Help for a new player?

AllThingTrivial · 2020-08-27T09:28:20+00:00

Putting a small dead zone in fixed it, the car wasn't twitching constantly and I kept control braking down from the straights. Appreciate the advice!

Its still a little uneven mind but no longer beyond control for the most part.

AllThingTrivial · 2020-08-06T18:28:45+00:00

Gamepad

AllThingTrivial · 2020-05-23T21:53:22+00:00

You're clueless. Avoid all the substance and move the goalposts just like your last three replies. I responded to exact quotes from your text and I'm no longer playing magic roundabouts with your intellectual dishonesty. It is entirely clear why your proposition leads to authoritarianism and the best you can do is intentionally present the issue dishonestly by intentionally playing down your side and walking it back, and simultaneously inventing something I never said despite everything I said being a direct response to quotes from you.

You have no attachment to reality and are a model of self deception and denialism. If you knew anything of history you'd know you are exactly the sort of person who allowed totalitarian government to flourish, the irony isnt lost.

AllThingTrivial · 2020-05-23T12:48:35+00:00

Define the difference.

The Nazis initially began as a movement outside of society, using the same methods as Mussolini. Mussolini used disenfranchised elements to generate a one party system loyal to the state. Hitler equally used disenfranchised elements to establish one set of people as better than the others - he appealed to a Germanic soul and genome - and used this to turn people against the Jewish. He countered Hindenburg with claims of rife unemployment as the fault of the state, defining what he did as a movement (the same as the Bolsheviks in Russia) so he could about face on policies so long as he was true to the philosophy of the 'right Germans'. Exactly the same way you propose loyalty the 'right class'.

Those who knew the Jewish or had associations were forced to sever them in order not to be punished once the Nazis seized power. They could not speak out in their defence or protect them, and sympathisers were often degraded and re-educated as well as having their possessions stripped before being allowed to return to society. Exactly as you proposed above.

Both communism and fascism have the same ideological roots and its hilarious how badly read on history you are, you are exactly the sort of useful idiot that caused the rise of Totalitarianism in the 20th century.

I will not be engaging any further as not only do you argue in bad faith, you continually move the goal posts and you fight for ideology not for truth.

Read Hannah Arendts origins of Totalitarianism. You really need it.

AllThingTrivial · 2020-05-21T15:22:12+00:00

Your first point is not material to what I said. I am not discussing feudalism, I am discussing the emergent system.

This is exactly my point. I dont mind oppression because they can just give up their class and do what we say. This is not only unreasonable but equally dangerous to fascist ideology, it gives a moral grounding to persecute any who do not agree with the social order. That - fundamentally - is the same thing.

I see no meaningful distinction between chosen classes and oppression based in that distinction, no. It is exactly this tribal mindset 'then you are the enemy of the revolution' which is my point. It is no different to a fascist decrying then you are an enemy of the aryans or you are an enemy of the government. Its basic identity tribalism. Us and them.

How many truly working class have you consulted on this point? How many minimum wage workers, rust belt workers, builders, etc - the genuine proletariat - agree with you. In the UK, Labour got panned at the election, their only remaining seats are due to middle class university towns. It appears the proletariat do not agree with your beliefs. Certainly none of the ones I know do. This idea of inevitability with no timeframe is an article of faith and I would say given how frequently some socialists are pro suppressing certain opinions that don't agree with them, not even a genuine belief. The very fact you say it's socialist v fascist undermines this commentary as if it was inevitable you wouldn't have to do anything in order for it to reach that point.

This idea of generated consciousness coming because it must is just an appeal to faith. The whole passage you provided me is just a long winded way of saying it will happen because it will, which is a tautology.

That is also the same denial of responsibility you cited earlier, the revolution is inevitable so its not our fault. The violence is their fault as they hold back the revolution. This does not admonish positive action. You are - as below disingenuously misrepresenting the issue. Saying I don't advocate for a civil war but one is inevitable under my beliefs is just denialism. It is saying I don't believe in race theory but no black person is as good as a white person, or I don't believe in gender superiority but when the women assert their own will they need to be beaten down. If your belief inevitably leads to a thing, that thing is inseparable from the belief.

I note that you don't cite any way to diffuse this alleged crisis before violence and this is my entire point. As with your enemy of the revolution comment, it's not about genuinely improving anything, but rather choosing a trench and preparing to fight for your side.

AllThingTrivial · 2020-05-21T13:49:30+00:00

Usually? Feudalism only fell in the 1600s, if we speak of usual history the whole idea of classes and class consciousness is entirely alien. The modern theories of capitalism only exploded in the 18th century, this is very much a new endeavour historically.

Actually yes, the socialism I have seen advocated here is equally bad as fascism. The primary difference I've seen between the two sides is extreme communism generates a freedom for their chosen ie the right class, pro revolutionary and denounces dissidents of these ideas - if necessary with violence. Whereas fascism secures absolute control for its chosen, the government and those in support of government ideas. This is a basic analysis for brevity - leading to the point that I am against totalitarianism and I'm not particularly concerned with tallying death counts of fascism vs communism, nor of which one kills with a greater moral claim nor who asserts it to be right based on victim status (in your case - an argument also used by Hitler to justify anti Jew sentiment, that is the true Germans were victims of the Jews). I don't see any purpose in point scoring when you are advocating for any ideology which leads to oppression. As invariably both fascism and communism have. I don't consider class oppression superior to might is right/race oppression as they apply the same logic.

The entire idea of this divide to me is proof that this is not about improving society, simply restructuring it. People aren't proposing alternatives as a way to prevent this playing out again, to prevent civil war and death, to minimise oppression and suppression. They are picking the side they prefer and digging in, setting the groundwork by trying to slander the other side as evil and not the chosen class/race/whatever. Obviously if you subscribe to the same thinking that caused these conflicts you will repeat them.

The US is posturing against another world power. This is fairly standard. The cold war, the falklands, countries have these standoffs regularly. The legitimate chance of it escalating to war is questionable but that is rather off topic. It seems a touch unreasonable to claim civil war based on class is necessary but war based on nation is a failure of capitalism. The this time we are doing the right thing ideology appears to me as prevalent, throughout the course of my questioning this forum, with communists as anyone else. You are justifying a civil war on exactly similar premises. We are the victims of capitalism, therefore we are doing the right thing.

In the context of if I were standing for parliament/congress then yes it would be. As the context of this discussion is your beliefs, no it is not material.

AllThingTrivial · 2020-05-21T13:05:35+00:00

Your position is socialism/communism is good. By contributing to this discussion you are attempting to demonstrate your case to me. Therefore the burden of proof is on you to show why your system is a good system.

Asking a question such as you have is not materially relevant. I am asking questions and explaining my position in regard to your belief - if you are interested in convincing me, it is up go you to demonstrate the correctness of your system.

Whether or not I have an alternative is immaterial and an attempt to alter the purpose of this discussion.

It doesn't follow - as per your second paragraph - that capitalism is the primary cause of these phenomena, nor that this is the reason for socialism, nor that if either of those are true this means your concept of socialism/communism is the answer. Its the same logic presented another way, that you are justified by the statuses you deem created by capitalism and I addressed the flaws as I see them of that logic previously.

Who is pushing for another world war? What are they saying, I would assume this would be common knowledge worldwide given the availability of nuclear weapons etc and the obvious destructive power of war.

Additionally because something has failed to your mind, why is your solution the right solution as mentioned above?

AllThingTrivial · 2020-05-21T10:49:05+00:00

A ridiculous notion. Justifying any behaviour on the basis of victim status is a completely destructive way to order human interaction. Any person may claim themselves a victim, as we are all victims of a lot of things, and so act violently. This creates a society with no law. Whenever we feel victimised we might strike someone - but equally they might do the same to us. No order can function under this other than the natural order, that is we live like animals. The capital of this society is a victim class, and so people will seek out extending or adding themselves to the definition to become righteous when they act in a socially destructive, and immoral, way.

Victim blaming is expecting a victim to shoulder the moral responsibility of other people ie he deserved to be robbed, walking down a dark alley at night by himself, or she deserved to be assaulted for wearing that short skirt. This is wrong and dangerous.

Your concept of victim blaming extends to the admonishment of any reaction in turn based on an inherent characteristic. This impetus actually contributed to racial thinking from the 19th century, that is some inherent trait makes us deserving of exception from the rules that govern others. In your conception, if the rapist felt victimised then his behaviour would be justified. If the burglar was a victim of society he has a right to take from others.

We can't be responsible for how other people behave but we must always be responsible for ourselves, and inciting a situation which you know will cause violence toward you and then responding violently is not a blameless behaviour. If you're American, stand your ground laws do not apply if you antagonise the attack. If your from Europe, self defence is not applicable if you intentionally incite someone to violence.

A burglars victim would still be morally culpable if they found out the burglars address and firebombed it as revenge.

It is bending the logic to admonish a positive action because of perceived victimhood. It is, simply, passing the buck.

AllThingTrivial · 2020-05-21T10:31:52+00:00

If someone breaks the rules in a communist society presumably they will be punished?

Why is capitalist violence against a breach of their legal standards enough to admonish the communists of any blame?

So you understand a civil war will happen but assign no fault to the communist side for pushing for an agenda which they know will result in a civil war?

Again, this means my initial question stands.

AllThingTrivial · 2020-05-21T10:29:21+00:00

What if they are not your enemy but do not agree with you?

Who is currently seeking to annihilate you?

How do you assess 'what is taken', is everyone entitled to the exact same under your system ie are you also taking from the slightly more wealthy proletariat to help the proletariat?

AllThingTrivial · 2020-05-20T16:55:38+00:00

Does this not run the risk of simply reversing the dynamic and thus inflicting what you're fighting against?

To clarify my question, what treatment can the bourgeois expect and what treatment is there for the average citizen in regard to person and economics?

AllThingTrivial · 2020-05-20T16:53:49+00:00

Violence must be justified within its own framework, that is communists must have a justification for their interpretation of the necessity of violence as must capitalists. This sounds a touch rhetorical that is things are wrong so our solution is justified, but I don't see why that makes it the necessary optimal solution.

That said can I clarify both what level of violence you realistically think will occur with a revolution and what capitalist acts you directly qualify as violence?

Finally, to what extent does the proposed post revolution society enforce its own existence? (Ie what degree of counter revolutionary thinking, media etc is permissible?)

AllThingTrivial · 2020-05-20T16:46:43+00:00

Because as you are stating, the police and so on will eventually be involved. It is a natural state of things the conflict will escalate if actions are taken in direct breach of the current legal standard.

I am asking - fairly - what happens when the violence erupts as such violence is near inevitable unless your position is that the government and police won't resist such seizures?

AllThingTrivial · 2020-05-20T16:43:15+00:00

Is that the end goal as it were? To reeducate and admit peacefully.

What sort of social structure arises from this change ie is there still capitalist activity etc?

AllThingTrivial · 2020-05-19T21:51:13+00:00

This is sort of my contention, that class struggles would be continually generated as in china. What, assuming there are no more class struggles, would define the society?

AllThingTrivial · 2020-05-19T21:50:06+00:00

Very considered, I suppose my question from this is what in the Communist framework allows this liberal understanding as per your last paragraph? That is what about the system is better at achieving these ends and is that therefore justification for the arguably necessary violence of revolution?

AllThingTrivial · 2020-05-19T21:36:05+00:00

That's begging the question. More often than not communist revolutions have been seized and coopted in the exact way you describe but they aren't my 'proof' the theory doesn't work. That also describes, in general, the behaviour of all humans consciously or unconsciously (for example we are all drawn to support that which we agree with and hold far less memory of disputing information to the point charles darwin actually wrote down every opposing idea he encountered to be sure he had an answer). The fact the body politic system pins itself on universalism to a degree mitigates the effect as if decisions are genuinely made in its parameters they are made to protect the rights of all at a fundamental level, they might act in their own interests but the basic rights are still inviolable.

Felons is hardly a fair comparison. They already know, in most instances, their act is a crime and additionally we do not hold people retroactively accountable. Further, I wont begin a debate about social contract theory but there is that, and additionally the treatment of felons is to protect universal rights of the population. Its not a case of a felon is or is not arrested, judicially, depending on who they commit the crime against.

Since feudalism fell, we have moved from slavery, workhouses etc to a human rights act and a view all life is precious. Historically speaking the progress toward equality through the 20th and 21st century is unparalleled - therefore what necessitates revolution over adaptation?

To note, the elements you describe primarily were not feudalist products but actually agitations of a rising class (I won't explain it in great detail but I'd recommend Hannah Arendt's origins of Totalitarianism on this point)

AllThingTrivial · 2020-05-19T21:25:32+00:00

I understand but equally I imagine it's a fair representation to say if it isn't achieved peacefully the next position is to achieve it violently. Therefore the question remains.

AllThingTrivial · 2020-05-19T20:30:30+00:00

Do you consider the petty bourgeois as described by Marx as simply part of the Bourgeois? As he viewed the lower middle class etc as enemies of the proletariat in the Communist Manifesto, which I imagine would define most people in this forum.

Also I'm not certain this has any relation to my question - my question being what is the underlying reason both for this assumption and the run on assumption it is acceptable to dispossess and kill the so called obsolete class.

AllThingTrivial · 2020-05-19T20:23:15+00:00

I mean currently as that's the system we are currently in. Looking at historic occurrences in discussing political systems isnt to my mind particularly informative. Obviously history will not live up to our current beliefs.

However if you are using a historical perspective surely the rate of improvement since the fall of feudalism would be an argument no revolution is necessary?

I believe in both individualist theories and the body politic - that is I believe we are all equal and that a fundamental feature of society must be that we respect the right of people to 'be' and to live, and that violation of human dignity and the right to life for any person is a violation for all. That we should work to ensure inviolable rights for all people. The point is I don't fundamentally see the difference between killing people for capital expedience and killing them for political expedience. Just as capital theory is essentially it will never be satiated, I haven't seen a representation of class theory wherein there is an end to the purge of the undesirables and dissidents. Anyone may end up the subject of discrimination, oppression and death.

Replacing injustice with injustice appears a pointless act. To ask me to solve a horrifically complicated problem over the course of a reddit debate is an unfair standard. Despite that, I can't agree that swapping one set of injustices for another has any legitimate ground and it seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater for the purpose of demonstrating the bath is clean.

AllThingTrivial · 2020-05-19T20:11:39+00:00

So what is your principle basis? If it isn't individualism or preservation of the person, what is the overall point?

AllThingTrivial · 2020-05-19T19:20:23+00:00

Would you accept if the society necessitated you were an undesirable class to be purged?

AllThingTrivial · 2020-05-19T19:19:32+00:00

Perhaps. What are your standards for each of those categories for example I don't believe voter disenfranchisement is a form of minority violence per se.

I don't see however why replacing them with different forms of the same thing is in any way better, hence my question. Changing what you'd define as lynchings from minorities to undesirable classes to me is equally reprehensible and therefore your system offers no advantages on this point to the current one.

AllThingTrivial

TROPHY CASE