GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently August 25 19, 7:13 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The Socialism Thread
PostPosted: January 29 19, 9:14 am 
Online
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7238
Location: Chicago, IL
MAGA wrote:
greenback44 wrote:
Sometimes I think Trump is just a performance artist, a vastly more successful Sacha Baron Cohen. On June 6, 2019, he'll get everybody in the 101st Airborne to run around doing the "Heil Hitler" salute.


I agree. Every gesture, every facial expression is purposeful and seems to evoke a response from the crowd.


Counterpoint: he's an imbecile. A profoundly stupid racist in way over his head who gets in front of a microphone and just starts free-associating and the word salad comes out and the people in the crowd cheer for him because they too are imbeciles. He can state any lie, repeat it ad nauseum, say the kinds of things that someone who's only 15% thoughtful knows at face to be false or racist or xenophobic and ugly, and they will cheer because they share his values and the lies don't matter as long as they fit the belief.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Socialism Thread
PostPosted: January 29 19, 9:45 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: April 25 06, 9:48 am
Posts: 10752
Location: Appleton, WI
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Socialism Thread
PostPosted: January 29 19, 10:20 am 
Offline
bronoun enthusiast
User avatar

Joined: April 14 06, 10:45 pm
Posts: 28385
Location: extremely online
greenback44 wrote:
Sometimes I think Trump is just a performance artist, a vastly more successful Sacha Baron Cohen. On June 6, 2019, he'll get everybody in the 101st Airborne to run around doing the "Heil Hitler" salute.


Love to raid socialism to pay for socialism.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Socialism Thread
PostPosted: January 29 19, 10:37 am 
Offline
Sucking on the Rally Nipple
User avatar

Joined: April 16 06, 6:03 pm
Posts: 21458
Location: Chicago
thrill wrote:
greenback44 wrote:
Sometimes I think Trump is just a performance artist, a vastly more successful Sacha Baron Cohen. On June 6, 2019, he'll get everybody in the 101st Airborne to run around doing the "Heil Hitler" salute.


Love to raid socialism to pay for socialism.


Gotta love a billionaire tax cheat with a long history of defrauding and stiffing working people warn of the dangers of socialism.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Socialism Thread
PostPosted: January 29 19, 12:53 pm 
Offline
Don't tone police me bro!
User avatar

Joined: July 1 06, 7:24 pm
Posts: 10475
Location: Lost in the Cloud
pioneer98 wrote:
Toward the Wiki Society
Quote:
Let’s consider the radicalism of the Wikipedia model. It’s a “free encyclopedia that anyone can edit,” as we know. It has well over 5 million articles in English (40 million total in 301 languages), all of which are put together through the collective effort of volunteers. Readers write a paragraph here, fix a date there, add a citation or two, and over time a vast compendium of human knowledge emerges. It has been stunningly successful, and is one of the most visited sites on the web, with over 18 billion page views.

But Wikipedia is not just edited by users. Its policies themselves are stored in wiki pages, and can be modified and updated by user-editors. The governance of the site itself, the processes that determine what you see, are open to revision by the Wikipedia community, a community that anyone can join. Not only that, but every change to Wikipedia is transparent: Its changes, and the debates over them, are fully available in a public record.

One of Wikipedia’s core rules is: “Wikipedia has no firm rules.” That does not mean “anything goes.” It means “the rules are principles, not laws” and they “exist only as rough approximations of their underlying principles.” But the ethic of Wikipedia is that everything is subject to revision, open to discussion, and that anyone can discuss it.

This has meant that Wikipedians have had to, over time, figure out how to govern themselves. Political philosophers have long been infatuated with the concept of the “state of nature,” the condition humankind would find itself in before it had designed governing institutions, and much political theory is concerned with examining how the people in this hypothetical world should construct a state. Or, if humankind suddenly finds itself stranded on a desert island, what procedures ought we to set up to keep everybody from eating each other? The course of Wikipedia’s development has been one of the few real-world examples of such a scenario.

Quote:
Wikipedia’s unique participatory model has actually allowed it to escape the kinds of scandals that have eroded public confidence in other platforms. Whereas Twitter and Facebook have been criticized for allowing “fake news” to proliferate, and for poor decisions in deciding which content to remove, Wikipedia hasn’t had major public embarrassments for a long time. Facebook has run into trouble for decisions like removing breastfeeding pictures and war photography as part of its “anti-nudity” policy, and has only reversed course after significant public pressure. Wikipedia, too, makes content moderation decisions on a daily basis, but the reason you don’t hear about them is that the arguments are resolved through the site’s own processes.

If you object to something Facebook does, you cannot change it yourself. You cannot even ask Facebook to change it; they’re very unlikely to amend corporate policy on the basis of what one person tells them. You will have to, instead, publicly campaign about the change, and hope Facebook listens. If your campaign gets enough attention—as the outrage over breastfeeding photos did—then the company may be sufficiently embarrassed and reverse course. But you will never know what went into the decision one way or the other. It will all be opaque. Nothing is opaque on Wikipedia. There are transcripts. Records. Everything is hashed out in the “public square.”


this is interesting, and after playing around with this web program called Loomio and looking at their co-op guide - https://loomio.coop - can't help but wonder if this could be a model to give the tech industry a rehaul


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Socialism Thread
PostPosted: January 29 19, 5:14 pm 
Offline
darjeeling sipping elite
User avatar

Joined: October 17 06, 11:19 am
Posts: 36751
Location: Huis Clos
33anda3rd wrote:
MAGA wrote:
greenback44 wrote:
Sometimes I think Trump is just a performance artist, a vastly more successful Sacha Baron Cohen. On June 6, 2019, he'll get everybody in the 101st Airborne to run around doing the "Heil Hitler" salute.


I agree. Every gesture, every facial expression is purposeful and seems to evoke a response from the crowd.


Counterpoint: he's an imbecile. A profoundly stupid racist in way over his head who gets in front of a microphone and just starts free-associating and the word salad comes out and the people in the crowd cheer for him because they too are imbeciles. He can state any lie, repeat it ad nauseum, say the kinds of things that someone who's only 15% thoughtful knows at face to be false or racist or xenophobic and ugly, and they will cheer because they share his values and the lies don't matter as long as they fit the belief.



The Trump as ubergenius manipulator of people that some buy into is absolutely laughable.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Socialism Thread
PostPosted: January 30 19, 9:20 am 
Online
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7238
Location: Chicago, IL
lukethedrifter wrote:
The Trump as ubergenius manipulator of people that some buy into is absolutely laughable.

Right, otherwise he would not have been a debt-riddled nothing, a punch line to late night TV jokes and little more, before that stupid reality TV show made the kinds of mouth-breathers who vote for him for POTUS think "Donald Trump--sorry, Mister Trump--is really a big important bigshot!"

It's truly a marriage made in hell, orchestrated by Satan. An uninformed, racist, patriarchal, baptized 3/8 of a nation just dying for someone with hair of silk and gold to scream about all the blacks and muslims and hispanics and ugly dog-face women who want to criticize them. There's no secret performance art to a Trump rally. It's just he screams a bunch of fascist [expletive] about fact-based journalism being the enemy of the people and those folks poisoned by the cult of religion eat it up. He stammers his way through a series of decidedly non-complete sentences about our border and they go nuts.

This myth of Trump as genius manipulator of the media is usually propagated by Trump voters who want to rationalize their vote. The same types who will wear those red hats and act like those red hats are not emblems of racism, fear and hate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Socialism Thread
PostPosted: February 8 19, 7:36 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 19613
Location: Low A Minors
Not exactly Socialism but pretty close.

'We're all passengers in a billionaire hijacking' says the critic who has the world's richest people buzzing

Quote:
Feloni: You have people like Larry Fink from BlackRock saying how every company needs to align around a purpose beyond profits. What executives will often tell me is, look, whether it's customers or potential employees, this is what they want. How do you see social initiatives coming from companies that actually do something good, even if they're done cynically?

Giridharadas: I want to resist getting into motivation because when you say what kind of place is it coming from, like in their hearts, first of all, I don't know. My guess is the Toms shoes guy is not trying to make as much money as possible and distract us from something, and that he thinks he has found a way to help people in the best way that he knows how. My guess is when Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan operates in some of the same communities that Toms shoes has made something in, they're coming from a very different motivation set.

But what I'm arguing is it doesn't really matter because what both represent is an effort to solve necessarily public problems privately, and therefore, what both represent is an attempt to reclassify problems. And if you think back historically to problems like in the early part of the 20th century, a lot of kids, instead of being in school, worked in factories. Obviously that is now illegal, and I think most people would agree that was progress. I don't think you could have solved that issue by having some factory owners be more conscious capitalists. You either as a society allow children to work instead of be invested with knowledge or you don't. That is a necessarily public choice.

Similarly, when you think about racial segregation, I think you and I would agree it would be weird if your approach to segregation in the 1940s in Alabama was to say, "Well, let's create some points of light. Let's create some white-owned restaurants that don't mind having black people, and we'll celebrate that, and we'll give them a certification, and we'll put them on magazines and on change-the-world lists. Let's celebrate the good." I think that would actually rub you and me the wrong way. I mean, on the surface, what's wrong with that? But it feels like a weird response to a problem that is necessarily systemic.

It's like saying, "OK, well, let's have better healthcare companies that compete against Oxycontin and are more responsible in how they prescribe." Again, I think you and I would agree that that's just not going to work given the kind of problem the opioid crisis is, given the dynamics of addiction, the ways in which pharma companies have political power, the way the whole doctor-sales rep process is so rigged. Having just better, nicer, conscious capitalism to compete against the others, it's just not going to work.


Quote:
Feloni: I went to Detroit and did a profile on Dan Gilbert, and it to me is an extreme example of where the country is right now. He's invested over $5 billion into the city, which is just, it's pretty crazy how a billionaire has that much influence over a major American city. But what also happened at that point was that you had years of both the state and city governments completely failing the people. What does that say to you about the US, in a situation where the public sector failed a city and then a billionaire becomes the main source of capital flowing in?

Giridharadas: Let me answer it this way. Look, I think private giving can be incubation for public action. There can be a case for private philanthropy in a place where public systems aren't working; however, those things should be directed towards strengthening public capacity. Whereas, in New Orleans, you ended up with the lack of public capacity and a surplus of philanthropy created a system where there's only charter schools now, there's no public schools in the whole city. That's not a great model. A model where you start privately, like where [Andrew] Carnegie built libraries privately in order to turn them into public libraries and create a habit of public libraries around this country, and on a scale that not even he could have afforded. Those are two very different approaches.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Socialism Thread
PostPosted: March 14 19, 12:52 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 19613
Location: Low A Minors
The DSA Isn't 100 Percent Sure About Hopping on the Bernie Bus

I know a couple of the people quoted in this article. I was part of a big group of people that gave feedback on a draft of that Central Iowa DSA statement. All the Iowa chapters wanted to get out in front of this because we are first in line for the primaries. To me it's interesting that the Iowa chapters do not want to endorse, but most everyone else does. Would others feel differently if their state had to go first?

I think the statement sums things up pretty well. So I am in the camp that the DSA should not formally endorse Bernie or anyone else. If individual chapters want to do that, fine. But the national organization as a whole should just chill IMO. Unfortunately, it looks like they are going to go for it, and they are going to spend a ton of time and money on it.

I have seen a couple chapters go all in on Bernie on social media from the moment he declared. I don't think they even discussed as a chapter whether or not to endorse him. Whoever does their social media just assumed everyone in their chapter was on board with Bernie, and just started posting Bernie memes and news. It's unfortunate because it's not Democratic for one. If their group really is that unanimous about Bernie, then they likely lack diversity. They sure are not helping us dispel the "Bernie Bro" stereotype.

All that being said, I'm probably still going to caucus for Bernie when the time comes. But like that statement says, there are a number of issues Bernie needs to work on.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Socialism Thread
PostPosted: March 14 19, 5:02 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 19613
Location: Low A Minors
(One caveat to what I said above: I guess the Iowa City chapter did endorse Bernie but they were the only one in Iowa that did)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 33anda3rd and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group