/*Scroll to top when arrow up clicked BEGIN*/ /*Scroll to top when arrow up clicked END*/
Collapse

Announcement

No announcement yet.
Collapse

6 figure government job...no white applicants allowed.

X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by pudubny View Post

    Yes. It was the Philly design you called "racist". But it's still a pride flag. But you started that thread with the feminism/Islam alignment rant. How's that working out?
    Two posts ago you said you didn't call the union flag communist but anarchist. But now you say it is?
    As for me and Marx. I don't need to defend a man who is on every top 10 list of most influencial and important economists in world history. Usually in the top 5. Check out the lists, avail online. Some published by very prestigious universities. But more, Marx is also on every top 10 list for most important and influencial sociologists. Two disciplines. He is on every list of important and influencial people in the history of the world. Because I see merit in some of Marx's arguments or observations (not all) does not make me a defender. It makes me realistic about the man's contributions. The attempt to tarnish my argument by associating me with Marx is not effective. I tried to make this point before, you didn't understand it then and you still do not.
    Evidently the OP has taken on the task of personally exposing and stamping out any ideas that conflict with his. I hope he realizes that radicals come in all shapes and sizes, and can be found sprinkled across the entire political spectrum.
    We may not be good but at least we'll be slow - PB


    TM RBZ Tour 10.5 set to 9 deg with Aldila RIP Alpha 70s
    Adams IDEA Super Hybrid XTD 17 deg stiff
    Nike Machspeed 3H 21 deg stiff
    Wilson FG Tour V4 - 4i-GW - DG Pro S300 - TLT build
    Cleveland/TM wedges - 53 / 56 / 60 - all one length
    Cleveland BRZ Classic 1 putter
    Srixon Star XV
    Ogio Grom bag

    Comment


    • Originally posted by dmcdam View Post

      Evidently the OP has taken on the task of personally exposing and stamping out any ideas that conflict with his. I hope he realizes that radicals come in all shapes and sizes, and can be found sprinkled across the entire political spectrum.
      The UGDSB saying everything created by white people is inherently racist because of social consteuction is not my idea, they're the facts. I'm looking for the proof of that because it was said, and no one in that meeting or after it has disagreed.

      How is that so hard to understand?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by pudubny View Post

        Yes. It was the Philly design you called "racist". But it's still a pride flag. But you started that thread with the feminism/Islam alignment rant. How's that working out?
        Two posts ago you said you didn't call the union flag communist but anarchist. But now you say it is?
        As for me and Marx. I don't need to defend a man who is on every top 10 list of most influencial and important economists in world history. Usually in the top 5. Check out the lists, avail online. Some published by very prestigious universities. But more, Marx is also on every top 10 list for most important and influencial sociologists. Two disciplines. He is on every list of important and influencial people in the history of the world. Because I see merit in some of Marx's arguments or observations (not all) does not make me a defender. It makes me realistic about the man's contributions. The attempt to tarnish my argument by associating me with Marx is not effective. I tried to make this point before, you didn't understand it then and you still do not.
        His ideas are also responsible for the most deaths in the 20th century, and Hitler is miles behind. So ya I guess everything you said just cancels that fact out then.

        I actually have no problems with a Marxist society either, as long as I get to be the dictator.

        ​​​​​​

        Comment


        • Originally posted by pudubny View Post



          So yes you called the pride flag "racist" in at least two posts. Shifting to "people of colour" when that didn't work. And you called the flag "communist symbolism" and the various union influences "Marx 100%". Blame my good memory again.
          I firmly believe by your logic that you would call MLK "racist" because he didn't advocate for "white people's" rights.
          Anyone who doesn't advocate for equal rights all around for all colors, black, white or otherwise is a racist. BLM supposedly wants equality the same as white. Yet calls white people racists. So are they aspiring for black people to be racists?

          http://www.soundclick.com/bands/defa...?bandID=914402

          Comment


          • Originally posted by guitarman View Post

            Anyone who doesn't advocate for equal rights all around for all colors, black, white or otherwise is a racist. BLM supposedly wants equality the same as white. Yet calls white people racists. So are they aspiring for black people to be racists?
            So calling someone "racist" is now a "racist" act? I am unaware of when BLM called all white "racists". I do know they believe in systemic racism but that's a different thing.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Kentucky Blue Balls View Post

              His ideas are also responsible for the most deaths in the 20th century, and Hitler is miles behind. So ya I guess everything you said just cancels that fact out then.

              I actually have no problems with a Marxist society either, as long as I get to be the dictator.

              ​​​​​​
              No it doesn't. Its not an either/or proposition. Academically it's not black or white. What Marx observed influenced many other academics and fields of study. Even when he wasn't completely correct, elements of his thinking were and it spurred new thoughts and ideas. In our previous debate about this I noted several areas.
              ​​​​​​Leaving aside that what leaders actually did who claimed to be "Marxist" was rarely what Marx actually envisioned. Hence you have many sub branches of Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc. Stalin's decision to starve millions of independence thinking Ukranians (known as the Holodomor) isn't part of Marxism, that was Stalin. Mao's decisions which lead to the death of millions of Chinese again isn't a Marxist idea. Marx knew violence in society was inevitable if the systems he observed remained. He advocated that the revolution be used to unseat the ruling classes. So he understood that violence was necessary but also inevitable, so he thought it should be focused on creating a new framework. Keep in mind Marx was heavily influenced by the successes and failures of the French Revolution and Nepoleon.
              This is pretty elementary history as far as Marx goes, maybe before you go typing up opinions about the man, you should try to actually understand the scope and scale of his work. Peterson (who seems to be a huge influence on you) sees "neo-marxism" everywhere and thinks anything even influenced by him is bad. Often invoking the "slippery slope" myth. That's nonsense.
              Now before you go on with another misrepresentation of my views, I'm not saying Marx ideas of communism would work if implemented the way he wanted.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by pudubny View Post

                No it doesn't. Its not an either/or proposition. Academically it's not black or white. What Marx observed influenced many other academics and fields of study. Even when he wasn't completely correct, elements of his thinking were and it spurred new thoughts and ideas. In our previous debate about this I noted several areas.
                ​​​​​​Leaving aside that what leaders actually did who claimed to be "Marxist" was rarely what Marx actually envisioned. Hence you have many sub branches of Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc. Stalin's decision to starve millions of independence thinking Ukranians (known as the Holodomor) isn't part of Marxism, that was Stalin. Mao's decisions which lead to the death of millions of Chinese again isn't a Marxist idea. Marx knew violence in society was inevitable if the systems he observed remained. He advocated that the revolution be used to unseat the ruling classes. So he understood that violence was necessary but also inevitable, so he thought it should be focused on creating a new framework. Keep in mind Marx was heavily influenced by the successes and failures of the French Revolution and Nepoleon.
                This is pretty elementary history as far as Marx goes, maybe before you go typing up opinions about the man, you should try to actually understand the scope and scale of his work. Peterson (who seems to be a huge influence on you) sees "neo-marxism" everywhere and thinks anything even influenced by him is bad. Often invoking the "slippery slope" myth. That's nonsense.
                Now before you go on with another misrepresentation of my views, I'm not saying Marx ideas of communism would work if implemented the way he wanted.
                Yes they are, because Marx teaches to resent anyone who has more than you, Marx also teaches how to get revenge on people who are oppressing you. That's the connection you can't make, you think the problem lies with the dictator, but it's not, it's the manifesto that's the problem. No he doesn't say go out and starve everyone to death but he never realized that teaching people to resent others, and seek revenge would lead to hundreds of millions of people being starved to death.

                Marx teaches resentment, and revenge, and that if anyone has more than the working class they had to exploit someone to get there, that's how you always end up with mobs and murder in any Marxist society no matter who the dictator is, and it's all in the first paragraph.


                ​​​​​

                Comment


                • Originally posted by pudubny View Post

                  So calling someone "racist" is now a "racist" act? I am unaware of when BLM called all white "racists". I do know they believe in systemic racism but that's a different thing.
                  That's not what was said, what was said was if BLM strives to be equal to white people then wouldn't they just be aspiring to be racists, especially if they believe all white people are racist, which they do.

                  It was a great question that can lead to a deeper conversation.
                  Last edited by Kentucky Blue Balls; Oct 16, 2020, 08:34 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Kentucky Blue Balls View Post

                    Yes they are, because Marx teaches to resent anyone who has more than you, Marx also teaches how to get revenge on people who are oppressing you. That's the connection you can't make, you think the problem lies with the dictator, but it's not, it's the manifesto that's the problem. No he doesn't say go out and starve everyone to death but he never realized that teaching people to resent others, and seek revenge would lead to hundreds of millions of people being starved to death.

                    Marx teaches resentment, and revenge, and that if anyone has more than the working class they had to exploit someone to get there, that's how you always end up with mobs and murder in any Marxist society no matter who the dictator is, and it's all in the first paragraph.


                    ​​​​​
                    You misrepresent Marx and the historical event that occurred. The Ukranians were not resented because they "had more" than others. They were resented by Stalin for their desire for independence. It was a power play, not a revenge act necessitated by the movement to socialism. Marx viewed violent revolution as inevitable. And during the transition to actual communism he knew continued violence may be necessary to stop counter-revolution. A lesson from the French Revolution.
                    Marx didn't teach people at the bottom of the economic scale to resent those who maintained a system to exploit them. They already hated them. Bastille Day?
                    Marx accurately described the exploitation he saw in the decades before he wrote. Keep in mind feudalism was still widespread in Europe. Many laws still protected and ensured wealth for the aristocracy based on nothing but birthright. Poverty and income inequality were big issues and laws were designed to keep it that way. In no way am I saying Marx 's solution were correct, but he accurately guaged the situation of millions of people. He saw the many flaws in England labour economy as the industrial revolution expanded. He correctly saw that unionization would be a key. He correctly predicted that unions would rise up and demand more. What he didn't foresee was the ability of capitalists to adopt. Almost all labour law and changes in working conditions since 1830 have been a reaction to Marx's observations of how civil unrest and revolution begin. The capitalists changed to stave off communism and revolution. But Marx's observations of this tension was key. Capitalism adapted, at least partially out of fear of what happened in Russia.
                    Marx's analysis of oppression and exploitation was correct. How people extrapolate that to modern conditions is part of the legacy of his influence. It will not always be right.
                    So Marx identified keys to civil unrest. Inequality, exploration, unjust laws, competition between workers and employers. These are all in part true. Not 100% but history shows when conditions in society get bad, revolutions and civil unrest result. Those conditions are often economic and all modern economic theory has been influenced by those observations.
                    So you say Marx "teaches" revenge, I would say (and I think scholarship would agree with me) that revenge and resentment grow out of unfair and exploitative economic systems. Marx didn't have to teach it, it grows all by itself in poorly run economies. He admired the modern capitalist society England was building but didn't think it would be sustained. He thought more violence and unrest was inevitable because as he saw it, capitalism would continue to be exploitive. But capitalism adapted. Not in any small part because of violence, the threat of civil unrest. The Russian Revolution scared capitalists to make more concessions.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Kentucky Blue Balls View Post


                      Marx teaches resentment, and revenge, and that if anyone has more than the working class they had to exploit someone to get there, that's how you always end up with mobs and murder in any Marxist society no matter who the dictator is, and it's all in the first paragraph.


                      ​​​​​
                      You have mentioned the "first paragraph" multiple times. Here are the words in the Manifesto.
                      "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
                      Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes."

                      I agree this is an oversimplification of history, even from an economic standpoint. But it is also largely true. Especially when Marx wrote it. Since that time we have tried to equalize and eliminate class in one way or another. His historical reference is also has merit, the "each time has ended" has a lot of historical truth.
                      Now some would say Marx saw everything through this lens. I would say he saw it as most important but identified other factors in Das Kapital and others. But I agree it oversimplified. But here he isn't advocating violence, he is clearly stating violence and revolution is inevitable, again assuming historical conditions continue. Again often true. But I would say he does not advocate violence here, he wants the inevitable violence used.
                      Now this oppressed and oppressor narrative has been called into play with modern cultural Marxism. That is an influence of Marx. While again I think it's wrong to view everything through that lens, it is a part of many cultural and current situations. So segregation can be seen at least in part as exploitive. Its not the only explanation for the relationship but in some elements it is part of the explanation. So while I agree the cultural Marxism card is used too much and often. Its not without some merit.
                      Again, influenced by Marx, observed by Marx and adapted to modern frameworks. I agree people who see all relationships in this light are wrong. But that doesn't mean that they do not exist. So it's part of the discussion.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by pudubny View Post

                        You misrepresent Marx and the historical event that occurred. The Ukranians were not resented because they "had more" than others. They were resented by Stalin for their desire for independence. It was a power play, not a revenge act necessitated by the movement to socialism. Marx viewed violent revolution as inevitable. And during the transition to actual communism he knew continued violence may be necessary to stop counter-revolution. A lesson from the French Revolution.
                        Marx didn't teach people at the bottom of the economic scale to resent those who maintained a system to exploit them. They already hated them. Bastille Day?
                        Marx accurately described the exploitation he saw in the decades before he wrote. Keep in mind feudalism was still widespread in Europe. Many laws still protected and ensured wealth for the aristocracy based on nothing but birthright. Poverty and income inequality were big issues and laws were designed to keep it that way. In no way am I saying Marx 's solution were correct, but he accurately guaged the situation of millions of people. He saw the many flaws in England labour economy as the industrial revolution expanded. He correctly saw that unionization would be a key. He correctly predicted that unions would rise up and demand more. What he didn't foresee was the ability of capitalists to adopt. Almost all labour law and changes in working conditions since 1830 have been a reaction to Marx's observations of how civil unrest and revolution begin. The capitalists changed to stave off communism and revolution. But Marx's observations of this tension was key. Capitalism adapted, at least partially out of fear of what happened in Russia.
                        Marx's analysis of oppression and exploitation was correct. How people extrapolate that to modern conditions is part of the legacy of his influence. It will not always be right.
                        So Marx identified keys to civil unrest. Inequality, exploration, unjust laws, competition between workers and employers. These are all in part true. Not 100% but history shows when conditions in society get bad, revolutions and civil unrest result. Those conditions are often economic and all modern economic theory has been influenced by those observations.
                        So you say Marx "teaches" revenge, I would say (and I think scholarship would agree with me) that revenge and resentment grow out of unfair and exploitative economic systems. Marx didn't have to teach it, it grows all by itself in poorly run economies. He admired the modern capitalist society England was building but didn't think it would be sustained. He thought more violence and unrest was inevitable because as he saw it, capitalism would continue to be exploitive. But capitalism adapted. Not in any small part because of violence, the threat of civil unrest. The Russian Revolution scared capitalists to make more concessions.
                        Stalin convinced everyone that the Ukrainians were oppressors and created policies and legislation that was used against them. Farmers with one cow were seen as oppressors to were the red famine was justified by millions of normal everyday people. You're kidding me right? Stalin manipulated everyone in order to justify the famine, that wasn't done without massive amounts of propaganda and manipulation, he even used the education system to brainwash children on who the oppressors were.

                        Funny how you don't quote where I agreed with you, especially where I said some revolutions have been justified, I'm not against revolution. Even Peterson agrees Marx gets some things right. But I'm going to sum all this up by asking quite simply,

                        Do you think all white people have oppressed people of colour and visible minorities to get where they are? And they continue to do so because of social construction?
                        Last edited by Kentucky Blue Balls; Oct 17, 2020, 12:47 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Kentucky Blue Balls View Post

                          Stalin convinced everyone that the Ukrainians were oppressors and created policies and legislation that was used against them. Farmers with one cow were seen as oppressors to were the red famine was justified by millions of normal everyday people. You're kidding me right? Stalin manipulated everyone in order to justify the famine, that wasn't done without massive amounts of propaganda and manipulation, he even used the education system to brainwash children on who the oppressors were.

                          Funny how you don't quote where I agreed with you, especially where I said some revolutions have been justified, I'm not against revolution. Even Peterson agrees Marx gets some things right. But I'm going to sum all this up by asking quite simply,

                          Do you think all white people have oppressed people of colour and visible minorities to get where they are? And they continue to do so because of social construction?
                          I did not comment on Stalin's side of propaganda and the Kulak laws of 1929. He did not need to manipulate anyone to do what he did. The NKVD carried out most of the programs and he had total control of it. He used propaganda to justify to the populace. But it was part of his program to subdue nationalism in Ukraine and enact collectivism in general. You can argue that Marx influenced Stalin but I doubt you can find where Marx would call for the death of millions to make a point. Most experts say it was a failure on various fronts. Admin of food and farming, distribution, etc. But it was also targeted.
                          By Marx's writing are poor farmers the oppressors? No. Stalin used the language of the revolution to justify a political action.

                          The answers to your questions are not black and white. Their are lots of nuances here. But whites have benefitted from marginalizing minorities (less competition) and that has been part of the thinking for hundreds of years. Failing to recognize it and do something about is also at least passive acceptance. They benefit from passive acceptance. Better schools, less competition for jobs, access to cheap labour and it's benefits, housing etc. Failure to accept that whites have benefitted from this arrangement through generations also contributes. Minorities were widely denied the affirmative action plans given to whites and the communal wealth they unevenly distributed to white families.
                          I don't deny that other elements play a role but it hard to argue that by broad definitions it was oppression. Maybe not in the dramatic terms of Marx but widely present.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by pudubny View Post

                            I did not comment on Stalin's side of propaganda and the Kulak laws of 1929. He did not need to manipulate anyone to do what he did. The NKVD carried out most of the programs and he had total control of it. He used propaganda to justify to the populace. But it was part of his program to subdue nationalism in Ukraine and enact collectivism in general. You can argue that Marx influenced Stalin but I doubt you can find where Marx would call for the death of millions to make a point. Most experts say it was a failure on various fronts. Admin of food and farming, distribution, etc. But it was also targeted.
                            By Marx's writing are poor farmers the oppressors? No. Stalin used the language of the revolution to justify a political action.

                            The answers to your questions are not black and white. Their are lots of nuances here. But whites have benefitted from marginalizing minorities (less competition) and that has been part of the thinking for hundreds of years. Failing to recognize it and do something about is also at least passive acceptance. They benefit from passive acceptance. Better schools, less competition for jobs, access to cheap labour and it's benefits, housing etc. Failure to accept that whites have benefitted from this arrangement through generations also contributes. Minorities were widely denied the affirmative action plans given to whites and the communal wealth they unevenly distributed to white families.
                            I don't deny that other elements play a role but it hard to argue that by broad definitions it was oppression. Maybe not in the dramatic terms of Marx but widely present.

                            Marx doesn't call for the death of millions? My goodness if you have even read the manifesto clearly you read it with a bias that just leaves out the bad parts, because the justification for VIOLENT revolution is right in his manifesto. Not a mostly peaceful revolution, a violent and consciously murderous one. Honestly this is becoming embarrassing, you should probably stop. His entire foundation of his manifesto is about resentment and revenge, and I already explained how that foundation leads every dictator who has interpreted his work to murder hundreds of millions of people. Unfortunately Marx died before he could see how stupid he was because that's clearly led others to believe he wasn't stupid.

                            There is a reason why everywhere his ideas have been tried they fail miserably because they are bad, and anyone espousing them or defending them should be mocked and ridiculed accordingly.


                            Do you believe oppression by white people against all non white people is so egregious in society, that a revolution is justified? ​​It is black and white because the UGDSB and OSSTF say it is. Let's get back on topic, because those are the facts.
                            Last edited by Kentucky Blue Balls; Oct 17, 2020, 11:37 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Kentucky Blue Balls View Post


                              Marx doesn't call for the death of millions? My goodness if you have even read the manifesto clearly you read it with a bias that just leaves out the bad parts, because the justification for VIOLENT revolution is right in his manifesto. Not a mostly peaceful revolution, a violent and consciously murderous one. Honestly this is becoming embarrassing, you should probably stop. His entire foundation of his manifesto is about resentment and revenge, and I already explained how that foundation leads every dictator who has interpreted his work to murder hundreds of millions of people. Unfortunately Marx died before he could see how stupid he was because that's clearly led others to believe he wasn't stupid.

                              There is a reason why everywhere his ideas have been tried they fail miserably because they are bad, and anyone espousing them or defending them should be mocked and ridiculed accordingly.


                              Do you believe oppression by white people against all non white people is so egregious in society, that a revolution is justified? ​​It is black and white because the UGDSB and OSSTF say it is. Let's get back on topic, because those are the facts.
                              Marx understood that any change in political order involved violence. The change from monarchism to federalism involved perhaps a dozen smaller revolutions in England for example. The end of feudalism involved dozens more revolutions across Europe. Uprisings from unhappy citizens were put down across Europe with severe violence by those in power. They maintained power by using violence. It was his observations that these changes were almost always the result of violent revolution. That was true. Marx's view was that violence was inevitable. Either to maintain oppression or overthrow it. The manifesto tried to focus that revolution on creating a new order. Yes violence was necessary for it to happen, but his theory of violence is deterministic. Hence the oft quoted "
                              " slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guildmaster and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in CONSTANT opposition to one another, carried on an UNINTERUPTED, now hidden, now open fight, that each time ended, either in the revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes."

                              So again I am.left explaining that his view of class warfare was often correct. This is but one of his contributions to our understanding. He also expressed that the conditions that enslaved the lower classes were a form of violence in itself. Again, a brilliant observation. You conflate his views on how the world should be ruled (his communist views) with his brilliant observations on how it effectively operated. Those observations were correct at least in part.
                              I don't believe the conditions today warrant violent revolution. But the funny part of this discussion is, society has made concessions to grieving parties to prevent violence and revolutions. The CRA in the US for example. And politicians views on the tension between classes has been informed by Marx's observations. We know when inequality between groups becomes severe, the risk of civil unrest increases. As simple as that sounds today, it was Marx who identified and gave structure to that understanding.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by pudubny View Post

                                Marx understood that any change in political order involved violence. The change from monarchism to federalism involved perhaps a dozen smaller revolutions in England for example. The end of feudalism involved dozens more revolutions across Europe. Uprisings from unhappy citizens were put down across Europe with severe violence by those in power. They maintained power by using violence. It was his observations that these changes were almost always the result of violent revolution. That was true. Marx's view was that violence was inevitable. Either to maintain oppression or overthrow it. The manifesto tried to focus that revolution on creating a new order. Yes violence was necessary for it to happen, but his theory of violence is deterministic. Hence the oft quoted "
                                " slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guildmaster and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in CONSTANT opposition to one another, carried on an UNINTERUPTED, now hidden, now open fight, that each time ended, either in the revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes."

                                So again I am.left explaining that his view of class warfare was often correct. This is but one of his contributions to our understanding. He also expressed that the conditions that enslaved the lower classes were a form of violence in itself. Again, a brilliant observation. You conflate his views on how the world should be ruled (his communist views) with his brilliant observations on how it effectively operated. Those observations were correct at least in part.
                                I don't believe the conditions today warrant violent revolution. But the funny part of this discussion is, society has made concessions to grieving parties to prevent violence and revolutions. The CRA in the US for example. And politicians views on the tension between classes has been informed by Marx's observations. We know when inequality between groups becomes severe, the risk of civil unrest increases. As simple as that sounds today, it was Marx who identified and gave structure to that understanding.
                                So what happens when you convince everyone who's not white, that white people got ahead by oppressing and exploiting them because they've been socially constructed to be white supremacists. And that turns out to not be factually true.

                                How bad is that? Especially if a school board teaches that to children as young as four or five years old. What type of false emotional trauma could that cause in a child? Teaching children to resent others is not good.


                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Latest TGN Reviews


                                Collapse

                                PGA Leaderboard


                                Collapse

                                Today's Birthdays


                                Working...
                                X