Total posts: 2,589
Posted in:
Sign-Up List
1. Warren
2. Cogent
3. Club
4. Grey
5. Disc
6. Pie
7. Mhar
8. Speed
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Created:
Posted in:
Sign-Up List
1. Warren
2. Cogent
3. Club
4. Grey
5. Disc
6. Pie
7. Mhar
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Cogent_Cognizer
I am not going to comment on the kinds of celebrities present.
Created:
Posted in:
Ongoing
Disc - OSBM Mafia - NP2
Sign-ups
Bsh1 - Celebrity Mafia
In the Hopper
Mharman (Pizza Mafia)
SupaDudz (Big Mouth Mafia, Rappers Mafia, Chicago Landmarks Mafia)
Speedrace (Marvel Cinematic Universe Heroes)
On Hold
Budda, Virt, Breaking, lunatic
Created:
Posted in:
Welcome to Celebrity Mafia!
The theme should be largely self-explanatory. The one clarification I'll give on the theme is that by "celebrity" I mean "a person who is or once was famous." I don't foresee this being a difficult theme to navigate.
I am looking for 12 to 13 players for this game. I'll go over the game's rules in the DP1 OP of the game--the rules will be similar, though not necessarily identical--to the rules I've employed in prior games. Please feel free to sign up!
Sign-Up List
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
That's easy. Reactionary approaches are not rooted in ideological cores. Progressivism is rooted in an ideological core, and thus not reactionary.
Created:
Posted in:
Apply it to the water example. If I was referring to the specific qualitites then Earth A water is different to Earth B water but if I only speak about the functions they are the same. Do you disagree?
Not sure what you're trying to say here. In the case of these waters, they are the same in their qualities and functions, but differ in their make up. I don't see how then this applies to the trans issue, because it just plays into a conflation of sex and gender. Sure, trans women might be made of male chromosomes, but that only describes their sex. They can still have a female gender, which allows for us to sensically refer to them as women.
This is absurd because the goals needed to reduce the income inequality is taking from the rich.
That is oversimplified in the extreme, and overlooks the nuances of my response to you.
You didn't engage with the problems of a liberal and progressive
That's because you weren't actually saying anything that made sense in the context of our conversation.
I said that progressivism is the socioeconomic component of American political liberalism. You then tried to argue that there was tension between progressivism and liberalism, but you were only able to make this argument because you were confusing two different kinds of liberalism. After I pointed out the distinction between American political liberalism and classic liberalism, it should have become evident to you that the tension you thought existed between progressivism and American political liberalism never actually existed at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
I have never delved into the idea
Not in this thread. In this thread, you haven't provided any analysis whatsoever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
you think populism is relevant to every political ideology in the last 150 years
Nice attempt at a strawman.
No, I think that your definition of populism is so void of specifics that it is unworkable and has no meaning whatsoever. Populism is reactionary, and you have been unable to refute that, largely because you have been unable to offer any analysis or any logic to support your position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Your sources say what none of mine do
You've yet to cite any accessible source or provide any actual analysis in support of your claims.
A political philosophy directed to the needs of the common people and advocating a more equitable distribution of wealth and power
That still describes pretty much every ideology that has gain traction in the last 150 years. It's so broad that it lacks any real meaning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
progressivism is inherently imperialistic
That doesn't follow either. Progressivism as it manifests today is reliably anti-imperialist, which disproves any "inherent" link.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
You haven't really provided a definition of populism, except to say that is seeks to help the common man. That describes pretty much every ideology that has gain traction in the last 150 years. It's so overbroad and overinclusive as to be utterly useless and without meaning.
Only by examining actual cases of widely-acknowledge populists can we arrive at an actually meaningful definition. Having noted that most sources describe populism as anti-elite, and having discussed actually cases of modern populists, my definition is the only credible one so far presented. I welcome you providing actual analysis to support some alternative understanding, but as yet, have seen none.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
There's nothing wrong with saying
This is not an issue of wrong or right. This is an issue of definitions. You're incorrectly defining populism is a way that makes it seem as if you have some desire to recuse it from supposed criticisms. I have not criticized populism, and I don't see anything wrong with it in certain manifestations. But it is, and always is, reactionary. There is, and always is, a bogeyman. It is this reactionary nature which distinguishes populism from other pro-working class ideologies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
but that is not what populism is precisely
But that is exactly what it is. It is an approach which seeks to improve the outlook of the common people through reactionary backlash to an identified threat which is either elite or Other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think you are misjudging her. If she really was as inauthentic as Clinton, she wouldn't be surging in the polls. She has been remarkably able to translate her wonkishness into language which goes to the heart of everyday Americans' concerns, something which Clinton was never able to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Donald Trump is a populist insofar as he is advocating for the working class and a functional democratic system for example.
At this point, you're essentially repeating your original contention without addressing the refutation I provided. I said: "When we look at candidates like Trump and Sanders, both populists in their own right, we can best understand their populist positions as backlash to elite control or to the Other's alleged pernicious influence on our society. Trump's blaming immigrants and Sanders's blaming banks and corporations for our economic woes are manifestations of that reactionary backlash."
So yes, Trump claims to be helping the working class, but he claims to be helping them by fighting the pernicious influences of China and immigrants, his chosen bogeymen. He is not motivated by any particular ideology, but rather by a rather primal effort to defeat some alleged bogeyman which has been represented as a thread.
The "elites" are not an aspect of populism.
Most sources would disagree with you there. For a reasonably solid overview, read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
YYW laid out the things Warren needs to change in her approach to win earlier in this thread.
Most of Coal's "to-do" list is so generic that it applies to literally every candidate running in any Presidential race ever. Warren has, admirably, I think, been able to avoid the kind of condescending aura that surrounds Clinton because she is able to convey as genuine concern for the common man. Yes, she comes across as wonkish and erudite, both traits that could lead to labels of "snobbishness," but she frames her arguments in explicitly populist terms, which has helped her to elide that label so far. She has been relentlessly focused on policy--not on issues of, as Coal put it, "wokeness"--and I would agree with him that "wokeness" is not particularly strong ground for any Democrat approaching this general election. What Warren really needs to do is to continue to do exactly what she has been doing. If she does that, she stands an excellent shot at winning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Populism is about focusing on the needs of common people
Populism is--inherently--a reactionary ideology. Yes, it is about focusing on the needs of the common people, but that focus takes place within the reactionary context. When we look at candidates like Trump and Sanders, both populists in their own right, we can best understand their populist positions as backlash to elite control or to the Other's alleged pernicious influence on our society. Trump's blaming immigrants and Sanders's blaming banks and corporations for our economic woes are manifestations of that reactionary backlash. These are not positions which would be intellectually tenable without some sort of bogeyman to react to because their justification is not primarily ideological, but primarily about slaying the bogeyman which has been represented as a threat.
One of the problems I have with progressivism as a general form of philosophy is that of people coming to agreement on what constitutes "progress".
That's only a tenable objection if you define the movement in the overbroad way Omar did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The very idea that having a vagina is a qualification for leadership is about as bad as holding up a color chart to someone's skin to decide if that person can speak for you properly.
How does this respond to anything I actually said?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
Obviously, Biden is a decent candidate, and would likely beat Trump, but he is not *especially* strong against Trump when compared to the top tier of the candidates right now. Indeed, it was the illusion that we needed to nominate someone "electable" in 2016 that led us to nominate someone who lost what should have been a slam-dunk race. Ideologically bland candidates are increasingly failing to motivate voters, partly due to increasing partisanship. Comparing this election to 1988 is thus a non-starter, because the dynamics are shifting in favor of bolder policy positions. In 1988, this country was far more powerful and prosperous (relative to the rest of the world) than it feels now, and so the dynamics favored candidates who would maintain the status quo (namely, ideologically bland candidates). As the sense that America is losing its footing accelerates, the dynamics are naturally shifting away from those kinds of politicians. As for Harris, this is not her moment. Her performance in the last debate demonstrated that while she has many talents, her attempt to be both moderate and liberal at the same time is untenable.
One downside of nominating electable candidates is that these candidates tend to generate far less enthusiasm, which depresses turnout and increases the likelihood of swing voters choosing their opponent. Obama was considered by most pundits less electable than Clinton, yet he won in a landslide. Clinton was considered more electable than Bernie, but she lost in a close race. In American politics, we too often assume that ideologically bland candidates will be the most electable, but in trying to pick someone that appeals to everyone, we pick someone who excites no one. In attempting to choose the most electable candidate, then, we may just wind up with someone who is unable to turn out voters at the rate necessary to flip key states.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Yes it does. A woman is associated with humans that have vaginas instead of penises.
This comment again fails to take into account important distinctions between sex and gender. I may call someone a woman because their sex is female, but I may also do so because their gender is female.
Can you not engage with a hypothetical?
I engage with them all the time, but that does not mean I will engage with every one I encounter. Without actually engaging in the hypothetical, I would say this: there are two possible answers to your question (exist, don't exist). Choosing not to exist presupposes, I think, a utilitarian logic which treats non-existence as null (i.e. neither good nor bad). One then must ask: is utilitarian logic the best framework to use in resolving this question, AND is non-existence really null? Choosing to exist I think welcomes a different kind of justificatory logic altogether. One possibility I see is that the potential to experience joy--any amount thereof--is sufficient to make life worth living. We can make the argument that even a fundamentally awful life can be redeemed by moments of happiness; indeed, it is these moments that give most of us the strength to fight on in the face of hardship. Alternatively, one might make the claim that non-existence is not null, arguing by analogy that a full canvas, even if the picture is tragic, is more beautiful and rich than an empty one.
Severe income inequality can be done by being a populist. So progressivism and populism can be bonded.
Forgive me, but that's a ridiculous response. Many ideologies have overlapping goals--after all, many Republicans would argue that severe income inequality is problematic. What matters is not that the goals overlap, but (a) why those goals come to be an ideology's goals and (b) how the ideology plans to pursue those goals. Saying that "because progressivism and populism share a goal, they are linked or the same" is fundamentally absurd.
Populism is structured around anti-elite backlash. Progressivism is not structured around anti-elite backlash. Populism is often know-nothing and reactionary precisely because it is anti-elite, whereas progressivism is neither of these things. While progressivism may share goals with populism, then, it pursues those goals in substantially different ways and it arrives at those goals through substantially different logic.
Liberalism tends to favor freedoms and rule of law rather then what would be best for the worst if we go by your definition
I am using liberalism in the American political sense, not in the classic sense. Your statement here suggests you are using it in the classic sense, and not the American political sense. Liberalism in the American political sense refers specifically to a left-of-center ideology in which the government should be used to regulate the economy (not a laissez-faire approach to the economy), but should be hands-off regarding individuals private lives. Conservatism, by contrast, refers to a right-of-center ideology in which the government should be hands-off regarding the economy, but should be used to regulate individuals private lives (not a laissez-faire approach to legislating social mores).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump already beat a pandering, condescending woman once. It's going to be a blowout as the Dems double down on vagina power.
This reads as sexist; I'd like to think you're better than that.
Besides, I don't think that Warren being a weak candidate is actually the case. Warren and Hillary are very different politicians, both ideological and personally. Drawing an equivalence then between them is difficult, if you are going to be intellectually honest about it. And frankly, Trump's position is so weak that he would struggle to get reelected against Marianne Williamson. No, I think that among the major Democrats, Trump would struggle least against Kamala Harris. Warren would probably win.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Imma register as a Dem just so I can vote her even tho I’m on the TrumpTrain
If you think she's the most beatable of the main democratic options, you're miscalculating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Gatorade
I don't know if someone's asked you this but how did you find out about this site and become chief moderator, and are you ever going to make an assistant moderator.
I came to this site from it's predecessor, DDO, and was appointed moderator by the site owner. I already have several assistant moderators. You can learn more here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346/about-dart-resources-for-new-members
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
It means using your sexuality as an excuse for when something didn’t go your way.
And how was I using sexuality as an excuse for something that didn't go my way?
You said:
And how does that have anything to do with something not going my way?
Created:
Posted in:
Threads created in order to call for users to be banned will be considered call outs. You may of course create threads discussing issues with moderation and, within those threads, mention that you disagree with moderation's decision to ban/not ban a certain user. Importantly, then, the criticism is not focused on the user but on moderation's decision regarding them and also the thread is not created for the purpose of calling out that user.
Created:
Posted in:
This thread was moved to the science forum. Threads should be created in the forum most relevant to their content.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Care to apply this to trans women being considered women?
This reads as an attempt at a "gotcha" question. That being said, referring to trans women as women does not violate our basic understanding of the terms involved when one apprehends the nuances of those terms. We first have to distinguish between "sex" and "gender." Sex deals with one's biological, chromosomal assignment. Gender deals with one's expression of social constructed feminine/masculine norms. The term "woman" is used to refer to both sex and gender, depending on the context. In the context of referring to someone as a trans woman, we're referring to their expression of gender, not to their sex.
Your existence is a sperm cell aware of your entire history but will lose all that history when planting on the egg. Care to answer now?
I doubt that a haploid cell would be able to apprehend the information required to make such a judgement.
a social or political movement that aims to represent the interests of ordinary people through political change and the support of government actions
That definition is unhelpfully overbroad. Wikipedia tends to craft sweeping definitions because it lacks the gumption to get specific. Progressivism is, in the US context, a left-of-center movement that calls for evidence-based sociopolitical reforms which are geared to helping the least well off in society. From this, we can glean that progressivism is not populist, is aimed at ending severe income inequality and ensuring a basic standard of living for all, is for using government regulation and action to achieve its aims, and rejects social darwinism/rugged individualism.
The mainstream within the Democratic Party is progressive, and we often use "progressive" as a synonym for "liberal" in the American political context. I think that is a fair (if imprecise) equivocation, as progressivism is inherently not conservative. More accurately, we can say that progressivism is the economic and socioeconomic component of modern American liberalism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Okay yes go ahead and tap away
Always good advice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Everything apart from when looking through a microscope you see a difference.Meaning it tastes the same. It reacts the same as Earth A water.
Doesn't change my answer. The question you're asking deals with what counts as water, which makes it a question of synthetic knowledge.
Before you were born.
In that case, you are asking whether I would choose to exist at all if I knew that existence would be unhappy. Yet, it seems to me, that I, as a collection of memories and experiences, cannot render a decision about what I would want, because I must first exist in order to do so. I would then reject the premise of your question.
No I mean like should I drink this soft drink or not?
Is the question philosophical? Sure. I suppose in that sense, you have a point.
How much of a percentage do you think the progressive movement is compared to the US population?
What counts as a progressive? I think that failing to credit the progressive movement with an ideological core is a mistake.
I don't think this is true. I can be highly educated in theism but still not be a progressive.
When I say highly educated, I tend to mean possessing college degrees. Obviously, not all college-educated people are progressives, but most progressives are college-educated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
Depending on how off-task I can be in my classes, I might just do so
Yay!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
I've literally never seen this guy without his girlfriend since maybe March. AFAIK she's in his room rn. It's bound to happen
Lol. My freshman year, there was one girl in our dorm who had a different boyfriend every month. She fucked every night, and would lock her roommate out for 12 hour stretches.
Also, stop with these acronyms. You're making me look stuff up just to read your posts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
If you're looking for a quieter activity, you should sign up for my mafia game. I am next in the hopper.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
Granted if I get to constantly hear the one in the room beside me fucking, I'll probably tap extra loud to fight back.
Fuck wars...I love it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
Okay, lol. Wasn't sure we were on the same page.I'll have to send you a recording or something some time
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
I'll have to send you a recording or something some time
You realize that "sending me a recording of your violent tapping" sounds like "sending me a sex tape," right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
The real question is how do we both know this?
Oh, Vaar...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
As long as it's not like you're nailing something into a wall with a hammer, you should be fine, volume-wise.
(Nope...still sounds gay...)
Created: