mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
"Facors" and "underlying factors" Options
alibey1917
Posted: Friday, February 5, 2021 3:40:38 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2018
Posts: 412
Neurons: 8,615
"Again, looking at factors that have eroded trust in the United States won’t explain the erosion of trust elsewhere in the world. But many of the underlying factors that affected trust here are likely to explain drops in other countries." (Ethan Zuckerman, Mistrust: Why Losing Faith In Institutions Provides the Tools to Transform Them)


Don't these two sentences contradict each other? Am I missing something?
thar
Posted: Friday, February 5, 2021 4:22:11 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 24,143
Neurons: 97,814
I partially agree. It is badly put. You can't make a blanket statement 'A doesn't explain B' and then qualify it with
'but 'sort of A might sort of explain B'.


I think he is trying to say that the direct factors in this instance:
- the QAnon conspiracy
- the federal vs state power dynamic
- the racial tensions in the US arising from historic slavery and official discrimination
- 'the right to bear arms' lot, the feeling that resisting the power of government is enshrined in the constitution
- white historical power being eroded both by non-white citizens and by immigrants
- a broken media system, with the prevalence of politically biased media with no journalistic ethics

- those are US problems. Some are problems in other European colonised countries as well, but some are specific only to the US.
I am just giving examples here - I don't know much about US politics so these are examples of the type of thing I mean, not an actual analysis!

But the underlying factors to that:
-a feeling of not being represented, a distrust of the political elite
-corruption, lack of accountability, frustration of common people that nothing changes even if you can vote democratically
-a feeling of being marginalised, racial and ethnic tensions
- difficulty in obtaining unbiased media reports (eg censorship, state control)

those are the underlying factors, that allow the direct factors to thrive. And those are present in many countries around the world. And they erode trust in government or in the political system.

I think that is what he means but the distinction is only in that word, 'underlying' and unless that is very clearly elucidated elsewhere in the text, it is insufficient to make the leap that I have made here.
alibey1917
Posted: Friday, February 5, 2021 11:39:32 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2018
Posts: 412
Neurons: 8,615
thar yazdı:
I partially agree. It is badly put. You can't make a blanket statement 'A doesn't explain B' and then qualify it with
'but 'sort of A might sort of explain B'.


I think he is trying to say that the direct factors in this instance:
- the QAnon conspiracy
- the federal vs state power dynamic
- the racial tensions in the US arising from historic slavery and official discrimination
- 'the right to bear arms' lot, the feeling that resisting the power of government is enshrined in the constitution
- white historical power being eroded both by non-white citizens and by immigrants
- a broken media system, with the prevalence of politically biased media with no journalistic ethics

- those are US problems. Some are problems in other European colonised countries as well, but some are specific only to the US.
I am just giving examples here - I don't know much about US politics so these are examples of the type of thing I mean, not an actual analysis!

But the underlying factors to that:
-a feeling of not being represented, a distrust of the political elite
-corruption, lack of accountability, frustration of common people that nothing changes even if you can vote democratically
-a feeling of being marginalised, racial and ethnic tensions
- difficulty in obtaining unbiased media reports (eg censorship, state control)

those are the underlying factors, that allow the direct factors to thrive. And those are present in many countries around the world. And they erode trust in government or in the political system.

I think that is what he means but the distinction is only in that word, 'underlying' and unless that is very clearly elucidated elsewhere in the text, it is insufficient to make the leap that I have made here.


Thank you, thar, I got it.
FounDit
Posted: Friday, February 5, 2021 12:25:59 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 15,768
Neurons: 75,232
alibey1917 wrote:
"Again, looking at factors that have eroded trust in the United States won’t explain the erosion of trust elsewhere in the world. But many of the underlying factors that affected trust here are likely to explain drops in other countries." (Ethan Zuckerman, Mistrust: Why Losing Faith In Institutions Provides the Tools to Transform Them)


Don't these two sentences contradict each other? Am I missing something?

As I see it, the "factors" and the "underlying factors" are the same - both have eroded trust in the people in government, and by extension, the institutions of government.

It's similar to saying, "looking at the factors that have eroded trust" and "the underlying factors that affected trust". Both say the same thing, but use different words. The "factors" that erode are the underlying source of mistrust.

But I must disagree with a couple of thar's direct factors.
It is not a conspiracy to say there are people who want to change the government, shifting its power into other hands. That goes on in every government in every country in the world.

And the "direct" factor is NOT racial discrimination, but official discrimination by the government. A Supreme Court Justice said reverse discrimination was necessary to correct past discrimination. Bollocks! You don't correct theft with more theft. You don't correct killing with more killing, and you don't correct discrimination with more discrimination.

And the Right to Bear Arms is in no way a factor in eroding trust in the government. It is a part of our Constitution which plainly states that whenever a government abuses its people, it is the right and duty of the citizens to change or throw off that government. The right to keep and bear arms helps ensure that ability of the people.

Finally, White historical power in no way was a factor in eroding trust either. White historical power was willingly shared by whites by ending slavery, ending Jim Crow, agreeing with the Civil Rights movement for equal treatment. What is eroding trust in government is the effort by the political Left to punish Whites for the sins of their ancestors, rather than embracing and appreciating the willing changes made on behalf of those treated unequally in the past. We welcome over a million people a year into our country, but we want them to come here legally - properly - not by breaking our laws.

Now the broken media system with its bias and lack of journalistic ethics, in concert with corrupted and biased politicians, HAS definitely helped erode trust in our system.

thar
Posted: Friday, February 5, 2021 12:52:58 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 24,143
Neurons: 97,814
I won't go through all the points (that is why I put in that rider, because I didn't want t start a political discussion) but
the only conspiracy theory I mentioned was QAnon. You must admit the idea of the baby-eating cabal with lairs under Central Park is completely bonkers, and an American creation.
I did carefully say official discrimination. There is de facto discrimination in most places, but it has only been law in some.
alibey1917
Posted: Saturday, February 6, 2021 6:28:54 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2018
Posts: 412
Neurons: 8,615
FounDit yazdı:
alibey1917 yazdı:
"Again, looking at factors that have eroded trust in the United States won’t explain the erosion of trust elsewhere in the world. But many of the underlying factors that affected trust here are likely to explain drops in other countries." (Ethan Zuckerman, Mistrust: Why Losing Faith In Institutions Provides the Tools to Transform Them)


Don't these two sentences contradict each other? Am I missing something?

As I see it, the "factors" and the "underlying factors" are the same - both have eroded trust in the people in government, and by extension, the institutions of government.

It's similar to saying, "looking at the factors that have eroded trust" and "the underlying factors that affected trust". Both say the same thing, but use different words. The "factors" that erode are the underlying source of mistrust.

But I must disagree with a couple of thar's direct factors.
It is not a conspiracy to say there are people who want to change the government, shifting its power into other hands. That goes on in every government in every country in the world.

And the "direct" factor is NOT racial discrimination, but official discrimination by the government. A Supreme Court Justice said reverse discrimination was necessary to correct past discrimination. Bollocks! You don't correct theft with more theft. You don't correct killing with more killing, and you don't correct discrimination with more discrimination.

And the Right to Bear Arms is in no way a factor in eroding trust in the government. It is a part of our Constitution which plainly states that whenever a government abuses its people, it is the right and duty of the citizens to change or throw off that government. The right to keep and bear arms helps ensure that ability of the people.

Finally, White historical power in no way was a factor in eroding trust either. White historical power was willingly shared by whites by ending slavery, ending Jim Crow, agreeing with the Civil Rights movement for equal treatment. What is eroding trust in government is the effort by the political Left to punish Whites for the sins of their ancestors, rather than embracing and appreciating the willing changes made on behalf of those treated unequally in the past. We welcome over a million people a year into our country, but we want them to come here legally - properly - not by breaking our laws.

Now the broken media system with its bias and lack of journalistic ethics, in concert with corrupted and biased politicians, HAS definitely helped erode trust in our system.



Hi FounDit. Please don't misunderstand me, I really value your opinion and just want to understand. I'd like to know your opinion on these words:

"For some white Americans, the changes brought about by the civil rights movement signaled that the government didn’t care about them or their desire for a segregated nation. Republicans harnessed this resentment by adopting the “Southern Strategy,” which began associating the Republican Party with support for white supremacy. But racism in the United States is not confined to white southerners, and resentment of the government’s equal treatment of African- Americans may have been a contributing factor to government mistrust since 1964. When American politicians have made coded attacks on African- Americans, they’ve seen rises in trust. Ronald Reagan demonized “welfare queens,” in language that evoked African-American women profiting from government largesse. Bill Clinton, himself a white southerner, greatly expanded Reagan’s war on drugs, a policy that disproportionately imprisoned Black men and changed the dominant complex-ion of American inmates from light to dark. Both leaders enjoyed high levels of trust during their time in office, while the first Black president, Barack Obama, faced the lowest trust ratings of any American leader up to that point. Simply put, Americans may trust their government less when it actively seeks equality between its Black and white citizens, and they may support it more when it signals a willingness to marginalize and demonize people of color." (Ethan Zuckerman, Mistrust: Why Losing Faith In Institutions Provides the Tools to Transform Them)
FounDit
Posted: Saturday, February 6, 2021 1:00:50 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 15,768
Neurons: 75,232
thar wrote:
I won't go through all the points (that is why I put in that rider, because I didn't want t start a political discussion) but
the only conspiracy theory I mentioned was QAnon. You must admit the idea of the baby-eating cabal with lairs under Central Park is completely bonkers, and an American creation.
I do agree with that, but do not agree that this is in any way a factor that contributes to eroding trust in our institutions. It isn't widely believed and sounds ridiculous.

I did carefully say official discrimination. There is de facto discrimination in most places, but it has only been law in some.
This is not correct. There is little to no de facto discrimination because it is against the law and suit can be brought by anyone who is not white to seek redress. It is, however, law that selection of applicants for jobs, at universities, etc. be based on skin color and gender. It goes under the rubric of "Diversity". It is reverse discrimination that proposes to eliminate discrimination - which is illogical, and in my opinion, ridiculous thinking.
FounDit
Posted: Saturday, February 6, 2021 1:49:16 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 15,768
Neurons: 75,232
alibey1917 wrote:
FounDit wrote:
alibey1917 wrote:
"Again, looking at factors that have eroded trust in the United States won’t explain the erosion of trust elsewhere in the world. But many of the underlying factors that affected trust here are likely to explain drops in other countries." (Ethan Zuckerman, Mistrust: Why Losing Faith In Institutions Provides the Tools to Transform Them)


Don't these two sentences contradict each other? Am I missing something?

As I see it, the "factors" and the "underlying factors" are the same - both have eroded trust in the people in government, and by extension, the institutions of government.

It's similar to saying, "looking at the factors that have eroded trust" and "the underlying factors that affected trust". Both say the same thing, but use different words. The "factors" that erode are the underlying source of mistrust.

But I must disagree with a couple of thar's direct factors.
It is not a conspiracy to say there are people who want to change the government, shifting its power into other hands. That goes on in every government in every country in the world.

And the "direct" factor is NOT racial discrimination, but official discrimination by the government. A Supreme Court Justice said reverse discrimination was necessary to correct past discrimination. Bollocks! You don't correct theft with more theft. You don't correct killing with more killing, and you don't correct discrimination with more discrimination.

And the Right to Bear Arms is in no way a factor in eroding trust in the government. It is a part of our Constitution which plainly states that whenever a government abuses its people, it is the right and duty of the citizens to change or throw off that government. The right to keep and bear arms helps ensure that ability of the people.

Finally, White historical power in no way was a factor in eroding trust either. White historical power was willingly shared by whites by ending slavery, ending Jim Crow, agreeing with the Civil Rights movement for equal treatment. What is eroding trust in government is the effort by the political Left to punish Whites for the sins of their ancestors, rather than embracing and appreciating the willing changes made on behalf of those treated unequally in the past. We welcome over a million people a year into our country, but we want them to come here legally - properly - not by breaking our laws.

Now the broken media system with its bias and lack of journalistic ethics, in concert with corrupted and biased politicians, HAS definitely helped erode trust in our system.



Hi FounDit. Please don't misunderstand me, I really value your opinion and just want to understand. I'd like to know your opinion on these words:

Certainly. I'll offer my opinion on these ideas as I've lived and experienced them.
"For some white Americans, the changes brought about by the civil rights movement signaled that the government didn’t care about them or their desire for a segregated nation.
This part is true. There were some white Americans who held on to the desire for segregation and resisted the idea of equality of access and opportunity for people of color - especially black people. But over time, they were marginalized by the majority of white Americans who believed it was the right thing to do, and supported that effort.

Republicans harnessed this resentment by adopting the “Southern Strategy,” which began associating the Republican Party with support for white supremacy. This part is false. It was in fact, a Republican President, Eisenhower, who first proposed integrating the Armed Forces of the U.S. It was the Democrats who fought the most fiercely to prevent desegregation (Gov. Faubus of Arkansas and Gov. George Wallace of Alabama are prominent examples. The Government sent troops to force them to allow blacks into the schools.)

It was, and is, the Democrat Party under the influence of Socialists that harnessed this resentment of some whites, and now paints all Whites, and especially, Republicans, as racists. When America's enemies, Socialists, saw what a potent topic race was in America, they moved to take control of the Democrat Party and use race as a weapon to divide our country. That's why the Democrat Party went from fighting desegregation to promoting segregation, and labeling all who oppose them as racists.

The last President, Trump, saw the wearing of a red hat with MAGA on it as a racist symbol. The Democrat Party has seized race as a weapon to use for a power grab. A very great number in the Democrat Party label all who disagree with their ideology as racists.


But racism in the United States is not confined to white southerners, and resentment of the government’s equal treatment of African- Americans may have been a contributing factor to government mistrust since 1964.
Racism is not confined to white southerners. It exists in all races. It can be seen in all countries and in all cultures. It will likely always exist, but here is confined to a minority of people. For that minority, efforts to desegregate does cause a mistrust of government, but this does not hold true for the majority of Americans.

When American politicians have made coded attacks on African- Americans, they’ve seen rises in trust. Ronald Reagan demonized “welfare queens,” in language that evoked African-American women profiting from government largesse.
These were not "coded attacks", but efforts to encourage people to get off of government benefits and get jobs. The Democrat Party had begun the process of paying women money for each child they had out of marriage. This was supposed to "help" them, but instead, created even greater poverty as more women had more babies in crowded conditions and limited abilities to take care of them. This helped create a dependent class that would always vote Democrat to keep the money coming in.

Bill Clinton, himself a white southerner, greatly expanded Reagan’s war on drugs, a policy that disproportionately imprisoned Black men and changed the dominant complex-ion of American inmates from light to dark.

The war on drugs was expanded to attempt to get people to work, rather than destroy their lives by either using, or dealing, drugs. The goal was to create a sense of self-worth through work rather than criminal activity. But because there was so much money to be made in drugs, a disproportionate number of people chose that rather than work. The increase in inmates of color increased not because they were black, but because more of them chose lives of crime. No one in America is lockup because of the color of their skin. They are locked up because of their behavior - because of the choices they make.

Both leaders enjoyed high levels of trust during their time in office, while the first Black president, Barack Obama, faced the lowest trust ratings of any American leader up to that point.

Ridiculous and a lie. Obama enjoyed almost saint-like status among Americans, especially blacks and in the media. He was even pictured on the cover of Newsweek magazine wearing a halo.

Simply put, Americans may trust their government less when it actively seeks equality between its Black and white citizens, and they may support it more when it signals a willingness to marginalize and demonize people of color." (Ethan Zuckerman, Mistrust: Why Losing Faith In Institutions Provides the Tools to Transform Them)
A complete fabrication, i.e., a lie. Americans do not base their trust in government on what it does to marginalize and demonize people of color. Our trust in government is dependent on how truthful we believe it is when we are told something.

But today, we see more and more, that we are being lied to, that we are being manipulated. Our own sense of reason and the evidence we see with our own eyes tells us these things. This is especially true when we are told one thing one month, and something opposite the next, as with the dealings of this China Virus, the so-called "Russian Collusion" that had no evidence behind it, the scornful and demeaning attitude towards half of our population, labeling them as deplorable and irredeemable, the constant drumbeat of accusations of being racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, as examples. This is the true source of divisiveness and lack of trust in our government, and it all stems from one source - Socialist Democrats.

What you are reading is complete garbage. This is another of those books that should be put down, with force, and into a bin.

alibey1917
Posted: Sunday, February 7, 2021 1:38:46 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2018
Posts: 412
Neurons: 8,615
FounDit yazdı:
alibey1917 yazdı:
FounDit yazdı:
alibey1917 yazdı:
"Again, looking at factors that have eroded trust in the United States won’t explain the erosion of trust elsewhere in the world. But many of the underlying factors that affected trust here are likely to explain drops in other countries." (Ethan Zuckerman, Mistrust: Why Losing Faith In Institutions Provides the Tools to Transform Them)


Don't these two sentences contradict each other? Am I missing something?

As I see it, the "factors" and the "underlying factors" are the same - both have eroded trust in the people in government, and by extension, the institutions of government.

It's similar to saying, "looking at the factors that have eroded trust" and "the underlying factors that affected trust". Both say the same thing, but use different words. The "factors" that erode are the underlying source of mistrust.

But I must disagree with a couple of thar's direct factors.
It is not a conspiracy to say there are people who want to change the government, shifting its power into other hands. That goes on in every government in every country in the world.

And the "direct" factor is NOT racial discrimination, but official discrimination by the government. A Supreme Court Justice said reverse discrimination was necessary to correct past discrimination. Bollocks! You don't correct theft with more theft. You don't correct killing with more killing, and you don't correct discrimination with more discrimination.

And the Right to Bear Arms is in no way a factor in eroding trust in the government. It is a part of our Constitution which plainly states that whenever a government abuses its people, it is the right and duty of the citizens to change or throw off that government. The right to keep and bear arms helps ensure that ability of the people.

Finally, White historical power in no way was a factor in eroding trust either. White historical power was willingly shared by whites by ending slavery, ending Jim Crow, agreeing with the Civil Rights movement for equal treatment. What is eroding trust in government is the effort by the political Left to punish Whites for the sins of their ancestors, rather than embracing and appreciating the willing changes made on behalf of those treated unequally in the past. We welcome over a million people a year into our country, but we want them to come here legally - properly - not by breaking our laws.

Now the broken media system with its bias and lack of journalistic ethics, in concert with corrupted and biased politicians, HAS definitely helped erode trust in our system.



Hi FounDit. Please don't misunderstand me, I really value your opinion and just want to understand. I'd like to know your opinion on these words:

Certainly. I'll offer my opinion on these ideas as I've lived and experienced them.
"For some white Americans, the changes brought about by the civil rights movement signaled that the government didn’t care about them or their desire for a segregated nation.
This part is true. There were some white Americans who held on to the desire for segregation and resisted the idea of equality of access and opportunity for people of color - especially black people. But over time, they were marginalized by the majority of white Americans who believed it was the right thing to do, and supported that effort.

Republicans harnessed this resentment by adopting the “Southern Strategy,” which began associating the Republican Party with support for white supremacy. This part is false. It was in fact, a Republican President, Eisenhower, who first proposed integrating the Armed Forces of the U.S. It was the Democrats who fought the most fiercely to prevent desegregation (Gov. Faubus of Arkansas and Gov. George Wallace of Alabama are prominent examples. The Government sent troops to force them to allow blacks into the schools.)

It was, and is, the Democrat Party under the influence of Socialists that harnessed this resentment of some whites, and now paints all Whites, and especially, Republicans, as racists. When America's enemies, Socialists, saw what a potent topic race was in America, they moved to take control of the Democrat Party and use race as a weapon to divide our country. That's why the Democrat Party went from fighting desegregation to promoting segregation, and labeling all who oppose them as racists.

The last President, Trump, saw the wearing of a red hat with MAGA on it as a racist symbol. The Democrat Party has seized race as a weapon to use for a power grab. A very great number in the Democrat Party label all who disagree with their ideology as racists.


But racism in the United States is not confined to white southerners, and resentment of the government’s equal treatment of African- Americans may have been a contributing factor to government mistrust since 1964.
Racism is not confined to white southerners. It exists in all races. It can be seen in all countries and in all cultures. It will likely always exist, but here is confined to a minority of people. For that minority, efforts to desegregate does cause a mistrust of government, but this does not hold true for the majority of Americans.

When American politicians have made coded attacks on African- Americans, they’ve seen rises in trust. Ronald Reagan demonized “welfare queens,” in language that evoked African-American women profiting from government largesse.
These were not "coded attacks", but efforts to encourage people to get off of government benefits and get jobs. The Democrat Party had begun the process of paying women money for each child they had out of marriage. This was supposed to "help" them, but instead, created even greater poverty as more women had more babies in crowded conditions and limited abilities to take care of them. This helped create a dependent class that would always vote Democrat to keep the money coming in.

Bill Clinton, himself a white southerner, greatly expanded Reagan’s war on drugs, a policy that disproportionately imprisoned Black men and changed the dominant complex-ion of American inmates from light to dark.

The war on drugs was expanded to attempt to get people to work, rather than destroy their lives by either using, or dealing, drugs. The goal was to create a sense of self-worth through work rather than criminal activity. But because there was so much money to be made in drugs, a disproportionate number of people chose that rather than work. The increase in inmates of color increased not because they were black, but because more of them chose lives of crime. No one in America is lockup because of the color of their skin. They are locked up because of their behavior - because of the choices they make.

Both leaders enjoyed high levels of trust during their time in office, while the first Black president, Barack Obama, faced the lowest trust ratings of any American leader up to that point.

Ridiculous and a lie. Obama enjoyed almost saint-like status among Americans, especially blacks and in the media. He was even pictured on the cover of Newsweek magazine wearing a halo.

Simply put, Americans may trust their government less when it actively seeks equality between its Black and white citizens, and they may support it more when it signals a willingness to marginalize and demonize people of color." (Ethan Zuckerman, Mistrust: Why Losing Faith In Institutions Provides the Tools to Transform Them)
A complete fabrication, i.e., a lie. Americans do not base their trust in government on what it does to marginalize and demonize people of color. Our trust in government is dependent on how truthful we believe it is when we are told something.

But today, we see more and more, that we are being lied to, that we are being manipulated. Our own sense of reason and the evidence we see with our own eyes tells us these things. This is especially true when we are told one thing one month, and something opposite the next, as with the dealings of this China Virus, the so-called "Russian Collusion" that had no evidence behind it, the scornful and demeaning attitude towards half of our population, labeling them as deplorable and irredeemable, the constant drumbeat of accusations of being racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, as examples. This is the true source of divisiveness and lack of trust in our government, and it all stems from one source - Socialist Democrats.

What you are reading is complete garbage. This is another of those books that should be put down, with force, and into a bin.



You're using a language of hatred against the people who don't think like you, Foundit, I'm a socialist, am I my own country's enemy or your enemy too?
FounDit
Posted: Sunday, February 7, 2021 11:55:15 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 15,768
Neurons: 75,232
alibey1917 wrote:

You're using a language of hatred against the people who don't think like you, Foundit, I'm a socialist, am I my own country's enemy or your enemy too?


Socialism is the antithesis of the system we have here in the U.S., our Republican form of government and the so-called Free Market system; the system whereby the people have the power, not the government. We, the people, created our government to serve us, not for us to serve it.

So, if you are a Socialist in your country, and are happy with that system, great. I'm happy for you. But, if you are a Socialist in my country, and want to change our system to a Socialist system, then I see you as an enemy.

It's nothing personal. You may be a fine person. But I don't want our system changed, and that is what has been attempted, and is currently being attempted. The Socialists in our country openly say so.

So, I have no love or affection for anyone who wants to institute that system here. I hate the system and resist those who want to change ours into a Socialist system where the government dictates - where we are subjects rather than sovereign citizens. I didn't like what I saw in the U.S.S.R., what I saw in Cuba, in Venezuela, in Viet Nam, in Cambodia, in Latin American countries, East Germany, or in China. So I don't want it here - whether you call it Socialism or Communism. I want no part of it.

Now that I am aware that you are a Socialist and enjoy reading this type of material, I will refrain from criticizing it. I was hoping you weren't, but you are free to read whatever you like. In the future, I will simply help you with understanding the wording if you ask and leave it at that. My apologies if I offended you.
alibey1917
Posted: Monday, February 8, 2021 4:03:59 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2018
Posts: 412
Neurons: 8,615
FounDit yazdı:
alibey1917 yazdı:

You're using a language of hatred against the people who don't think like you, Foundit, I'm a socialist, am I my own country's enemy or your enemy too?


Socialism is the antithesis of the system we have here in the U.S., our Republican form of government and the so-called Free Market system; the system whereby the people have the power, not the government. We, the people, created our government to serve us, not for us to serve it.

So, if you are a Socialist in your country, and are happy with that system, great. I'm happy for you. But, if you are a Socialist in my country, and want to change our system to a Socialist system, then I see you as an enemy.

It's nothing personal. You may be a fine person. But I don't want our system changed, and that is what has been attempted, and is currently being attempted. The Socialists in our country openly say so.

So, I have no love or affection for anyone who wants to institute that system here. I hate the system and resist those who want to change ours into a Socialist system where the government dictates - where we are subjects rather than sovereign citizens. I didn't like what I saw in the U.S.S.R., what I saw in Cuba, in Venezuela, in Viet Nam, in Cambodia, in Latin American countries, East Germany, or in China. So I don't want it here - whether you call it Socialism or Communism. I want no part of it.

Now that I am aware that you are a Socialist and enjoy reading this type of material, I will refrain from criticizing it. I was hoping you weren't, but you are free to read whatever you like. In the future, I will simply help you with understanding the wording if you ask and leave it at that. My apologies if I offended you.



I'm not offended, FounDit, but the people who you have called socialist are not socialist (including Sanders, no matter what he identifies himself as), they're social democrat at best. You see them so because you are on far-right and you don't really know what socialism is. One talks, argues or even struggles with his/her political rivals but hurts or even kills his/her enemies. I know you're a good person (don't ask me please how I know, I just know, I just can see it), I know you don't want to and won't kill anyone, but the language we have used matters, FounDit, you can't kill anyone but the language you have used can kill people. I know that because I live a country that the language populists have used have killed people. My apologies if I offended you. You helped me a lot, I owe you and you have my gratitude. I respect you and what you're doing here. That we have differing opinions don't and can't change this.
FounDit
Posted: Monday, February 8, 2021 11:28:19 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 15,768
Neurons: 75,232
alibey1917 wrote:
FounDit wrote:
alibey1917 wrote:

You're using a language of hatred against the people who don't think like you, Foundit, I'm a socialist, am I my own country's enemy or your enemy too?


Socialism is the antithesis of the system we have here in the U.S., our Republican form of government and the so-called Free Market system; the system whereby the people have the power, not the government. We, the people, created our government to serve us, not for us to serve it.

So, if you are a Socialist in your country, and are happy with that system, great. I'm happy for you. But, if you are a Socialist in my country, and want to change our system to a Socialist system, then I see you as an enemy.

It's nothing personal. You may be a fine person. But I don't want our system changed, and that is what has been attempted, and is currently being attempted. The Socialists in our country openly say so.

So, I have no love or affection for anyone who wants to institute that system here. I hate the system and resist those who want to change ours into a Socialist system where the government dictates - where we are subjects rather than sovereign citizens. I didn't like what I saw in the U.S.S.R., what I saw in Cuba, in Venezuela, in Viet Nam, in Cambodia, in Latin American countries, East Germany, or in China. So I don't want it here - whether you call it Socialism or Communism. I want no part of it.

Now that I am aware that you are a Socialist and enjoy reading this type of material, I will refrain from criticizing it. I was hoping you weren't, but you are free to read whatever you like. In the future, I will simply help you with understanding the wording if you ask and leave it at that. My apologies if I offended you.



I'm not offended, FounDit, but the people who you have called socialist are not socialist (including Sanders, no matter what he identifies himself as), they're social democrat at best.

That's always the argument of Socialists. "That's not real Socialism. You just have to let us do it. It will be better." But Sanders lived in the Soviet Union and, apparently, was and is fond of that system. But is doesn't matter what it's called, it is not our system, and I want no part of it based on what I've seen of it in other countries where it's been implemented.

You see them so because you are on far-right and you don't really know what socialism is.

If wanting to live in the U.S. under the system that was originally proposed puts me on the Far-Right, then it's a place I'm happy to be. This system has elevated more humanity to a better life than any other in history. It has brought more prosperity to more humans than any other, and has elevated the world to a higher plane in so many ways they aren't countable. For that, I'd be happy to be called Far-Right. As far as I'm concerned, the whole world would be better off if they adopted a similar system.

I repeat - But is doesn't matter what Socialism is called, that or Social Democrat, it is not our system, and I want no part of it based on what I've seen of it in other countries where it's been implemented.


One talks, argues or even struggles with his/her political rivals but hurts or even kills his/her enemies.

Not by talking - only when attacked such as those we've seen by Black Lives Matter and Antifa when they take to the streets, burning, looting, and killing people. That wasn't the Far-Right. That was the Far-Left - Socialist/Fascist.

I know you're a good person (don't ask me please how I know, I just know, I just can see it), I know you don't want to and won't kill anyone, but the language we have used matters, FounDit, you can't kill anyone but the language you have used can kill people. I know that because I live a country that the language populists have used have killed people.

That's because you live in a Socialist country. You don't have freedom of speech. We do, or at least we do now. I'm not sure we will continue to have it if Socialists get full control here.

But the language we use does matter, and that's why it's important to allow it to be freely expressed. As the saying goes, "You counter speech you disagree with by more speech, not censoring speech". That's why I object to those who want to censor and change our language. When someone can change or control the words you all permitted to use, they can change your thinking. That is why I do not recognize, nor submit to, those who take upon themselves the authority to tell me what words I am permitted to use, or what words I must use. That kind of control cannot be permitted to occur here.


My apologies if I offended you. You helped me a lot, I owe you and you have my gratitude. I respect you and what you're doing here. That we have differing opinions don't and can't change this.
Thank you. You have not offended me. I'm merely presenting my opinions on this subject. We can disagree without being disagreeable, I hope. I'm just presenting my views. I'll be happy to help you any time with English if I can. Be well.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.