so often. And furthermore, constantly blaming the system seems like the only strategy there is. Like, okay, the system is holding you down: how are you going to overcome that? What is your strategy for overcoming the systemic imbalance working against you? Oh, you're just going to do the same thing again and hope it works this time. Okay.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

"It's not rigged. It's just heavily slanted against progressive candidates, idiot."

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://twitter.com/danrolle/status/1369006236998500356?s=21

Democrats, am I right?

Inviso, in case youre wondering why progressives have a hard time, its stuff like this, ok? This happened in the open, how much ratfucking do you think happens behind the scenes?

He. Doesnt. Read. My. Posts.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

The righteousness is all you, my dude.

Literally every time we do this, I get the distinct impression you arent even reading my posts. Like speaking objectively, the fault of Defund the Police is that the Right turned it into the Left wants to abolish police, and your immediate response is that the Left is at fault here.

Like this is even sillier than when Ushiromiya said Im gonna become a Republican. At least his is based in horseshoe nonsense, yours is just based self-righteousness.

Dude, you can't even admit that Defund the Police is a shit slogan, specifically because of how easy it was for the GOP to warp it to taint the movement. It also does not help that several of your own progressive brethren fully agree with EXACTLY what the GOP say the slogan means, and they don't see a problem with that, which kinda makes it so the GOP doesn't have to do a whole lot to taint the slogan.

---

Defund the Police is a poisoned slogan because of literally propaganda, thanks for agreeing with me.

---