-->
@triangle.128k
Can you elaborate? Doesn’t make sense to me.
why do young Americans embrace "Socialism" now for the first time and what does that mean for you?
Posts
Total:
68
-->
@Mopac
Societies come and go, rise and fall. It is no strange thing. It is strange to say that nothing has changed when even now we live in times of great change.
Lots of things change. The nature of humans and their morality does not. What things we consider moral and immoral have always changed over time.
I am an Orthodox Christian, which means there is a pretty good chance I know church history better than anyone you have ever met.
That's like saying I am white so i know white history better than you. It is ridiculous. Just because you belong to a group does not mean you know the history of that group. It also often means that your interpretation of the history of that group is biased and inaccurate.
Sure, these things can be religions if they are heald to with ardor and faith. It would really have to be a way of life. At least, that is how we understand faith, that it is not mere intellectual assent but a living out. An experience.
That is a weird way to look at things. That means that many people have multiple religions. That seems to make issues more difficult to discuss.
For example, a good scientist is adhering to the scientific method with ardor and faith.
There you are wrong. a good scientist has faith in themselves and their practices. They do not have faith in an outside force. That is not a religion. If you are including that kind of faith that would make many professionals having their work be a religion too. You are now talking about people having like 6 or 7 religions simultaneously.
Lots of things change. The nature of humans and their morality does not. What things we consider moral and immoral have always changed over time.
I can at least agree that people have somewhat of a common experience throughout the ages. I don't likely understand morality the way you do.
That's like saying I am white so i know white history better than you. It is ridiculous. Just because you belong to a group does not mean you know the history of that group. It also often means that your interpretation of the history of that group is biased and inaccurate.
Well, church history is a great deal more important to us. Protestants don't care about church history at all, and Roman Catholics tend to focus on their history after the schism, because they are certainly on the wrong end of that issue.
But besides that, I read an awful lot, and I am familiar enough with church history. You on the other hand do not even know the church, as you identify schismatics with it. If you take them as being representative of the church when they don't even belong to the church, then you are pretty much saying self declaration is proof of identity.
There you are wrong. a good scientist has faith in themselves and their practices. They do not have faith in an outside force.
A good scientist is faithful to the scientific method. Is someone who claims to be a scientist who disregsrds the scientific method even a scientist? Of course they aren't.
-->
@Mopac
I can at least agree that people have somewhat of a common experience throughout the ages. I don't likely understand morality the way you do.
Based on your answers, i'm guessing you think that a religious authority should tell you what is moral or immoral. I would strongly disagree with that.
You on the other hand do not even know the church, as you identify schismatics with it. If you take them as being representative of the church when they don't even belong to the church, then you are pretty much saying self declaration is proof of identity.
Many would argue that you are the schismatic. You are certainly a much smaller group than the Catholics.
A good scientist is faithful to the scientific method. Is someone who claims to be a scientist who disregsrds the scientific method even a scientist? Of course they aren't.
I have faith that my computer will work. I have faith that my wife loves me. That doesn't mean that those are religions. Scientists believe in a best practice of their profession, like all professionals should. It is not a religion. You are watering down the definition of religion so much that almost anything could be a religion. If you do that then word loses all meaning.
Based on your answers, i'm guessing you think that a religious authority should tell you what is moral or immoral. I would strongly disagree with that
You don't really understand how we see morality. It really isn't about simply obeying some arbitrary list of the dos and don'ts agreed on by the church. In fact, we are actually not very legalistic. Of course, if you don't get the spirit of the faith, or what is really about, it stands to reason that the outward practice of what we consider morality would appear arbitrary to you. After all, it seems that you already have a somewhat arbitrary understanding of morality that is more culture based. Morality is very different to us.
Many would argue that you are the schismatic. You are certainly a much smaller group than the Catholics.
We would say that ours is The Catholic Church. In fact, the official name of the church is The Orthodox Catholic Church. I know you are speaking of Roman Catholicism.
Historically Orthodox lands have been in nearly a constant state of persecution, which puts kind of a hamper of missionary work. Western European countries also have access to the sea, if you hadn't noticed.
But it was the Roman patriarch that defied the councils of the church, but besides that you tell me what just even on a superficial surface level makes sense... that 4 patriarchs or "popes" of the church rebelled against the one, or that the one rebelled against the church?
Never has the church ever accepted that there was a supreme earthly head of the church. In fact, historically speaking Rome only had jurisdictional authority in Western Europe, mainly in Italy where afterwords that authority was extended further. Rome has been seperated from the church for over a thousand years, and protestants didn't rebel against Rome until nearly 500 years after that.
The Orthodox Catholic Church is the very church founded by Jesus with an unbroken succession of bishops leading back to the apostles, and it is the historical One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Since the schism, Rome has only further deviated from Orthodoxy. Protestantism, though a reaction against the corrupt and schismatic church of Rome, never found its way back to the church. Orthodoxy was very isolated from the west at that time as The Ottoman Empire. Protestant/Evangelical Christianity is not unified, and just about every theological error that was sorted through in the early church will find itself represented in protestant/evangelical land.
That all said, we are taught to love everyone, even those who believe different or persecute us. We don't believe in persecuting heretics or excercising any secular authority for that matter, and as such we don't believe in crusades or "holy wars". We believe very strongly that the church must maintain its distinctness from secular authorities.
I have faith that my computer will work. I have faith that my wife loves me. That doesn't mean that those are religions. Scientists believe in a best practice of their profession, like all professionals should. It is not a religion. You are watering down the definition of religion so much that almost anything could be a religion. If you do that then word loses all meaning.
The definition I used comes from the Merriam-webster collegiate dictionary, a very well respected academic dictionary. I did not make it up. I believe it is accurate.
Does the word lose its meaning? Not at all, but you are still using the word incorrectly. I wouldn't say you believing your wife loves you or that your computer will work is faith. Faith is not the same thing as belief. Faith requires action, else it is dead faith and not faith at all.
A lot of this confusion about faith simply meaning intellectual assent come from arguments in the west after it had been broken away from Orthodoxy. Martin Luther in particular added much to this confusion due to his "Justification by faith" theology, which really just meant belief the way he used it. Protestantism as a result sometimes borders on antinomianism or lawlessness as a result, and protestant scholasticism is what gave birth to modern secularism.
The Orthodox Church has never had this debate because we are not a church with amnesia. We teach the same gospel that was taught since the beginning by the apostles. That faith is a walk.
And pointing out how the word "faith" has been corrupted to mean something that confuses what we teach, there are many more examples of concepts that have been altered over time to make what we teach unintelligible.
If I told you what it was all about, you probably wouldn't believe me because it likely contradicts every understanding you have of the subject.
-->
@HistoryBuff
^See above^
And maybe this is a bit of a tangent, so I will at least reiterate my main issue with socialism. Socialists tend to be very anti-religious, and socialist governments are responsible for killing more Christians in the last century than the last 2000 years combined.
That is a pretty big issue, but besides that, I have spent enough time with the people who organize the socialists here in America to recognize that this is a group that believes the end justifies the means. They don't believe in playing fairly. In fact, a lot of them sincerely believe that the only way to bring about socialism is to play unfairly, because the system itself is what is unfair, and that is what is being fought against. I can not condone this.
I have other issues too, but since you do not see socialism as a means to communism(which even on paper seems ridiculous to me, as state enforced anarchy doesn't make any sense), I don't think I know what you think socialism is.
I think that the US will never be socialist, it will either continue to degrade into a consumerist oligarchy or will see a reaction. Our trajectory is very similar to that if Renaissance Florence, which collapsed under the weight of it's own decadence, usury, abuse of poor families, and warmongering.
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I think that the US will never be socialist, it will either continue to degrade into a consumerist oligarchy or will see a reaction. Our trajectory is very similar to that if Renaissance Florence, which collapsed under the weight of it's own decadence, usury, abuse of poor families, and warmongering.
But we are already seeing the backlash now. Trump was the 1st shot across the bow of the oligarchy. Trump based his campaign on attacking that oligarchy. Now, he immediately sold out to them once he got into power. But that energy is still there on both the right and the left. Sanders has already changed politics by bringing socialism into the mainstream. i think that is likely to continue to carry forward.
It sounds odd, but sanders might be the best placed to drive the nail into the coffin of the republicans because his populist message actually appeals to trump voters.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Democrats are too dumb and/or corrupt to support Bernie though. They want Warren, who will play ball with donors.
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Democrats are too dumb and/or corrupt to support Bernie though. They want Warren, who will play ball with donors.
The party officials? Absolutely they are. But the republican party officials, including the people who now defend him, were calling trump all kinds of terrible things right up to the moment it became clear he would win. It isn't about convincing corrupt politicians that Bernie is the best option. It is about showing them that Bernie has the backing of the electorate and if they cross him their careers are over.
-->
@HistoryBuff
I mean many of the voters as well, likely an unsurpassable amount. The news media is also against Bernie, and he's not as skilled at playing them as Trump is
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I mean many of the voters as well, likely an unsurpassable amount. The news media is also against Bernie, and he's not as skilled at playing them as Trump is
I'm not so sure. Warren is also a fairly progressive candidate. between them they have something like 40% of the democratic base.
It is even more stark when you look at support by age. Biden's support is mostly among people over 65. He has very little support from people under 50.
By comparison, Sanders is the opposite. The vast majority of his support is from younger people. Even if Sanders loses this, he has built a movement. Progressive ideas have taken hold in the young people of the democratic party. Even if this cycle is won by a conservative, the next cycle will be even more driven by progressives.
-->
@HistoryBuff
I'm not so sure. Warren is also a fairly progressive candidate. between them they have something like 40% of the democratic base.
Warren rather adroitly adopts economically populist talking points, but her voting or donation record isn't quite as rosy as her honeyed words would indicate.
It is even more stark when you look at support by age. Biden's support is mostly among people over 65. He has very little support from people under 50.
That's because he goes out of his way to insult them, most likely.
By comparison, Sanders is the opposite. The vast majority of his support is from younger people. Even if Sanders loses this, he has built a movement. Progressive ideas have taken hold in the young people of the democratic party. Even if this cycle is won by a conservative, the next cycle will be even more driven by progressives.
I give Sanders himself more credit than I do most politicians. However, I view young 'socialists' in the US with extreme scepticism. While I've certainly met some who have a good grasp of economics and who genuinely care for the poor, I've met more who adopt the position as a political posture, and are either callous towards the poor or view them as some sort of dead weight to be 'solved' eugenically. There's no visceral feeling to their politics; it's self-involved and, because of that, it's off-putting to actual poor people.
This point is really summed up by two issues on the left:
The very common utilitarian defence of abortion which more or less asserts that poor children are better off dead. Say this to an actual poor person's face and you'll get socked in the face (and deserve it).
The stubborn refusal to admit that immigration drives down wages, which causes working-class people to just not take you seriously, because it's the equivalent of screaming at someone that the sky is green.
Gallup found that 43% thought some form of socialism would be good for the country, putting socialism at a statistical tie with Trump
The problem with polls like these claiming that 43% of Americans or whatever favor socialism is that we don't know if the people who conduct these polls counted every single American of all ages, or if they cherry-picked a couple hundred/thousand Americans at random of specific age groups to see if they agreed with socialism.
This leads to people committing the Biased Sample Fallacy, where they interview 100, 1000, 10000, or 100000, Americans, and then claim "that 43% thought some form of socialism would be good for the country" simply because 43, 430, 4300, or 43000 Americans, respectively, agreed with it, without counting all of the other Americans to see if they would be okay with it.
It's like saying that 90% of the population agrees that rotten food is good for you, even though I only talked to 10 people, and 9 of them agreed, without checking with the rest of the millions of people to see if they agreed too.
"43%" does not necessarily mean 43% of the entire country's population. It could also just mean 43% of the people who participated in the poll/interview. I personally was never asked by this "Gallup" person if I would be okay with socialism. Were you?
A small, cherry-picked sample of people does not always represent an entire population.
-->
@Christen
Warren rather adroitly adopts economically populist talking points, but her voting or donation record isn't quite as rosy as her honeyed words would indicate.
Agreed. I don't believe she is progressive enough in some areas. But by comparison to the kind of candidates the Dems have been running since Clinton, she would still be a huge step forward. Bernie is still better of course.
That's because he goes out of his way to insult them, most likely.
A large part of it is that populism and socialist policies are really popular among younger people. They see that the current system is broken and screwing them over. Older people tend to be more afraid of change as they have more to lose and less time to adapt to the changes. It's also likely because he keeps insulting them and saying really stupid things.
he stubborn refusal to admit that immigration drives down wages
This is only true if there is a significant unemployment rate. If the unemployment rate is low then employers are likely still having trouble filling positions.
-->
@Christen
If you believe the poll is tainted, then go and check their methodology. I have done so on several polls that have been posted and pointed out flaws. However, saying that a poll must be flawed just because you don't like what it says is just allowing your bias to control you.
A small, cherry-picked sample of people does not always represent an entire population.
If you can prove that this is the case for this study please do so, if not, please stop spouting lies.
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
@HistoryBuff
I think the wrong person got quoted.
Either way, I'm not saying that the poll is fake, flawed, or tainted. I'm saying that people should take these polls with a grain of salt and don't be afraid to question them if they're suspicious.
-->
@Christen
I believe many polls have shown that socialist policies are increasingly very popular. Medicare for all has polled as high as 70% as I recall, though I don't have the stat handy.
-->
@HistoryBuff
the stubborn refusal to admit that immigration drives down wagesThis is only true if there is a significant unemployment rate. If the unemployment rate is low then employers are likely still having trouble filling positions.
That's because wages are low. Suppressed, actually, to artificially bolster profits. When the demand for something like labor rises while the pool stays stable (supply), the price rises. The reason that all of these big corporations are so ra-ra pro immigration is because expanding the labor pool (raising the supply curve) acts as a relief valve that keeps its price (wages) low. It's the same principle as dumping a bunch of cheap goods into a marketplace: the price is driven down. This is even more insane though, because you're dumping huge amounts of low-skilled labor into a job market in which low-skilled jobs are shrinking.
-->
@Christen
i used to do polls at least the people i worked for were careful to take a scientific approach, you cant ask everyone but what you can do is employ effective methods to use nuetral language and ask a proper balanced representative sample, its not quite a science, but its close and the people i worked for made it a point of honor tobe ask obejctive and represetative as possible .. we felt an ethical obligation , it was our creft we took pride in our integrity i worked with one of the best its what i did https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mervin_Field https://www.corporationwiki.com/California/San-Francisco/parallax-marketing-research/41011391.aspx https://www.manta.com/c/mbscxj4/freeman-sullivan-co its what i did for ages
-->
@triangle.128k
you dont seem to be paying attetion my point was it way more than that, and you dont pay enough taxes , it wont be up to you just pay, it beats the fema camp
-->
@RationalMadman
watch this
-->
@RationalMadman
really ? and you studied how many years to come to that conclusion if you have an hour you could learn a bit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEgvxQ_OhcU
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
This is even more insane though, because you're dumping huge amounts of low-skilled labor into a job market in which low-skilled jobs are shrinking.
If this were true, then they would be unable to find work. This would be driving up the unemployment rate.
My wife worked in employment until quite recently. They were constantly re-posting jobs over and over because they couldn't find employees to fill them. And yet they rarely offered higher wages. They just post the job again at the same salary.
I think that corporate culture has changed. They are no longer interested in paying a higher salary to attract workers. They frequently fire long time employees to replace them with lower paid ones with less experience. The reason wages don't rise is because the market has decided they don't want to pay more. They are willing to overwork their existing staff rather than offer a higher wage to attract new staff. Western capitalism has broken.
-->
@HistoryBuff
and they cant of they cant make a living wage at it
many experts , many business leaders in fact see that automation are going to eliminate unskilled work and advocate for a gauarated minimum income
-->
@PaulVerliane
and they cant of they cant make a living wage at it
Then why aren't they starving?
-->
@SirAnonymous
is that what you want/ is that how bad things have to get/ they cant pay their rent, pay for health care they cant afford education or heating one doesnt have to starve , in my mind all that has to exist is relative deprivation for things to be intolerable and if you do even a minimal amount of reading thats all we need to bring this whole system down realitive deprivation is gong to de legitmaize this system and cause people to undermine it
www.researchgate.net
Relative deprivation is the lack of resources to sustain the diet, lifestyle, activities and amenities that an individual or group are accustomed to or that are widely encouraged or approved in the society to which they belong.
Relative deprivation - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Relative_deprivation
please please do remain smug , it makes it so much easier to stick a knife in your back when the time comes
www.researchgate.net
Relative deprivation is the lack of resources to sustain the diet, lifestyle, activities and amenities that an individual or group are accustomed to or that are widely encouraged or approved in the society to which they belong.
-->
@PaulVerliane
is that what you want
Of course not. How could you even consider the idea that I am so inhuman and monstrous that I would want people to starve?
is that how bad things have to get/ they cant pay their rent, pay for health care they cant afford education or heating one doesnt have to starve
If you're talking about a living wage, then being able to buy enough food to live would qualify as a living wage. Of course, those other things are all good, but they aren't absolutely necessary for survival. I'm not saying I want people to go without those things; all I'm saying is that those aren't needed for living, so a living wage would not have to be able to pay for them. However, you can have those things at the minimum wage. It's obviously not great, but you can get them. I personally know people who live on jobs that pay only a few dollars above the minimum wage. They're not well off, but they're hardly deprived.
in my mind all that has to exist is relative deprivation for things to be intolerable
I don't think intolerable is the right word, but it would certainly be pretty bad not to have those things.
if you do even a minimal amount of reading thats all we need to bring this whole system down realitive deprivation is gong to de legitmaize this system and cause people to undermine it
Most people in the US don't live in relative deprivation, so I don't see how that would bring down the system.
please please do remain smug
I'm sorry that I seemed smug. That was not my intent, but I worded my comment very poorly.
it makes it so much easier to stick a knife in your back when the time comes
Would you seriously be willing to kill me or to let others do so, or is that sarcasm, or maybe some kind of metaphor for wittily refuting my arguments? Please tell me that's sarcasm.