America - The Official Thread

[Groundfish]

So if he responded, @McLaren then what was the response?
You said previously he responded that:“that’s a right wing talking point”
Imo that’s not an argument or counterpoint.
Would you care to share the interaction somehow?
Really we don’t know what was said on both sides.
I’m certainly not endorsing the guy who got banned, I’m curious what was said though, by the two of them that led to the banning.
What I posted above is what I think happened, from what you’ve said…
It seems you really put the socialist streamer on a pedestal for some reason, almost like children in the old USSR loved Lenin lol
(That was a joke, don’t get your panties in a bunch lololol)

 

[McLaren]

Would you care to share the interaction somehow?

It's called, go to Twitch.tv/hasanabi and watch yesterday's VOD past the 4 hour mark, after he goes offline.

 

[Groundfish]

It's called, go to Twitch.tv/hasanabi and watch yesterday's VOD past the 4 hour mark, after he goes offline.

I went but he was just ranting and cursing at that point saying he feared for his life since people knows where he lives?
This guys a peach.
I couldn’t find any reference that you claimed was there.
Are you sure maybe you didn’t make the whole thing up?

 

[McLaren]

I went but he was just ranting and cursing at that point saying he feared for his life since people knows where he lives?
This guys a peach.
I couldn’t find any reference that you claimed was there.
Are you sure maybe you didn’t make the whole thing up?

Hey, guy who doesn't understand Twitch.

watch yesterday's VOD past the 4 hour mark, after he goes offline.

You can not watch the VOD where he responds to your socialist-ignorant Twitch-equivalent til' he goes offline.


And of no surprise, you think DOXing is something to be mocked.

 

[Danoff]

As far as not responding to others, @danoof presented an argument based on 3 points three postulates if you will, one of which being any country that has a socialist policy is socialist
Well that’s laughable, so to me the argument is immediately moot since what followed was logically consistent but based on 2 of 3 false pretenses.

I see you've sorta jogged on here... but at least you're actually responding to something. The presence of a broad sweeping socialist policy makes a country necessarily socialist in at least that respect. In 1935, the US enacted a huge socialist policy, in which the elderly were entitled to benefits in old age. The first social security recipient paid $74.25 in taxes into the social security system in total. She received $22,888 by the time she died. Social security was a way to provide for an entire swath of people, the elderly, in a completely disproportionate way compared to their input into the system. It was a re-distributive program from everyone who was working, to all of the elderly. Deeply socialist, and created a huge group of voters who were entitled to benefits. It also simultaneously tied every single worker to the socialist system.

So even if you don't think this makes the US as socialist as some other socialist nations, it definitely is socialist, and it definitely represents the US being at least somewhat socialist. Remember that the term "socialist" covers a huge range of types of government, and so on one end, it covers mostly capitalist, minimally socialist countries like india (which is less socialist than we are today). And on the otherhand, it covers deeply socialist systems, especially theoretical systems, that extend all the way to communism.

 

[Groundfish]

ou can not watch the VOD where he responds to your socialist-ignorant Twitch-equivalent til' he goes offline.

Sorry but all I find is cursing and ranting and negativity there.
Plus I think you made that bit up didn’t you?
Because according to you he banned the person instead of defeating their points?
Why would he do that?
If he made a good argument why would t you share that here for the topic?
I’m not going to bother searching 8 hours of idiotic cursing trying to find one single instance of logic on display…

@Danoff had you bothered to read any of my posts you would be able to see the true definitions in use.
That would be in direct contrast to your bizarre tactic of shifting the definitions of words along with the goalposts further with each sentence you type!
To what end? I have no idea.
You can choose to say within your writings that since the definitions are being shifted BY YOU that therefore you are correct I guess.
Just as you laid out the bait with your three postulates…2 of 3 were poppycock .
You can’t base an interaction on a dishonest attempt to pigeonhole people either.
It’s extremely difficult to interact with your writings because they are so fraught with assumption that is untrue.
In order to undo all the missteps it could take a page to one sentence you produce!

The big thing now is the same exact repeat of history we have seen over and over again. Just as Marx wrote the subversion begins with socialism.
Interestingly if you think about it just as the communists are working on in India big things ideologically is removing religion.
From a psychological standpoint religion is quite problematic if the culture you are trying to subvert has any.
It’s a META psychologically which must be broken in order to fully subvert the subjects to socialism.
Once there’s no higher power the party can take the place of that lol.
That’s maybe why the founders of this constitutional republic didn’t forsake God.
The subverters on the other hand have their tricks…
They need to be able to instill fear and guilt…
How do you do that to someone who has no faith in God, simple.
And that’s what we see today.
None of this discussion about subversion or socialism is new it’s been the same a long long time.
Seems like now there’s a big push to remove all negative connotations to certain words like socialism.

Thing is STALIN himself in 1936 put that word into their constitution.

STALIN. “From each from ability to each per contribution”
didn’t turn out very well for the millions that died at his hands.

Stalin death toll

Redirect Notice

I mean I personally will never acquiesce to a propagandist trying to play semantics games.
Sorry, this is the Murcia thread, JACK!

here’s a video to watch re India


In the USA since the educational system has been infected with subversive ideology multiple generations now we see that the younger folks are so far gone they are actively seeking out the very ideology that intends to enslave them.

It’s sad the shape things are in but all is not lost, luckily Trump appointed many wonderful judges and that was his most important task!

 

[McLaren]

Sorry but all I find is cursing and ranting and negativity there.
Plus I think you made that bit up didn’t you?

In contrast, you've made this up b/c you never looked where I told you to. I know this b/c the ability to look at past VODs wasn't available as he just went offline in the last 30 minutes or so.

Because according to you he banned the person instead of defeating their points?

He banned the person b/c they didn't bother actually debating, just like you don't. They came in, made a similar argument to you, got his attention, Hasan responded, and the user never bothered to actually debate back beyond, "LOL, no". So he got banned; the rule is if you want to go in and be a debate lord, you have to actually debate.

If he made a good argument why would t you share that here for the topic?

I did, but you first have to understand what socialism is to get it. The summary of his short argument was just that - "socialism is not a poverty cult; that's a right-wing talking point". This applies to you as close as one gets.

You have clearly demonstrated that you think being an advocate for socialism must mean you have to remain poor (as result of you not knowing what socialism is). That is right-wing talking point b/c right wing folks also don't know what socialism, and you have routinely shared right-wing talking points in this section, so seeing 1 more from you isn't surprising.

Whether or not you want to search 8 hours or not doesn't bother me at this point. It could be spoon fed to you, but like everything else shared to counter your posts like actual links, articles, and quotes, you bypass them because the idea of "logic on display" is something completely foreign to you. Perhaps one has to hit enter after each & every sentence instead, for you to make sense of anything.

 

[UKMikey]

"Let me bang on some more about Stalin's definition being the only true one... here, watch another deranged YouTube video because I can't counter your points. Yet you're the one shifting the goalposts. I'm not going to listen to you. Listen to meeee."

Boy, this is embarrassing. 🤦‍♂️

 

[Groundfish]

In contrast, you've made this up b/c you never looked where I told you to

I’ve looked several times at the 4 hour mark.
I’m sorry if I’ve offended you by questioning the fellow you clearly worship, but from your own admission he failed to do anything but ban a person who disagreed with him, I mean for him it’s a solid business move.
He’s not getting paid for having integrity that’s for certain!

"socialism is not a poverty cult; that's a right-wing talking point"

If you find this to be an argument I suggest you use a dictionary and look up the definition of the word.
This is the intellectual equivalent of a Miller Light less filling tastes grest commercial from the 1980’s

You have clearly demonstrated that you think being an advocate for socialism must mean you have to remain poor

Negative ghost rider, that would be you saying that.

Well I will come back when I see an argument that’s not a made up strawman I guess.

Never forget Stalin-he used the words danoof said are “socialism not communism” in the very 1936 constitution of the country he used to slaughter 20 million humans.

Finally it’s the same tired playbook again and again with this propoganda…

Take Marxist doctrine, rebrand and try to sell again.

It’s a Utopian fantasy!

Everything free is paid for by someone who works

Here’s a very astute perspective to see. This guy is speaking of a new feudalism. Interesting to interrelate communist ideology to this, if you can.

 

[McLaren]

but from your own admission he failed to do anything but ban a person who disagreed with him,

He got banned for not backing up his argument.

If you find this to be an argument I suggest you use a dictionary and look up the definition of the word.

Your dictionary failed you on "socialism", seems obvious it's failed you on the word, "summary", too.

Negative ghost rider, that would be you saying that.

"Streamer that advocates socialism isn't allowed to buy luxury item".

 

[Imari]

They shift the goalposts semantically by saying no no all those negative realities aren’t what we mean, that’s not socialism that’s communism lol.

So you won't mind if all the Marxists on here conflate conservatism with authoritarianism? Because I think we can all agree that Thatcher was basically Mussolini in drag, right?

Thing is STALIN himself in 1936 put that word into their constitution.

STALIN. “From each from ability to each per contribution”
didn’t turn out very well for the millions that died at his hands.

Stalin death toll

Redirect Notice

It's almost like people can lie. A politician even! I would never have suspected Stalin of lying about anything, he seemed so reasonable and rational.

"Let me bang on some more about Stalin's definition being the only true one... here, watch another deranged YouTube video because I can't counter your points. Yet you're the one shifting the goalposts. I'm not going to listen to you. Listen to meeee."

Boy, this is embarrassing. 🤦‍♂️

I'm pretty sure anyone who uses Stalin as their definition of socialism is running a strawman factory.

If you find this to be an argument I suggest you use a dictionary and look up the definition of the word.
This is the intellectual equivalent of a Miller Light less filling tastes grest commercial from the 1980’s

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

So like, the military is owned by the government, and therefore ultimately by the people. The government doesn't own all the means of military production and distribution, but it owns at least some. The military is a socialist enterprise? Is the current form of the military a communism plot that should be uprooted by privatising the entire thing?

 

[Groundfish]

@Imari
This is nothing new. I already said in 30,922 what would be said because what you are doing is only repeating the plays from the same tired Marxist playbook.
Further I also gave the definition in 30922.
I think where you might be going wrong is this notion you have that one person can have their own definition of a term.
This is not how definitions work you don’t get to invent your own but I digress.
Just as this article points out it’s always the same play out of the playbook ie
“Oh socialism failed in all those countries and led to genocide and starvation all those times? That wasn’t socialism”
It’s nothing new, what folks here have done is simply repeat the same tired “plays”
The biggest propoganda tactic of all is shifting definitions to ensure that positive connotation is given. Lol
For me, it’s just repetitive, the song remains the same “you don’t know what socialism is” or “Venezuela wasn’t socialism” “Stalin wasn’t either”


Anyways this fellow explains it too.

Redirect Notice

Everything free came from someone who worked

 

[UKMikey]

Lol... it's like authoritarianism isn't a thing any more. Every socialist is automatically Stalin, even the democratic, non-totalitarian ones.

No wonder nobody's listening.

As for Led Zep... why change an argument that everyone else agrees with and has yet to be disproved?

 

[Groundfish]

Every socialist is automatically Stalin, even the democratic, non-totalitarian ones.

Margaret Thatcher:

apitalist reforms, stated: “No theory of government was ever given a fairer test or a more prolonged experiment in a democratic country than democratic socialism received in Britain. Yet it was a miserable failure in every respect. Far from reversing the slow relative decline of Britain vis-a-vis its main industrial competitors, it accelerated it. We fell further behind them, until by 1979 we were widely dismissed as ‘the sick man of Europe.’”

Excerpted from this

Redirect Notice

Democratic Socialism — philosophy of poverty

Those who criticize socialism for its failure to create wealth are missing the point.

www.google.com

I suggest studying history before espousing socialism.

 

[UKMikey]

We still have a welfare state and National Health Service despite Thatcher's best efforts to destroy them. Her own party had to block her attempts to do this and eventually kicked her out. I'd trust her opinion as far as I do Stalin's.

Thatcherism has kind of fallen by the wayside now. Her rejection of what she thought of as socialism didn't prevent the country electing a democratic socialist government for the entirety of the 2000s. Amazingly, it didn't seek to control the means of production.

That's history.

 

[Groundfish]

Here’s a section excerpted from the linked paper below discussing democratic socialism’s failure in Great Britain



This popular gloom was echoed, indeed reinforced, by historians and political commentators. In the late seventies, there was a flood of pessimistic literature, particularly from Americans, on the state of the nation – The Future that Doesn’t Work: Social Democracy’s Failures in Britain (1977), The Politics of Economic Decline (1979), Britain: Progress and Decline (1980), and, most evocative of all, Isaac Kramnick’s Is Britain Dying? (1979). A serious academic account of the IMF crisis in late 1976 was entitled, somewhat absurdly, Goodbye Great Britain.1 Historians gave their books titles which heavily featured words like ‘Decline’, ‘Downfall’ and ‘Eclipse’, seeing the roots of disaster perhaps as far back as the 1870s, perhaps even in Britain’s very

Britain in the Seventies – Our Unfinest Hour?

In popular recollection, the 1970s have gone down as the dark ages, Britain’s gloomiest period since the Second World War. It may be that the aftermath of the Brexit vote in 2016 will herald a peri...

journals.openedition.org

Again, it’s the same tired playbook, it doesn’t matter what new name new marketing propoganda is attached to socialism, it is fundamentally flawed.

 

[UKMikey]

The 1970s isn't the 2000s. For a fundamentally flawed system of government it had a 13-year run without wrecking the country. That wasn't due to marketing. Your own source bears this out as it states that Britain began to prosper in the late nineties. More evidence of Betteridge's law that if a headline ends in a question the answer is invariably "no".

This gloomy saga of conflict, decline and aggression would appear to have made Britain ripe for major social confrontation on the lines of Les Evenements in France in 1968. Yet in fact it did not happen and many of the consequences were benign. Even with the sharp political confrontations generated in the Thatcher regime in the eighties, the United Kingdom survived and in the later nineties appeared to prosper. A major factor was that, contrary to Roy Jenkins’ pessimistic forebodings, the centre broadly did hold and the fabric of society held secure, just about and with disturbing crises such as the year-long miners’ crisis of 1984 – 5. It could certainly be said that the reports from the economic messengers were too gloomy.

Thatcherism may not have been the resounding success its adherents claim it is either.

1979 and all that: a 40-year reassessment of Margaret Thatcher’s legacy on her own terms

Abstract. Economics are the method: The object is to change the soul (Thatcher, 1981)There is a growing disaffection with mainstream politics in the world’

academic.oup.com

The tired playbook is you repeatedly trying to convince everyone else that all socialists are identical because it supports your crusade against Hasan.

 

[Rossell2]

I don't think personally there is a catch all setup that'll sort out all our problems. But saying socialism doesn't work, I don't think you can say capitalism works either tbh.

 

[Danoff]

Again, it’s the same tired playbook, it doesn’t matter what new name new marketing propoganda is attached to socialism, it is fundamentally flawed.

First, you'd need to understand how many extremely different types of socialism you're talking about. The top 10 GDP countries of the world are all socialist. So saying that it's flawed... I mean... compared to what? It represents all of the top 10 (with lots of variation obviously).

Second, this "playbook" you're talking about... you seem to think that socialism is just a ploy to achieve communism. Maybe that's because some influential people have stated this outright, but to assume that misunderstands two things. 1) Socialism doesn't seem to tend toward communism. Certainly in the US that is not the case, or China, or basically any of those other top 10 GDP countries I was talking about. 2) Socialism is an end in-and-of itself in many of these countries. There is no goal toward communism in any of those top 10 GDP countries I was talking about. The goal is stable socialism in those countries (generally speaking).

So the "playbook" is actually just something you're afraid of which isn't happening, hasn't really happened (except maybe... possibly... if you kinda squint... in the USSR), and can't realistically be said to even possibly occur.

You should start by understanding socialism and how it differs from communism.

 

[Tornado]

I don’t participate in this section anymore.
I disagree with most if not all of you regs.
Nothin personal. It’s just not worth my time to bother.

 

[GranTurNismo]

"Radical libertarian echo chamber".

 

[ryzno]

First, you'd need to understand how many extremely different types of socialism you're talking about. The top 10 GDP countries of the world are all socialist. So saying that it's flawed... I mean... compared to what? It represents all of the top 10 (with lots of variation obviously).

Out of curiosity, screw GDP, how are their people?

 

[Danoff]

Out of curiosity, screw GDP, how are their people?

Well then you'd be talking about something other than the economic model probably (socialism and communism are... at least at the core... economic models). China, for example, is deeply authoritarian, and this has a big impact on its people. But that's not really to do with China's economic structure.

 

[Groundfish]

@Tornado

Thank you for reminding me.

 

[Biggles]

Out of curiosity, screw GDP, how are their people?

Well, you could take a look at this:

Top 10 Happiest Countries in the World 2022 | Top2World

Every country wants to make it in the list of happiest countries in the world but very few of them can actually make it. So, today we have listed the top 10 happiest countries in the world from the World Happiness Report 2020

top2world.com

• 10. Austria
• 9. New Zealand
• 8. Luxembourg
• 7. Sweden
• 6. Norway
• 5. Netherlands
• 4. Iceland
• 3. Switzerland
• 2. Denmark
• 1. Finland

All of these countries would be considered "more socialist" than the US - except perhaps Austria, Switzerland & Luxembourg. They all have high progressive personal tax rates ... although not as high as in the US under that old commie President Eisenhower. The authors of the index comment:

“We find year after year that life satisfaction is reported to be happiest in the social democracies of northern Europe,” co-author and Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs told the Associated Press. “People feel secure in those countries, so trust is high. The government is seen to be credible and honest, and trust in each other is high.”

Also this article further discusses the concept of "national happiness":

We’re Learning the Wrong Lessons From the World’s Happiest Countries

Hygge alone will not save us.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[merseyxshore]

Margaret Thatcher:

apitalist reforms, stated: “No theory of government was ever given a fairer test or a more prolonged experiment in a democratic country than democratic socialism received in Britain. Yet it was a miserable failure in every respect. Far from reversing the slow relative decline of Britain vis-a-vis its main industrial competitors, it accelerated it. We fell further behind them, until by 1979 we were widely dismissed as ‘the sick man of Europe.’”

Excerpted from this

Redirect Notice

Democratic Socialism — philosophy of poverty

Those who criticize socialism for its failure to create wealth are missing the point.

www.google.com

I suggest studying history before espousing socialism.

Wow, this lad is obsessed with Thatcher. A bit of perspective from people that actually live here; there were street parties all over the city in Liverpool when Thatcher died. She actively tried to destroy where I live through 'managed decline'. Rot in pieces.

 

[Groundfish]

Wow, this lad is obsessed with Thatcher. A bit of perspective from people that actually live here; there were street parties all over the city in Liverpool when Thatcher died. She actively tried to destroy where I live through 'managed decline'. Rot in pieces.

Those Socialists and communists did indeed demonstrate their hate and ignorance.

Redirect Notice

It’s no surprise to me that Communists and Socialists disliked her.
She, unlike them, actual possessed morals and work ethic.
Even after her passing the idiot in the article was talking the gap between rich and poor when literally in a different clip I showed her OWNING the guy who tried that on her.
She called that farce argument out for what it was-what socialism is.
Lol you would prefer to make the poor poorer so long as the rich were less rich!
Idiocy!
Today the subversive mentality has shifted.
You have godless people.
In times past people were controlled by for example in Catholicism by guilt and fear of wrath of God.
But, as I already explained, they eliminate religion as a subversion tactic and a lot of modern folks do not believe in God.
So, for people like that they add back fear and guilt about climate and use that to control you.
The modern belief system you have been fed is revisionist history along with climate guilt racism guilt, lol it functions psychologically exactly like Catholicism lol.
The worst part though is how immoral and hateful it is. As the article above shows those were extremists, as the normal woman stated at the end.

free your mind and remember everything free comes from someone who works

 

[UKMikey]

You don't have to be communist or extremist to disagree with her policies. Trying to dismantle the welfare state the socialists introduced as she did was pretty extreme in itself.

Being godless is not subversive as religious discussion has no place in politics.

13 years of Labour government didn't make the poor poorer in the late nineties and 2000s. Overall quality of life improved rather than declined.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn89.pdf

Racism isn't revisionist history. It actually happened. It's people who pretend your Southern states didn't go to and lose a war over the right to own black people that are revisionist, immoral and hateful, to bring things back to the topic of this thread.

 

[MatskiMonk]

free your mind and remember everything free comes from someone who works

So, you're saying that you believe Work makes you free...

 

[UKMikey]

So, you're saying that you believe Work makes you free...

Didn't you see that coming?