2018 PotWR Round 5: The General Election

Sherdog PotWR Round 5: General Election Ballot


  • Total voters
    332
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm gathering his understanding isn't very good, if my understanding of the article he supplied is any good at all.
In it, Chomsky says, "We destroy or at least undermine the governing mechanisms by which people at least in principle can participate to the extent that society’s democratic. So weaken them, undermine unions, other forms of association, leave a sack of potatoes and meanwhile transfer decisions to unaccountable private power all in the rhetoric of freedom." This is precisely the sort of thing I see @Trotsky railing against pretty nearly every day, including today.

Once I saw Jack say "you don't seem to know what 'neoliberal' means," I knew exactly who he was talking to. VivaRev is a mid-century conservative (that is, someone who is superficially supportive of unions and ambivalent to trade, but opposed to everything adjacent to and important to workers' interests and the interests of exploited people and basically anything that requires substantial thought or reconsideration of powers, yet somehow thinks himself a socialist class warrior.

I used to give him a little bit of a pass, or at least try to, on the basis that he means well, but it's getting harder and harder to do that as he continues to align himself with right-wingers that he knows are exploiting his emotions.
 
What?

So Chomsky has a definition right? Or are you samrter then Chomsky?

Hmm. So you can't actually explain what you think, but you assert that you agree with Chomsky so anyone who disagrees with the position that you hold is claiming to be smarter than Chomsky. Is that about right? Why would you think that that's a good way to discuss an issue? @Cubo de Sangre, what do you think of this?
 
Well, if I just make you run away, isn't that more evidence that it's not a fair fight?



How does Chomsky use it?

Couple of points on why I'm asking:

1. I think clarity is the most important thing in an argument. We might not agree in the end, but if we want to do anything more than just rant meaninglessly at each other, we need to make ourselves very clear.
2. I suspect that you don't actually understand either Chomsky's point or my own thinking (probably both, might just be one or the other). I'd like to know which it is.

I'm using it in it's common use.

If you think their is no solid definition, you should write Chomsky a letter.

I don't believe you Jack. I think you want to argue about the definition, instead of actually taking a position in support, or opposing neo-liberalism.
 
oh shit Katy bar the door Wadtucket just showed up

this one's gonna hurt
 
Bullshit.

No really, I smell bullshit on you. You reek of fakenews.

Thank you for proving my point. Instead or replying like a good and virtuous person, someone reasonable of a thinking mind, you predictably respond with a cliche that is designed to silence and stop any thought.
 
LOL. You do know that guy is an actual, factual neo Nazi right?

Just saying. There's Literally Hitler and there's fucking Literally Hitler.
https://perureports.com/the-good-hi...-over-lenin-in-peruvian-district-yungar/8564/

Literally Hitler can also be The Good Hitler though

wie-bitte-in-peru-treten-jetzt-hitler-und-lenin-zur-wahl-an.jpg
 
I was in an elevator the other day and something pretty wild happened.

There was a dude in there, and he farted. But it was, like, too persistent. Like it must have been shit, you know? Well I wave my hand in front of my nose and say "Man, that's foul you gotta take care of that." And the dude went crazy on me. Called me a neo-liberal Jew fart denier and kept pointing his ass at me (this was a really long elevator ride) and finally my floor to get off came. I was like "thank God that dude was fucking crazy" and he yelled after me, "Don't run away you fucking neo-liberal coward!!!"

Like I said, when is the high road coming, ye of many tropes. Your buddies are over here proving they don't come here to debate, but to market.
 
I'm using it in it's common use.

If you think their is no solid definition, you should write Chomsky a letter.

I don't believe you Jack. I think you want to argue about the definition, instead of actually taking a position in support, or opposing neo-liberalism.

I think that there are different definitions in use by different people and that you have no idea what you even mean when you use the term. It's just a kind of vague term of abuse. Someone cuts you off in traffic, and you punch your dashboard and say, "fucking neoliberal!"
 
Like I said, when is the high road coming, ye of many tropes. Your buddies are over here proving they don't come here to debate, but to market.

It's literally impossible to debate someone who refuses to say what he thinks other than that he's mad. If you made an effort to discuss things in good faith, I think we'd all be happier with the results, even if we walk away disagreeing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top