America - The Official Thread

[Imari]

No. Santiago’s poor performance was endangering his fellow soldiers.
It’s the Spock needs of the many outweigh the few or the one.

Which is fine and absolutely backs up all I've been saying about the overall good of society.

But Jessup uses it to lead to a false dichotomy - either Santiago performs acceptably on the front lines or Jessup kills him. In reality, the fact that Santiago was unfit for the duty that he was given (and incapable of performing it no matter how much he might want to) was plainly evident from way before the inciting incident of the film. The film spends a fair amount of time establishing this.

That the option of removing him from duty and placing him somewhere else was never considered is the point that you continue to miss. There are options other than succeed on the front lines or die. You keep neglecting to address this idea.

Jessup explains military defense is a necessity and points out the irony of Cruises character prosecuting (forget name) who is safe partially BECAUSE of Jessup protecting him. Imo.

Military defense is a necessity (and nobody in the film disagrees with this, nor do I), but it can't come at the expense of the safety of the people that it's protecting. And it doesn't make those doing the protecting morally superior to those who aren't - it's a society and everyone is doing their part to make it function. If there are no civilians then there's nothing worth protecting.

Kaffee (Cruise) prosecuting Jessup for a crime isn't ironic - it's a fundamental part of the society that he claims to be protecting. Jessup suggests that he is above the law because he protects the country. That's obviously at odds with basic American ideals, that all men are equal and that they have a right to life, and justice. It's a pretty clear demonstration of how a zealot can go so far to protect their society that they're willing to violate basic tenets of the society. Something that has been demonstrated further in real life since the film came out - see the invasion of Iraq and subsequent use of Guantanamo for torture, two things that are wildly against American founding ideals.

The film adds one more nugget, this all takes place on the border with Cuba - about the furthest thing from a legitimate threat to the US that you could imagine. That Jessup gets up in arms about defending the US from Cuba is just amusing. Were he on the border of a belligerant USSR he might have had an argument, the other options for dealing with Santiago notwithstanding. But protecting your house from mosquitoes is not exactly an honourable profession, and it's very much not worth killing someone over. There are absolutely differences between disobedience when you're under fire and disobedience when you're watching a fence, and even the military recognises this. Which again, you're missing in favour of this profoundly black and white view of the world that you're choosing to espouse.

 

[Groundfish]

But Jessup uses it to lead to a false dichotomy - either Santiago performs acceptably on the front lines or Jessup kills him.

No he ordered a code red not a murder.
According to this here this is what the plot was



U.S. Marines Lance Corporal Harold Dawson and Private First Class Louden Downey are facing a general court-martial, accused of murdering fellow Marine William Santiago at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. Santiago had poor relations with his fellow Marines, compared unfavorably to them, and broke the chain of command in an attempt to get transferred out of Guantanamo. Base Commander Colonel Nathan Jessup and his officers argue about the best course of action: while Jessup's executive officer, Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Markinson, advocates that Santiago be transferred, Jessup dismisses the option and instead orders Santiago's commanding officer, Lieutenant Jonathan James Kendrick, to "train" Santiago to become a better Marine.

While it is believed that the motive in Santiago's murder was retribution for naming Dawson in a fenceline shooting, Naval investigator and lawyer Lieutenant Commander JoAnne Galloway largely suspects Dawson and Downey carried out a "code red" order: a violent extrajudicial punishment

At no point was there a false dichotomy.

That point aside I will consider your other points since clearly you invested thought here

In the meantime here’s 2 great videos I found the other day on socialism:

 

[Liquid]

Stossel looks like Stalin. Damn commie.

 

[UKMikey]

Stossel looks like Stalin. Damn commie.

I thought it was Borat.

Taking bets on the next movie dirtbag ****take he's going to invoke in this threadwreck. Gordon Gekko seems likely.

 

[Keef]

John Stossel is part of the reason I stopped being libertarian.

 

[GranTurNismo]

True libertarianism focuses on the maximization of individual liberties and freedom from oppression, regardless of where such oppression stems from. In fact, the term "Libertarian" even has Leftist origins, and was popularized in the Marxist French magazine called Le Libertaire during the later 1800s, and argued that collective ownership of the resources society holds near-and-dear is the best way to guarantee a high level of freedom for its constituents. Briefly libertarian socialism came before libertarian capitalism.

Though, guys like Stossel, Rand Paul, and the folks over at the Ayn Rand institute have helped to largely define Libertarianism in the United States as advocating for the smallest federal government possible, privatization of all aspects of the welfare state, a completely unfettered free market, and just a general, somewhat irrational hatred of all things government. This is far closer to objectivism and anarcho-capitalism than it is to the original meaning of libertarianism.

 

[Famine]

True libertarianism focuses on the maximization of individual liberties and freedom from oppression, regardless of where such oppression stems from. In fact, the term "Libertarian" even has Leftist origins, and was popularized in the Marxist French magazine called Le Libertaire during the later 1800s.

Though, guys like Stossel, Rand Paul, and the folks over at the Ayn Rand institute have helped to largely define Libertarianism in the United States as advocating for the smallest federal government possible, privatization of all aspects of the welfare state, a completely unfettered free market, and just a general, somewhat irrational hatred of all things government. This is far closer to objectivism and anarcho-capitalism than it is to the original meaning of libertarianism.

How is fiscal freedom unrelated to social freedom?

 

[Keef]

Rand Paul

I think you're referring to Ron Paul, Rand's father. Ron Paul was actually a big reason I was influenced by libertarianism. Rand Paul was never libertarian and is now a Trumpist.

 

[GranTurNismo]

How is fiscal freedom unrelated to social freedom?

It's not that the two are unrelated. What I meant was, modern libertarians such as the aforementioned assume that more fiscal freedom (to them, shrinking size of federal gov't, getting rid of regulations in the interest of maximizing profit, etc) translate to more social freedoms. Though they often overlook that a less influential government and more freedom for a firm does not increase the rights of the common man by default, rather, it often reallocates their oppression from the government to the firm to a certain degree. It's common knowledge that the interests of the firm are generally opposed to the interests of the worker. Weakening the welfare state and increasing the firm's capacity to subjugate their workers does not exactly result in a higher degree of social freedoms, despite it increasing fiscal freedoms.

 

[Danoff]

No he ordered a code red not a murder.
According to this here this is what the plot was



U.S. Marines Lance Corporal Harold Dawson and Private First Class Louden Downey are facing a general court-martial, accused of murdering fellow Marine William Santiago at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. Santiago had poor relations with his fellow Marines, compared unfavorably to them, and broke the chain of command in an attempt to get transferred out of Guantanamo. Base Commander Colonel Nathan Jessup and his officers argue about the best course of action: while Jessup's executive officer, Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Markinson, advocates that Santiago be transferred, Jessup dismisses the option and instead orders Santiago's commanding officer, Lieutenant Jonathan James Kendrick, to "train" Santiago to become a better Marine.

While it is believed that the motive in Santiago's murder was retribution for naming Dawson in a fenceline shooting, Naval investigator and lawyer Lieutenant Commander JoAnne Galloway largely suspects Dawson and Downey carried out a "code red" order: a violent extrajudicial punishment

At no point was there a false dichotomy.

That point aside I will consider your other points since clearly you invested thought here

In the meantime here’s 2 great videos I found the other day on socialism:

Just finished Stossel's videos. He starts out by equating socialism with communism, gives airtime to the argument that it's not socialism, and then tries to do away with that with two quick points. 1) That they're both government control 2) That (and I'm paraphrasing here) it's a no true scotsman fallacy.

For the second one, that doesn't demonstrate that communism and socialism are the same, and it's also not a great example of a no true scotsman fallacy. He doesn't use the phrase "no true scotsman" he says "they always say that". But the point is the same, "they always say that" doesn't establish that communism and socialism are the same.*

For the first point, sure they're both government control. Authoritarianism, even democracy, are also government control. That doesn't make them socialist (or communist).

He's setting up a strawman to make it easier to throw punches in the video. He's attacking communism, explicitly in a lot of cases, and it makes for a much easier punching bag than the US, or China, or the UK.

Then he switches to "democratic socialism" which he insinuates always becomes authoritarian right before he then gives examples in Scandinavia which did not become authoritarian and went the other way down the spectrum. Really dramatically undercuts his point if you're paying attention. He does some bait and switch because he's really sloppy with the word "socialism". So for example, he says Denmark's PM refuted that Denmark is socialist, but what the PM of Denmark actually literally says is "Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy". Stossel says this means that democrats who call denmark socialist are "wrong". But the only thing they'd be wrong in saying is that it's not a market economy. Socialism is a big term that includes market economies, including Denmark. Stossel points out that denmark is more free than America, but doesn't walk through the open door of explaining that America is also an example of a socialist market economy. The examples they give, about being able to not purchase something from a vendor, or being able to choose where you work, apply to every nation in the list of top 10 GDP nations, all of which are socialist. But it wouldn't apply to every single type of socialist economy, and it wouldn't apply to some authoritarian economies that are not socialist.

The 2nd video ends saying that markets have lifted humanity out of poverty. That's hard to argue with. But socialism is a big enough term that it includes a lot of market activity. Socialism, especially market-based democratic socialism, is built on markets. It is in the US, it is in China, it is in the UK, Denmark, Germany... I mean the list goes on and on. These countries are not trying to get rid of their markets, and they're also not really trying to get rid of their socialism.

Stossel is an unapologetic fan of capitalism, and I can respect that. But his videos here are really designed to get you to equate any socialist policy with communism, and I can't respect that. It's intellectually dishonest.


*In the strictest most abstract sense, communism is a subset of socialism. But the term doesn't generally get used that way, since we have a term for communism, we don't normally say socialism when we mean communism.

 

[GranTurNismo]

I think you're referring to Ron Paul, Rand's father. Ron Paul was actually a big reason I was influenced by libertarianism. Rand Paul was never libertarian and is now a Trumpist.

I guess I was referring to both Ron and (pre-Trump era) Rand Paul. Self-evident I know, but unless you want to be the most hated member in your party, you can't be a non-Trumpist Republican. Rand knew he had to choose between following in his father's footsteps as a principled right-wing Libertarian, or just another Trumpist with the occasional libertarian lingo. The choice was obvious.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I guess I was referring to both Ron and (pre-Trump era) Rand Paul. Self-evident I know, but unless you want to be the most hated member in your party, you can't be a non-Trumpist Republican. Rand knew he had to choose between following in his father's footsteps as a principled right-wing Libertarian, or just another Trumpist with the occasional libertarian lingo. The choice was obvious.

Eh, Rand was never really into the same vein of independent thinking as his dad - he's always been just a slightly contrarian but mostly loyal apparatchik. Ron had some core principles that quite frequently put him at odds with his own party. Rand has never troubled the establishment.

 

[Groundfish]

@Danoff
More of the same from you?
Words have definitions. Socialism is a word.
Your error has been the same from the beginning.
You state “socialism has many meanings it means different things to different people, it’s a term used different ways at different times”
Your mistake is anytime a person uses the correct definition and points out a failing to say no no no that’s communism not socialism.
Funniest part is you’ve never once provided any definition.
For all your postings you’ve simply repeated the same tired plays from the same deceptive Marxist playbook.
Never once have you said “and here’s why/this is the meaning of the word because here is the definition”

You don’t get to remain correct at all times in your own mind based on personally created language.
That’s like having imaginary friends
It’s a fantasy.
The reality is words have definitions.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

@Danoff
More of the same from you?
Words have definitions. Socialism is a word.
Your error has been the same from the beginning.
You state “socialism has many meanings it means different things to different people, it’s a term used different ways at different times”
Your mistake is anytime a person uses the correct definition and points out a failing to say no no no that’s communism not socialism.
Funniest part is you’ve never once provided any definition.
For all your postings you’ve simply repeated the same tired plays from the same deceptive Marxist playbook.
Never once have you said “and here’s why/this is the meaning of the word because here is the definition”

You don’t get to remain correct at all times in your own mind based on personally created language.
That’s like having imaginary friends
It’s a fantasy.
The reality is words have definitions.

Does the USA have socialist elements?

 

[GranTurNismo]

@Danoff
More of the same from you?
Words have definitions. Socialism is a word.
Your error has been the same from the beginning.
You state “socialism has many meanings it means different things to different people, it’s a term used different ways at different times”
Your mistake is anytime a person uses the correct definition and points out a failing to say no no no that’s communism not socialism.
Funniest part is you’ve never once provided any definition.
For all your postings you’ve simply repeated the same tired plays from the same deceptive Marxist playbook.
Never once have you said “and here’s why/this is the meaning of the word because here is the definition”

You don’t get to remain correct at all times in your own mind based on personally created language.
That’s like having imaginary friends
It’s a fantasy.
The reality is words have definitions.

Lots of projection from this post, sheesh.

As Danoff and others have pointed out already, "socialism" is a very broad term with a vast variety of applications and ideologies based on this concept. The same can be said for "capitalism" or "communism" or really any other commonly used political term. There is no "one size fits all" definition to cover such a broad concept, and if that's what you're seeking from him you will be perpetually disappointed.

Ironically, you are arguing against one of the most vehemently critical members of socialism and other leftist ideologies in this subforum. He has no hidden agenda in making socialism look more rosy than it actually is, nor being deceptive about its definitions.

 

[Groundfish]

s Danoff and others have pointed out already, "socialism" is a very broad term with a vast variety of applications and ideologies based on this concept.

Merriam Webster defines it very clearly.
(That’s a dictionary)

As I must have pointed out twenty times already communication is impossible if you maintain that words mean nothing.

It’s just sophistry to deny deny deny nope that’s not it nope that’s not it.

Ironically I gave out the definition in the beginning of this.
I also mentioned what fallacious arguments would be given when this started as well. KEEF and others fulfilled the “prophetic” post from last week I made.

It’s unfortunate that many of you have been duped so thoroughly as to be able to partake in “debate” whereby definitions are shifting as the discussion occurs.

That’s just nonsense. It’s not debate.
Denying the reality of the historical events of socialism is bad for humanity.

eunos re your question I answered it in my posts multiple times already. Do me a favor and bother to read them please.

 

[GranTurNismo]

Merriam Webster defines it very clearly.
(That’s a dictionary)

As I must have pointed out twenty times already communication is impossible if you maintain that words mean nothing.

It’s just sophistry to deny deny deny nope that’s not it nope that’s not it.

Ironically I gave out the definition in the beginning of this.
I also mentioned what fallacious arguments would be given when this started as well. KEEF and others fulfilled the “prophetic” post from last week I made.

It’s unfortunate that many of you have been duped so thoroughly as to be able to partake in “debate” whereby definitions are shifting as the discussion occurs.

That’s just nonsense. It’s not debate.
Denying the reality of the historical events of socialism is bad for humanity.

eunos re your question I answered it in my posts multiple times already. Do me a favor and bother to read them please.

My point seems to have went right over your head. You can't rely on a dictionary definition to explain what a very broad political term means.

 

[Danoff]

@Danoff
More of the same from you?
Words have definitions. Socialism is a word.
Your error has been the same from the beginning.
You state “socialism has many meanings it means different things to different people, it’s a term used different ways at different times”
Your mistake is anytime a person uses the correct definition and points out a failing to say no no no that’s communism not socialism.
Funniest part is you’ve never once provided any definition.
For all your postings you’ve simply repeated the same tired plays from the same deceptive Marxist playbook.
Never once have you said “and here’s why/this is the meaning of the word because here is the definition”

You don’t get to remain correct at all times in your own mind based on personally created language.
That’s like having imaginary friends
It’s a fantasy.
The reality is words have definitions.

Yes, they have definitions. Like for example the two different words communism and socialism. Go ahead and try to differentiate those two. It'll help you understand this discussion.

Merriam Webster defines it very clearly.
(That’s a dictionary)

As I must have pointed out twenty times already communication is impossible if you maintain that words mean nothing.

It’s just sophistry to deny deny deny nope that’s not it nope that’s not it.

Ironically I gave out the definition in the beginning of this.
I also mentioned what fallacious arguments would be given when this started as well. KEEF and others fulfilled the “prophetic” post from last week I made.

It’s unfortunate that many of you have been duped so thoroughly as to be able to partake in “debate” whereby definitions are shifting as the discussion occurs.

That’s just nonsense. It’s not debate.
Denying the reality of the historical events of socialism is bad for humanity.

eunos re your question I answered it in my posts multiple times already. Do me a favor and bother to read them please.

Socialism isn't without meaning, but it doesn't mean a lot, it's very broad.

What socialism is, fundamentally, is government regulation of the economy - not limited to human rights, but regulation and control for a variety of purposes.

The fact that it's so broad, including both market-based and non-market based flavors, democratic and non-democratic flavors, is a big part of why it's not appropriate for you to pretend that it's all communism. Communism is its own word, with its own definition.

 

[Groundfish]

Danoof again? I’m sorry but I can’t continue your nonsense wins.
You win the Internet.
It’s an ingenious strategy to repeatedly strawman and deny vigorously, then when presented a dictionary deny again.
Definitions of words are important.
You do not get to recreate them as you wish to spin a narrative.
Thats talking to imaginary friends.
I’ve no more time to bother with this silly nonsense game.
Bye.

 

[Danoff]

Danoof again? I’m sorry but I can’t continue your nonsense wins.
You win the Internet.
It’s an ingenious strategy to repeatedly strawman and deny vigorously, then when presented a dictionary deny again.
Definitions of words are important.
You do not get to recreate them as you wish to spin a narrative.
Thats talking to imaginary friends.
I’ve no more time to bother with this silly nonsense game.
Bye.

Bye...

Simple task though. Two words, communism and socialism. See if you can figure out the difference. It'll help you with your confusion.

 

[Famine]

It’s an ingenious strategy to repeatedly strawman and deny vigorously, then when presented a dictionary deny again.
Definitions of words are important.
You do not get to recreate them as you wish to spin a narrative.

Yes, like the word "irony".

You've dodged every attempt to engage you - and if you've paid even the slightest attention to these forums over the years you'd know the user you're arguing the toss with is about as far away from what you'd call a "socialist" in every respect... and also how to spell his name - and just retrodden the same guff over and over again with different inane videos. You're simply not participating in any discussion at all.

I’ve no more time to bother with this silly nonsense game.
Bye.

Yeah, this time don't bother coming back. Your "contributions" to this section of the site would be of no less value if they were scrawled in crayon on a stick of butter and posted to a rhinocerous sanctuary.

 

[NotThePrez]

Merriam Webster defines it very clearly.
(That’s a dictionary)

Indeed. From the M-W website itself :

Definition of socialism​

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Definition 1 pretty much speaks for itself, and has been communicated to you by multiple users, yet you stubbornly refuse to acknoweledge that you are 100% objectively wrong.

Keeping definition 2B in mind, there are several modern examples of state-owned companies that are owned by nations that are not at all Communist. The 2 that come to mind for me are Amtrak, whose stock is 100% owned by the United States Government, and Renault, in which the French government has a 15.01% ownership, and as such is the majority owner of the company. Both are examples of socialism, and neither exist in a Communist nation.

The 3rd definition of Socialism demonstrates that it is not at all compatible with Communism (that is actual Communism, not the bull 🤬 version of Communism that the right tries to push). Socialism still uses a system in which people are paid more or less depending on their output, wheras Communism does not.

Everytime you've tried to re-define "Socialism" as the same thing as Communism, Inigo Montoya gets stronger. Stop.

Edit: Welp, that was a bit of a waste, it seems.

 

[UKMikey]

Don't let the door hit you...

This song plays in my head whenever Groundfish posts on the O&CE forum...

 

[NotThePrez]

Don't let the door hit you...

You might be interested to know that this got me to give The Dead Kennedys a serious listening to for the past hour. They are a...creative bunch, but in a good way.

 

[TexRex]

Bye.

 

[McLaren]

Put more thought into deciding to clearly address others by misspelled names for a quick punch than actual arguments. Good riddance.

 

[TexRex]

 

[ryzno]

Should've used the one from straight out of Compton with easy e. Not that I wanna see him gone...

 

[TexRex]

Should've used the one from straight out of Compton with easy e. Not that I wanna see him gone...

 

[ryzno]

Street smarts.
RIP Easy E
I'd actually link it but profanity and guns...EDIT forgot the sex part...