Time to admit: U.S. polit powers might be in typical,if not unique, type echo chamber-Halts Progress

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

EDIT:

And it's high time some of us stop denying it.

Original title: "Time to admit American politics, possibly culture as a whole, is an echo chamber of sorts"

Okay, there has been some confusion on my point to the extent I'm putting this EDIT at the top of the post so it can be seen right away. The confusion resulted from the former title, my anecdote below where the original post starts, and some of my responses before I could make a clarification that was easily understood. To clear this up in advance and avoid typing out new things I will just quote the resolved miscommunication so newcomers can get the picture in advance. As a result though, this post might go beyond the threshold of TL;DR...Sorry about that:

jamail77:

tstorm823:

jamail77:

[snip] See, I'm not saying every single American is in an echo chamber. I'm saying those that are have a powerful hold on the government and our way of life. As I said, we still have the two-party system for good or for ill. With others jumping ship those that remain can crawl more into their bubble more than they did before, the politicians especially so as you already said. I'm not sure if those of you saying this or something similar to this are saying this because you're extrapolating my statements or because I'm not making myself clear.

[snip] you framed it in a way that makes it sound like its a ubiquitous feature of the US or a particularly sinister problem here. If you say "Americans are all stuck in an echo chamber of there own opinions and its so much more of a problem in America than everywhere else" we're gonna be like "what you talkin' 'bout Willis?" But if you say "Some people in America, particularly political figures, just repeat each other until they believe it's true" we say "yeah, duh, so what?" I, and I assume others, entered in thinking the conversation was more like the former fake quote, but if all you want to say is more like the latter fake quote, its just been a miscommunication, to which I say "yeah, so what?" Why start a thread pointing out American politics has the same problem as every other politics in history [snip]

I didn't say it wasn't obvious. I said it has a palpable effect on peoples' lives to the extent of worried concern. From my international news reading, my one time out of the country, and the foreigners I've talked with, both those visiting or studying in my own country and those outside the country, this problem is unique to American politics because it has a worse effect. [snip] Other countries have barriers preventing this from turning [in]to a [worse] problem whether they're cultural or have something to do with the structure of their lives due to government, size of populace, geography, education or whatever.

END EDIT

The other day I saw 3 people who identified openly as conservatives at a table near me in a restuarant. They might have been involved in real estate or business, I don't know. What I do know is they got on the topic of minimum wage. One of them said something about being a busboy surviving on tips and understanding what that felt like, saying you feel for people like that more when you've been there.

What followed was horrible. He said liberals never give tips though; they want the government to do it for them and that doesn't work. He said people think conservatives are mean spirited, but really they are more generous and just get the situation and economics better. The problem I had with this was it was basically an echo chamber, a way for them to circle jerk so they could feel secure and justified in their little bubble. Generalizing an entire diverse political persuasion is not okay though and implying an inherent laziness and greed in that many people is utterly offensive. That's not keeping an open mind. Insulting peoples' intelligence, especially a whole group of people's intelligence, and then dismissing them is unacceptable. I'd say the same thing if they identified as liberals.

A good debater shows respect and understands where a perspective is coming from. They are open to new ideas and understand how the influences of education and other environmental factors can shape a person and keep them stuck in an echo chamber. These people are what's wrong with the U.S.; they are people who just insult and assume and generalize and never expand their group of acquaintances or friends outside of their political persuasion. History shows us the best solutions were often compromises, not necessarily because that made them moderate (often these solutions aren't moderate despite being a mixture of "left" and "right"), but because both perspectives have good things to contribute. It leads to less infighting, less stress, but most importantly it leads to understanding and actual action towards a problem.

So, where am I going with this? A new study was released saying more Americans refuse to either associate or live near a person of a different political persuasion. People throw out the word communism as if it is some inherently evil word when in fact communism is not evil nor is any follower. You can disagree with the philosophy all you want, but the only real political philosophy that can be called evil is fascism or anything with a similarity to fascism. It's ridiculous. It's time to admit that, for whatever reason, the U.S.A. is just a bunch of echo chambers. This may not be an accurate analysis; it's based on a lot of personal observations, anecdotes. It's certainly what it seems though. I'm tired of seeing people insult people. Even when there is a good article like one I read recently about a liberal falling in love with a conservative despite what their friends thought there had to be "that guy". You know, that guy who ruins the whole sentiment of the article? The guy who says how bigotted the left are obviously, liberals may see conservatives as evil but conservatives see liberals as stupid sort of guy.

Now, some of you might say that there is a greater proportion of ignorance or bigotry on an individual political side. Studies are suggesting your political allegiance may influence your understanding of and acceptance of scientific facts. So, there is merit in this criticism. HOWEVER, my response to that would be, "So?". The thing is I've seen nasty comments and attitudes directed towards the opposite side...from both sides. To justify this infighting with such an excuse is lazy, cynical, and, to many people, just comes off the way a bratty kid does. "They started it, they're worse, they're more wrong than me!". Even if you're right it's better to be humble about it.

What do all of you think? Is the country just an echo chamber within echo chambers impeding compromise and progress? Or am I missing something?

That's what happens when you have a very free media market.

jamail77:
snip

Ya got it backwards. It is only liberals that shun themselves into enclaves like that. Cities that vote 80% or more Democrat constantly. I doubt there's a major city in the United States that swings anywhere near that close for Republicans.

And those cities where Democrats have run it for decades? In absolute disrepair. Just ask Detroit. Or Oakland. Or Cleveland. Or Allentown. Or Philadelphia.

Also, what you observed was a friendly discussion over a meal. Expecting an academic debate in such a setting is just ridiculous. They'll generalize because it is not a place for deep analysis. And generalizations are a fact of life.

Compromises only work when a compromise would actually make sense. The solution to two sides where one wants a bridge built and the other doesn't is not to build half a bridge.

Communism killed a 100 million people last century. It is evil. Don't pretend it's not.

jamail77:
Generalizing an entire diverse political persuasion is not okay though and implying an inherent laziness and greed in that many people is utterly offensive.

I agree, but I suppose generalizing an entire diverse nation and implying an inherent intellectual laziness in 300 million people is okay?

jamail77:
It's time to admit that, for whatever reason, the U.S.A. is just a bunch of echo chambers.

Anyway, you're mistaken. Perhaps on television screens and in comments sections, you might be accurate, but in my experience, in "real life" conservatives and liberals don't actually talk to each other that way. Sure, when they're eating dinner with like-minded people, they make fun of the "other" as like-minded people tend to do in a casual environment. But if you put an average conservative citizen and liberal citizen in a room, most likely they'll have a civil discussion.

Also, communism sucks. Social democracy is good, but communism? Fuck that.

Big_Willie_Styles:

jamail77:
snip

Ya got it backwards. It is only liberals that shun themselves into enclaves like that. Cities that vote 80% or more Democrat constantly. I doubt there's a major city in the United States that swings anywhere near that close for Republicans.

And those cities where Democrats have run it for decades? In absolute disrepair. Just ask Detroit. Or Oakland. Or Cleveland. Or Allentown. Or Philadelphia.

Also, what you observed was a friendly discussion over a meal. Expecting an academic debate in such a setting is just ridiculous. They'll generalize because it is not a place for deep analysis. And generalizations are a fact of life.

Wow, thanks for missing my point and cherry picking your examples. Did you not read the part where I said

jamail77:
Insulting peoples' intelligence, especially a whole group of people's intelligence, and then dismissing them is unacceptable.

A good debater shows respect and understands where a perspective is coming from. They are open to new ideas and understand how the influences of education and other environmental factors can shape a person and keep them stuck in an echo chamber. These people are what's wrong with the U.S.; they are people who just insult and assume and generalize and never expand their group of acquaintances or friends outside of their political persuasion.

[snip] A new study was released saying more Americans refuse to either associate or live near a person of a different political persuasion.

Here's the part you REALLY should have paid attention to (I'll bold the part that matters most of this snippet because you are like this guy in the sense you're missing the point and/or ruining the sentiment/chance of discussion):

jamail77:

I'm tired of seeing people insult people. Even when there is a good article like one I read recently about a liberal falling in love with a conservative despite what their friends thought there had to be "that guy". You know, that guy who ruins the whole sentiment of the article? [snip]

Now, some of you might say that there is a greater proportion of ignorance or bigotry on an individual political side. Studies are suggesting your political allegiance may influence your understanding of and acceptance of scientific facts. So, there is merit in this criticism. HOWEVER, my response to that would be, "So?". The thing is I've seen nasty comments and attitudes directed towards the opposite side...from both sides.

And here's the part you need to take to heart most of all because your response is exactly the kind of response I'm talking about here:

jamail77:

To justify this infighting with such an excuse is lazy, cynical, and, to many people, just comes off the way a bratty kid does. "They started it, they're worse, they're more wrong than me!". Even if you're right it's better to be humble about it.

And how do I have it backwards? That would assume I place blame on conservatives for this. I didn't. I blame both sides; heck, I blame Americans in general. I only used those conservatives as an example because that's what I saw the other day.

Also, don't give me that friendly discussion exempts them from all this. First off, they got into an academic debate later on, so obviously the setting did not matter. Second, I'm not expecting an academic debate. I'm expecting criticism that is thought out and doesn't insult a whole group of people. Who said that has to be academic or deep? That's just reasonable expectation from fellow human beings. We're supposed to be logical. These 3 just sounded smug and full of themselves and were clearly saying this to each other to justify themselves among people who felt similarly and thus won't disagree and give them a taste of reality. The number of people who would associate as liberal throughout the world easily number in the millions if not AT LEAST 1 billion. That's a lot of people to call greedy, wrong, lazy and stupid.

Also, no generalizations are not a fact of life. Not all people have the same personality. While a political side can be generalized its members do often vary.

I've seen your posts before and I must say they are often full of fallacious assumptions and conclusions and do not promote healthy discussion. I don't mean that as an insult. That's how I take them. Since I started this topic I'd appreciate if you contribute nothing further not because I want to censor debate, but because I've seen how you contribute to these discussions. I know that might sound like it goes against my point. The thing is I know I can't sway you and I know how you'll contribute as this discussion continues. I don't see myself having a civil discussion with you and I want to avoid any potential heated arguments. Continue contributing if you want though I'd appreciate enough respect for you to refrain from doing so.

jamail77:
snip

It's because we group people, which is what generalizations start as. People identify as part of a group, said group has a certain reputation. That's how generalizations work.

This is not my first time at the rodeo. I have many liberal friends (one of my best ones is about as liberal as it gets, a huge Noam Chomsky fan.) When we were in college together, we debated politics constantly for fun. It keeps things fresh in my mind. He made me a better debater by having to learn his positions so as to debunk them. (What you learn about Noam Chomsky when you don't already like him, whoa!)

dyre:

Anyway, you're mistaken. Perhaps on television screens and in comments sections, you might be accurate, but in my experience, in "real life" conservatives and liberals don't actually talk to each other that way. Sure, when they're eating dinner with like-minded people, they make fun of the "other" as like-minded people tend to do in a casual environment. But if you put an average conservative citizen and liberal citizen in a room, most likely they'll have a civil discussion.

Also, communism sucks. Social democracy is good, but communism? Fuck that.

So, they don't really do it except when they do? The other thing is that in my experience, they do that. I've been in discussions between liberal friends and conservative friends or just total strangers. While it may be rarer than on TV or in comment sections online, I have seen them get vicious with each other. I don't think it's restricted to television screens and comment sections. It might just be a minority of people, groups of people that are highly concentrated and exist across the country, but regardless their impact is palpable to me. That's not to say I'm not wrong, I may very well be, but if I am I don't think I'm completely wrong.

I never said communism was good or a good philosophy. I just said you can't just associate evilness with communism. That's not fair. It's not an inherently evil philosophy. Celebrities or other types of international figures who die shouldn't be getting postmortem death threats and insults thrown at them because these detractors are so convinced they're "EVIL COMMUNIST SCUM" (See Nelson Mandela).

Big_Willie_Styles:
snip

That makes generalizations fact? Unless you meant that they're a fact of life, in that they exist, then no it doesn't. Generalizations might always have some truth to them, but more often than not they're not a healthy approach to situations.

The thing is that you say you have liberal friends and can have friendly discussions with them, but then you say only liberals shun themselves into enclaves. So, what? Your "MANY" liberal friends are the exception, not the rule? The three conservative/liberal love success stories I know of are the exception, not the rule? The talk shows centered around conservative/liberal debate (Admittedly some of them have failed haven't they, Crossfire being a good example. It's not that I ever watched it, but I do know of it) are the exception, not the rule?

Mind telling me what's wrong with Noam Chomsky? I know of him, but not much about him though I wasn't aware of anything supremely messed up with the guy.

Also, I missed some parts of your earlier post so here goes:

How exactly is it directly communism's fault that 100 million people died unnecessarily early over the last century? Where are you getting this figure anyway? Also, that analogy about bridges doesn't work here. Half a bridge won't get you to your destination. Half of good implemented economic policies avoids the results that would occur if we were to implement full on negative economic policies (so by your view on the situation the former is 1/2 liberal/bad policies and 1/2 conservative/good policies while the latter situation is only liberal policies). You did more good than harm by compromising especially if we were to assume in this hypothetical scenario that your good side was losing anyway.

People tend to associate with like-minded people so it's somewhat understandable that political discussion turns into an echo chamber. People with similar backgrounds also tend (though not always) to subscribe to similar political ideas and care about similar issues.

Personally I dislike American politics as a whole, though I'm not American nor have I ever been to the USA so my opinion of it doesn't particularly matter.

Well...yes. Not sure if this should be news to anyone. There's all sorts of shibboleths around, all sorts of things you are obliged to oppose to fit in with your group.

Phantom Kat:
snip

That doesn't make it right Phantom Kat. Our political leaning says much about our morals, our character, the way we were raised. And sure, it's difficult to discuss something with someone that seems to have terrible morals to you (assuming your politics informs your morals as well). The thing is, we are more complicated than our political opinions.

Understanding the other side, even associating with it in terms of having friends and family, IS HEALTHY. It's what we need. No great debate or progress came about because everyone agreed all the time. The founders of the country disagreed with each other as did probably the founders of your country. Allied countries disagree with each other and each others' methods. You might find there's a reasonable aura in an opinion opposite of yours and realize you're not so different even if you still disagree. Polarization has never been good for government of for a government's people.

thaluikhain:
snip

Oh, I know it's not news. I'm saying my country needs to admit it. I think we're in denial as a whole. Many of us recognize it, but many of us don't.

jamail77:

dyre:

Anyway, you're mistaken. Perhaps on television screens and in comments sections, you might be accurate, but in my experience, in "real life" conservatives and liberals don't actually talk to each other that way. Sure, when they're eating dinner with like-minded people, they make fun of the "other" as like-minded people tend to do in a casual environment. But if you put an average conservative citizen and liberal citizen in a room, most likely they'll have a civil discussion.

Also, communism sucks. Social democracy is good, but communism? Fuck that.

So, they don't really do it except when they do? The other thing is that in my experience, they do that. I've been in discussions between liberal friends and conservative friends or just total strangers. While it may be rarer than on TV or in comment sections online, I have seen them get vicious with each other. I don't think it's restricted to television screens and comment sections. It might just be a minority of people, groups of people that are highly concentrated an exist across the country, but regardless their impact is palpable to me. That's not to say I'm not wrong, I may very well be, but if I am I don't think I'm completely wrong.

I never said communism was good or a good philosophy. I just said you can't just associate evilness with communism. That's not fair. It's not an inherently evil philosophy. Celebrities or other types of international figures who die shouldn't be getting postmortem death threats and insults thrown at them because these detractors are so convinced they're "EVIL COMMUNIST SCUM" (See Nelson Mandela).

As in, they do it in a context in which everyone does that sort of thing. Normally, when people are with like-minded peers, they don't appoint a devil's advocate for the opposing side. That has nothing to do with America being an echo chamber; it's simply that groups of like-minded people are inherently echo chambers. Mob mentality and all that. Go to England and I'm sure when you group three Labour (just chose one randomly) party supporters together at a bar, you're just as likely to find the conversation to be much closer to an intellectual circle jerk than a debate.

I'm sure there are people who get vicious with each other. However, you made the claim that this is representative of an entire culture, and comes with a high burden of proof which I believe is unmet. If anything, I would consider political apathy to be a larger problem. If I talk to a random person where I live, it's far more likely to get a response like "oh, I dunno, I don't really follow politics. I just vote for the Republican/Democrat candidate" rather than "those dirty Republicans/Democrats are blah blah blah rage blah." "Those politicians are all a bunch of liars anyway" is probably the most likely position I'd encounter.

dyre:

As in, they do it in a context in which everyone does that sort of thing. Normally, when people are with like-minded peers, they don't appoint a devil's advocate for the opposing side. [snip] Go to England and I'm sure when you group three Labour (just chose one randomly) party supporters together at a bar, you're just as likely to find the conversation to be much closer to an intellectual circle jerk than a debate.

I'm sure there are people who get vicious with each other. However, you made the claim that this is representative of an entire culture, and comes with a high burden of proof which I believe is unmet. If anything, I would consider political apathy to be a larger problem. [snip]"Those politicians are all a bunch of liars anyway" is probably the most likely position I'd encounter.

No, I got what you were saying. I'm just saying that's not the best counterpoint because they still very clearly do it even if it is among like-minded peers in a more forgivable setting. And, more often than not, these people who do it in such "forgivable" situations often have some smug self satisfaction about them though you pretty much summed that up with the "intellectual circle jerk" point.

Really? I enjoy playing devil's advocate. I think it's a good exercise in debate and in healthy conversation when executed properly. I know most people don't do it, of course. I'm not ignorant of this. I just meant "Really" in a sort of sarcastic, well that's too bad sort of way.

I never said I proved it. It just seems that way. I made the claim to see what others thought hence "discussion". Political apathy may be the larger problem, so true enough there. Funnily enough, "Those politicians are all a bunch of liars anyway" is a common thing I've heard from time to time.

jamail77:
Oh, I know it's not news. I'm saying my country needs to admit it. I think we're in denial as a whole. Many of us recognize it, but many of us don't.

That's fair enough...however, not sure how that would work. Things have been polarised to the extent that there are good reasons to remain so, the other group is going to be actively hostile to your values.

thaluikhain:

That's fair enough...however, not sure how that would work. Things have been polarised to the extent that there are good reasons to remain so, the other group is going to be actively hostile to your values.

Neither do I, honestly. I just wanted to have this discussion. It's not about the solutions really. It's more about discussing the situation.

jamail77:

thaluikhain:

That's fair enough...however, not sure how that would work. Things have been polarised to the extent that there are good reasons to remain so, the other group is going to be actively hostile to your values.

Neither do I, honestly. I just wanted to have this discussion. It's not about the solutions really. It's more about discussing the situation.

Again, that's fair enough.

The US culture/s and political system always is somewhat fascinating, beyond it dominating the world.

jamail77:

Phantom Kat:
snip

That doesn't make it right Phantom Kat. Our political leaning says much about our morals, our character, the way we were raised. And sure, it's difficult to discuss something with someone that seems to have terrible morals to you (assuming your politics informs your morals as well). The thing is, we are more complicated than our political opinions.

Understanding the other side, even associating with it in terms of having friends and family, IS HEALTHY. It's what we need. No great debate or progress came about because everyone agreed all the time. The founders of the country disagreed with each other as did probably the founders of your country. Allied countries disagree with each other and each others' methods. You might find there's a reasonable aura in an opinion opposite of yours and realize you're not so different even if you still disagree. Polarization has never been good for government of for a government's people.

I was going to post a couple paragraphs in disagreement but I realised I was basing it more on politics in my country (New Zealand) rather than in the USA. The key difference is that New Zealanders are a lot more laid back so it's more common to have somewhat casual political discussions. We generally don't take political disagreement to heart as much as in the USA, as far as I am aware.

In the context of the USA, you're probably correct. It'd be healthy for people to sit down and have an intelligent discussion about their political views though I get the feeling the people who need it most are the ones incapable of having an intelligent discussion. Too many people seem to want to determine "who is right?" by "who shouts the loudest?"

Big_Willie_Styles:
I have many liberal friends (one of my best ones is about as liberal as it gets, a huge Noam Chomsky fan.)

Noam Chomsky is not liberal. He's socialist libertarian.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Ya got it backwards. It is only liberals that shun themselves into enclaves like that. Cities that vote 80% or more Democrat constantly. I doubt there's a major city in the United States that swings anywhere near that close for Republicans.

And what about rural districts, do none of these vote pro-Republican 4:1? They are no less "enclaves" just because they have a lower population density.

Nor is concentration of left and right in some geographical areas so much to do with "echo chamber" attitudes anyway. They reflect in large part demographics and the challenges different people in different circumstances face.

Mind you, having said that, a party's political representatives are the products of their communities. Many Democrats will therefore come from areas of heavy Democrat control and Republicans from areas of Republican control. It should not be a surprise they may be more inclined to express the ethos of the area and community they grew up in, which will be very well received back in return by those communities.

A corollary of this is you can't be surprised when parties speak for and to their communities and manage to alienate others. It's hardly the fault of urban blacks / rural whites that Republicans / Democrats respectively manage to alienate them by treating them like a different country. Echo chambers can exist in part not because people shut the door, but because political representatives of the 'other side' shut the door on them.

jamail77:

That would assume I place blame on conservatives for this. I didn't. I blame both sides; heck, I blame Americans in general.

And frankly that's a little silly. Look around this forum. It's plenty multi-national and circle jerks constantly.
Look at history. The French Revolution, the revolutionaries successful enough to start beheading their enemies went so far into their echo chamber that they thought renaming the months of the year was a truly inspired movement towards progress.

You're gonna have to try really hard to justify the claim that the era and country of rapidly rising independant voters is uniquely faulty for having too firmly divided a populace.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Communism killed a 100 million people last century. It is evil. Don't pretend it's not.

Come on Willie we've been over this ridiculous point before. Look I'll even just quote myself:

"Even if we take the intellectually baron process of looking at a contextless death toll, hell even have said contextless death toll come from the widely academically discredited "Black Book of Communism" (the source of the 100 million claim) this would still be false.

The deaths caused by capitalist's imperialism, wars, slavery, child labour, worker exploitation, genocide and inherent poverty far eclipse those of the varying "socialist" regimes of the 20th century."

For someone who prides himself on his debating ability you seem completely incapable of any sort of meaningful critique of communism and instead choose to continue to repeat one sentence claims that even right-wing anti-communists like Robert Service would find academically bunk.

Nil Kafashle:

The deaths caused by capitalist's imperialism, wars, slavery, child labour, worker exploitation, genocide and inherent poverty far eclipse those of the varying "socialist" regimes of the 20th century."

Are you joking? It sounds like you're suggesting those things are unique to capitalism. Half of that list is things that were at their worst during the times of fuedalism and mercantalism and have fallen with the rise of capitalism. Child labor (as a bad thing) is new to capitalism because previously, nobody cared if kids worked. The most imperialistic things at present are Americas wars which are a vain attempt at cleaning up soviet Russia's mess. And there have been so many major wars lately not involving socialists or fascists. Slavery and worker exploitation? That's basically the entire history of humanity before the modern era. Capitalism has risen with the fall of those. And clearly capitalism has more inherent poverty then... oh wait, we have the wealth and places that cooperate catapult up their standard of living practically every time. And genecide you're just pulling out of your butt.

Not to say that capitalism ends such practices, but the same values and changes in modern society that are leading us away from your entire list of things are also what make capitalism so popular and successful. Capitalism cannot coexist with those things, at least not for very long, so for those who think it causes them and flee from capitalism, I suppose that's reasonable, but the same cannot be said of socialism.

jamail77:
So, they don't really do it except when they do? The other thing is that in my experience, they do that. I've been in discussions between liberal friends and conservative friends or just total strangers. While it may be rarer than on TV or in comment sections online, I have seen them get vicious with each other. I don't think it's restricted to television screens and comment sections. It might just be a minority of people, groups of people that are highly concentrated and exist across the country, but regardless their impact is palpable to me. That's not to say I'm not wrong, I may very well be, but if I am I don't think I'm completely wrong.

I never said communism was good or a good philosophy. I just said you can't just associate evilness with communism. That's not fair. It's not an inherently evil philosophy. Celebrities or other types of international figures who die shouldn't be getting postmortem death threats and insults thrown at them because these detractors are so convinced they're "EVIL COMMUNIST SCUM" (See Nelson Mandela).

That makes generalizations fact? Unless you meant that they're a fact of life, in that they exist, then no it doesn't. Generalizations might always have some truth to them, but more often than not they're not a healthy approach to situations.

The thing is that you say you have liberal friends and can have friendly discussions with them, but then you say only liberals shun themselves into enclaves. So, what? Your "MANY" liberal friends are the exception, not the rule? The three conservative/liberal love success stories I know of are the exception, not the rule? The talk shows centered around conservative/liberal debate (Admittedly some of them have failed haven't they, Crossfire being a good example. It's not that I ever watched it, but I do know of it) are the exception, not the rule?

Mind telling me what's wrong with Noam Chomsky? I know of him, but not much about him though I wasn't aware of anything supremely messed up with the guy.

Also, I missed some parts of your earlier post so here goes:

How exactly is it directly communism's fault that 100 million people died unnecessarily early over the last century? Where are you getting this figure anyway? Also, that analogy about bridges doesn't work here. Half a bridge won't get you to your destination. Half of good implemented economic policies avoids the results that would occur if we were to implement full on negative economic policies (so by your view on the situation the former is 1/2 liberal/bad policies and 1/2 conservative/good policies while the latter situation is only liberal policies). You did more good than harm by compromising especially if we were to assume in this hypothetical scenario that your good side was losing anyway.

And vicious debates are what a free society allows. And they're quite the popcorn flick. I just wish the new Crossfire was as good as the old one. Newt and Van Jones are nowhere near as vivid livid as Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson.

Communism killed 100 million people last century. It's the only argument I need to say, yes, totally evil. Nelson Mandela, freed from prison on the exact day I was born (seriously,) may have been a communist, but he did so only because the communists were more open to his aims at the time. He was in bed with terrorists and communists at the time, so, in the middle of the Cold War, Western nations didn't support him (for obvious reasons.)

They're a healthy approach when discussing a self-identified group of people. It would be like never discussing the actual sports teams but just the individual players. "Hey! The Raiders don't suck because X player is totally OK!" See where that gets you.

I grew up on a college campus, one of those many heavily-packed liberal enclaves.

Crossfire was cancelled at the height of its popularity because the CNN executives hate money or something. Cancelling that show led to CNN's decline. Why do you think they brought it back? (Other than to copy the winning formula of The Five and the not-so-successful The Cycle, where they took S.E. Cupp from.)

Where to begin with Chomsky... He denied the Cambodian Genocide when it was going on, part of the chorus that convinced Americans not to pay attention until millions died. He would later deny that he denied it (because he doesn't understand that records are kept or something.) He thinks the entire world workforce should be unionized and unions should control the world. He thinks communism would work if the entire world was communist. He's been tenured since before the Vietnam War. During the Cold War, he believed every communist/Soviet propaganda source to paint America's efforts against the Soviets in the worst possible light. He's insanely anti-Israel to the point of parody. He's supported Holocaust deniers in the past and then denied his association with them. He doesn't seem to believe anybody will actual hold him accountable for his past positions when they were quite detrimental. He's got a rabidly protectionist fan base the likes of which only Ron Paul (who cribbed his insane foreign policy beliefs from Chomsky) has. He's insane?

Those people died under communist governments? The theory was applied. It killed millions in practice. It cannot work. That was the big philosophical debate of the 20th century. The communists lost.

Because people have principles, dude. Liberals don't really have those, at least the politicians. Or shame. Or morals (that's why hypocrisy charges are rarely lobbed at liberals because they don't have any morals to falter on.) Conservatives are against certain things on principle. Agreeing to even some of them is just as bad as agreeing to them in toto.

Here's a good speech on this topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

Nil Kafashle:
For someone who prides himself on his debating ability you seem completely incapable of any sort of meaningful critique of communism and instead choose to continue to repeat one sentence claims that even right-wing anti-communists like Robert Service would find academically bunk.

First sentence of this Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

"Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million."

I find it ridiculous that I have to disprove an argument using Wikipedia. What you're arguing against are established facts about the horrors of communism.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Ya got it backwards. It is only liberals that shun themselves into enclaves like that. Cities that vote 80% or more Democrat constantly. I doubt there's a major city in the United States that swings anywhere near that close for Republicans.

And those cities where Democrats have run it for decades? In absolute disrepair. Just ask Detroit. Or Oakland. Or Cleveland. Or Allentown. Or Philadelphia.

Also, what you observed was a friendly discussion over a meal. Expecting an academic debate in such a setting is just ridiculous. They'll generalize because it is not a place for deep analysis. And generalizations are a fact of life.

Compromises only work when a compromise would actually make sense. The solution to two sides where one wants a bridge built and the other doesn't is not to build half a bridge.

Communism killed a 100 million people last century. It is evil. Don't pretend it's not.

No no you got it all wrong. We dont do bad things. Only THEY do bad things. THEM. They do the bad things! THOSE guys. Not us. NEVER us. Its ALWAYS them. Dont be childish, its rediculous. Next youre going to tell me republicans never shit.

Everyone indulges in an echo chamber every so often. Visit any far right forum, hell visit ANY far right congregation in a church. The gays are teh evils and so on and so forth shared by an entire community that will probably vote republican because the community self enforces that view. I mean fuck me youve seen those kidnapped for jesus things. Thats a REAL enclave. Not to say academia doesnt become a horrible liberal philosophy circle jerk because I know it does and its irksome as balls. Considering im in one of the more right leaning european nations (the UK) and heavily support deregulation of the majority of the market (with the exception of medical care and anything that can/will kill huge swathes of people if corners are cut as well as natural monopolies) I find academia to be a little too left wing for me.

I figure cities with a younger population will tend to vote overwhelmingly democrat. You cant assume just because some places are vastly democrat that means its BECAUSE of a self enforced enclave. Any amount of outside reasons could make that happen. Republican voters may just be less likely to live in densely packed cities, while many middle/working class democrats probably will.

Youre attempting to point at a conclusion (cities vote 80% democrat) then assert the reason (its some sort of enclave/echo chamber) as if any reason that logically leads to that conclusion must be true. That doesnt follow. Gotta make the causal link. It makes sense to me that democrat demographics (The working class, immigrants and some of the middle class) will live in flats in cities and thus be extremely densely packed compared to the republican demographic. Not to say that is THE reason but the point is that anyone can assert all number of reasons why it might be that way that logically follow but youre putting the cart before the horse to use the conclusion as justification for the reason.

Its becoming extremely bizarre to me that the democrats in America seem to have a bad track record for long term governance. If we are more left leaning in europe and are doing MUCH better what the hell are they doing wrong?! Could it be on the scale of long term governing being where the democrats are doesnt work but moving slightly left pushes it into functionality? Thats how it seems to be from here.

Liberals don't really have those, at least the politicians. Or shame. Or morals

A grim reminder that american politics makes you guys crazy as balls. What the hell is this?! ALL of europe, for being more liberal than the USA lacks morals and shame? What? Seriously? ONLY american republicans in the WHOLE world have shame? How the hell do you conclude this?! Can you not see how insane this sounds?

Liberals are people. Conservatives are people. Youre getting REALLY weird in your attempt to make liberals sound like subhuman filth.

The 'Echo Chamber' is not something unique to America. Indeed, you'll see it appear anywhere like minds are gathered. If there's anything I've learned from these forums, it's that the arguments that work for people who already agree with you tend to be repeated as opening volleys with those who don't; with neither side understanding why the (so-called) reasonable people of the other cannot concede the validity of an argument that you and your friends already agree is valid.

At the heart of the minimum wage debate, for example, different parties are concerned about different things. The wage earners want to have more buying power. Whereas business owners don't want to pay too much for unskilled labor. Skilled laborers, on the other hand, don't want their expertise to be devalued as minimum wage climbs higher.

Given that such individuals tend to gather amongst themselves, they'll each develop arguments for their case that the others will likely heartily agree with. It becomes almost jingoistic. And they'll repeat these same arguments at those on the opposing side, each not realizing that the things the other side side is looking for are not satisfied by such arguments.

BiscuitTrouser:
No no you got it all wrong. We dont do bad things. Only THEY do bad things. THEM. They do the bad things! THOSE guys. Not us. NEVER us. Its ALWAYS them. Dont be childish, its rediculous. Next youre going to tell me republicans never shit.

Everyone indulges in an echo chamber every so often. Visit any far right forum, hell visit ANY far right congregation in a church. The gays are teh evils and so on and so forth shared by an entire community that will probably vote republican because the community self enforces that view. I mean fuck me youve seen those kidnapped for jesus things. Thats a REAL enclave. Not to say academia doesnt become a horrible liberal philosophy circle jerk because I know it does and its irksome as balls. Considering im in one of the more right leaning european nations (the UK) and heavily support deregulation of the majority of the market (with the exception of medical care and anything that can/will kill huge swathes of people if corners are cut as well as natural monopolies) I find academia to be a little too left wing for me.

I figure cities with a younger population will tend to vote overwhelmingly democrat. You cant assume just because some places are vastly democrat that means its BECAUSE of a self enforced enclave. Any amount of outside reasons could make that happen. Republican voters may just be less likely to live in densely packed cities, while many middle/working class democrats probably will.

Youre attempting to point at a conclusion (cities vote 80% democrat) then assert the reason (its some sort of enclave/echo chamber) as if any reason that logically leads to that conclusion must be true. That doesnt follow. Gotta make the causal link. It makes sense to me that democrat demographics (The working class, immigrants and some of the middle class) will live in flats in cities and thus be extremely densely packed compared to the republican demographic. Not to say that is THE reason but the point is that anyone can assert all number of reasons why it might be that way that logically follow but youre putting the cart before the horse to use the conclusion as justification for the reason.

Its becoming extremely bizarre to me that the democrats in America seem to have a bad track record for long term governance. If we are more left leaning in europe and are doing MUCH better what the hell are they doing wrong?! Could it be on the scale of long term governing being where the democrats are doesnt work but moving slightly left pushes it into functionality? Thats how it seems to be from here.

A grim reminder that american politics makes you guys crazy as balls. What the hell is this?! ALL of europe, for being more liberal than the USA lacks morals and shame? What? Seriously? ONLY american republicans in the WHOLE world have shame? How the hell do you conclude this?! Can you not see how insane this sounds?

Don't mind me here.

Excuse me if, as a person on the right side of the aisle, I criticize liberals more than conservatives.

This is a far left forum with like five right of center people on it. This is an echo chamber. That's primarily what I was responding to. Each side loves to pretend they don't engage in an echo chamber by complaining the other side is one while having these discussions in their own echo chambers. I found it funny that a guy would post that topic and only use conservative examples. It's like parody in action.

Have you ever paid attention to American media? Right now, Hillary is seen as "inevitable" while the only thing they can talk about right now other than that is the "Bridge-gate" scandal even though Hillary is known for the death of four Americans under her watch that could have easily been prevented (and there were plenty of red flags months before it happened.) Non-Americans must have the impression that we only have Fox News here. Ignoring CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, a majority of newspapers, public radio, and a majority of colleges and universities.

Far right churches you describe are a straw man. There are very few of them that really say those things with a straight face. Broad brush fallacy, dude.

They've been Democrat enclaves for decades, one party rule. When most people long abandoned the city (Detroit, for instance.)

Such an environment causes an echo chamber because of how few Republicans are around. There was that infamous NYT editorial after the 1972 election where the writer was incredulous that Nixon won because she didn't know a single person who voted for him... In an election where he won every single state except Massachusetts.

Democrat policies tend to destroy cities. That's why they have a bad reputation for long-term governance. Long-term Republican governance doesn't seem to cause that. Just compare the dire straits of unfunded liabilities in the deep blue states to the deeply red states.

American liberal politicians have few morals and no shame. Clinton is taken seriously as a warrior for women even though he raped a woman, severely sexually harassed countless women, cheated on his wife so many times he had the Arkansas state troopers arrange his trysts, and did a whole load of despicable things to women under him. Hell, Teddy Kennedy killed a woman and didn't serve a minute in prison and went on to a lifelong career in the Senate. Eliot Spitzer, Filner, Weiner, etc. What Republican war on women? Also, Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK and still had a lifelong career in the Senate (the longest in U.S. history actually.) I could keep going, but at least Republicans try to police their own. Mark Sanford will never get to any higher position than congressman (the GOP just hates him.)

jamail77:

What do all of you think? Is the country just an echo chamber within echo chambers impeding compromise and progress? Or am I missing something?

I may have a slightly skewed perspective because my dad is incredibly conservative (i.e. practically Constitution Party conservative) and my step-mom is a lifelong Democrat whose father was a lawyer for the teacher's union, but I think people tend to overstate the echo chamber nature of American culture. Now, I'm not denying that we tend to gravitate towards those who think like us, or that we tend to be less civil and logical in those situations, but I've also never seen anyone who makes a point to only hang out with people from their party, or someone who suddenly became uncivil towards anyone once it was discovered they disagreed politically. They might debate a lot, but they tend to be more civil and logical than what we tend to see on the Internet.

tstorm823:

Nil Kafashle:

The deaths caused by capitalist's imperialism, wars, slavery, child labour, worker exploitation, genocide and inherent poverty far eclipse those of the varying "socialist" regimes of the 20th century."

Are you joking? It sounds like you're suggesting those things are unique to capitalism. Half of that list is things that were at their worst during the times of fuedalism and mercantalism and have fallen with the rise of capitalism. Child labor (as a bad thing) is new to capitalism because previously, nobody cared if kids worked. The most imperialistic things at present are Americas wars which are a vain attempt at cleaning up soviet Russia's mess. And there have been so many major wars lately not involving socialists or fascists. Slavery and worker exploitation? That's basically the entire history of humanity before the modern era. Capitalism has risen with the fall of those. And clearly capitalism has more inherent poverty then... oh wait, we have the wealth and places that cooperate catapult up their standard of living practically every time. And genecide you're just pulling out of your butt.

Not to say that capitalism ends such practices, but the same values and changes in modern society that are leading us away from your entire list of things are also what make capitalism so popular and successful. Capitalism cannot coexist with those things, at least not for very long, so for those who think it causes them and flee from capitalism, I suppose that's reasonable, but the same cannot be said of socialism.

Technically, there was a lot of imperialism and genocide as a consequence of capitalism. The imperialism of the 19th century was arguably capitalist imperialism, as were the corresponding genocides. The genocide of Native Americans was also largely motivated by capitalist interests. Also, there is absolutely nothing about socialism and communism that would make genocide and imperialism more closely associated with them than capitalism. Maybe fascism (of a sort, given particular definitions of socialism and fascism), but not imperialism and genocide.

And Fuedalism brought economic progress as well. That doesn't make it a good thing.

Revnak:
Technically, there was a lot of imperialism and genocide as a consequence of capitalism. The imperialism of the 19th century was arguably capitalist imperialism, as were the corresponding genocides. The genocide of Native Americans was also largely motivated by capitalist interests. Also, there is absolutely nothing about socialism and communism that would make genocide and imperialism more closely associated with them than capitalism. Maybe fascism (of a sort, given particular definitions of socialism and fascism), but not imperialism and genocide.

And Fuedalism brought economic progress as well. That doesn't make it a good thing.

No, you can't. The terrible treatment of Native Americans was about land and treating people as less than human. There was nothing inherently capitalistic about it. The government was taking the land of the Native Americans "for the people." I could just as easily spin that into a socialist/collectivist thing, but that would be stupid.

The imperialism of the 19th century, like what? The Britons being empire-building dick bags? That was just authoritarian dickishness.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Revnak:
Technically, there was a lot of imperialism and genocide as a consequence of capitalism. The imperialism of the 19th century was arguably capitalist imperialism, as were the corresponding genocides. The genocide of Native Americans was also largely motivated by capitalist interests. Also, there is absolutely nothing about socialism and communism that would make genocide and imperialism more closely associated with them than capitalism. Maybe fascism (of a sort, given particular definitions of socialism and fascism), but not imperialism and genocide.

And Fuedalism brought economic progress as well. That doesn't make it a good thing.

No, you can't. The terrible treatment of Native Americans was about land and treating people as less than human. There was nothing inherently capitalistic about it. The government was taking the land of the Native Americans "for the people." I could just as easily spin that into a socialist/collectivist thing, but that would be stupid.

The imperialism of the 19th century, like what? The Britons being empire-building dick bags? That was just authoritarian dickishness.

Bullshit. Pioneers went west because they wanted their own property. The "rugged individualism" and "Protestant work ethic" of American settlers was a product and significant engine of the economic system of their country, which was, inarguably, Capitalism. Trying to seperate the concept of individual ownership and individual prosperity from Capitalism is a fool's errand. That is what Capitalism was all about, and that is exactly what motivated American settlers.

And the specific Imperialism of the 19th century couldn't have come into existence without the revolutions of the day, which were, generally, Capitalist revolution leading to Capitalist governments and Capiralist industries, as well as Capitalist exploitation of foreign peoples.

Revnak:

Trying to seperate the concept of individual ownership and individual prosperity from Capitalism is a fool's errand. That is what Capitalism was all about, and that is exactly what motivated American settlers.

It's not us seperating the concepts faultily. We're not acting like capitalism isn't self-interest. It is. But the inverse isn't true. Self-interest isn't capitalism. Self-interest is an inherent human characteristic, represented differently but certainly present in any economic system. People spend millenia moving and expanding territories out of self-interest, I mean hell, the Isrealites did it in the bible, but as soon as someone does it in America, you blame capitalism? Modern property rights are not coincidental with capitalism. Surely there's a bit of social justice to it, but the "take what you can conquer" imperialism is dying because a capitalist society cannot prosper with that activity.

tstorm823:
Modern property rights are not coincidental with capitalism. Surely there's a bit of social justice to it, but the "take what you can conquer" imperialism is dying because a capitalist society cannot prosper with that activity.

It's not dying, it's merely changing to "Take what you can ruin financially". I'll bring up Greece again, at this point, Greece is all but a vassal state, and not a shot was fired. But I don't believe for a moment that the situation wasn't at least counted on.

I'm in a funny spot here, being pro-EU integration, but, eh, not that way >.>

As for OT; politics is an echo chamber in many places. In all places where it's detached from the people, in fact; when it loses its purpose.

tstorm823:

Revnak:

Trying to seperate the concept of individual ownership and individual prosperity from Capitalism is a fool's errand. That is what Capitalism was all about, and that is exactly what motivated American settlers.

It's not us seperating the concepts faultily. We're not acting like capitalism isn't self-interest. It is. But the inverse isn't true. Self-interest isn't capitalism. Self-interest is an inherent human characteristic, represented differently but certainly present in any economic system. People spend millenia moving and expanding territories out of self-interest, I mean hell, the Isrealites did it in the bible, but as soon as someone does it in America, you blame capitalism? Modern property rights are not coincidental with capitalism. Surely there's a bit of social justice to it, but the "take what you can conquer" imperialism is dying because a capitalist society cannot prosper with that activity.

I blame Capitalism for these acts in the same way I blame Communism for acts largely caused by the cruelty and paranoia of horrible authoritarian leaders, which is to say, I only blame them to the degree which the ideology likely influenced those people. Countries less obsessed with Capitalist ideals did not embrace these expansionist exploitative ideals and people to the same degree or in the same manner.

Also, individual ownership and prosperity is uniquely tied to Capitalism as an economic system. Feudalism was about prosperity and ownership by and for elites, and protection and survival for the masses. The economic systems of Rome and antiquity were similar. In Capitalism everyone has ownership rights and everyone seeks out their own prosperity rather than giving away those rights in exchange for protection by Lords or Patrons. American settlers went west based on promises of land for themselves, and waged war with Natives to attain said land.

Vegosiux:

It's not dying, it's merely changing to "Take what you can ruin financially". I'll bring up Greece again, at this point, Greece is all but a vassal state, and not a shot was fired. But I don't believe for a moment that the situation wasn't at least counted on.

And the world's not prospering from it, and consequently people want changes. I'm just pretty sure those changes are regulatory, not the elimination of private ownership of the means of production.

Revnak:

I blame Capitalism for these acts in the same way I blame Communism for acts largely caused by the cruelty and paranoia of horrible authoritarian leaders, which is to say, I only blame them to the degree which the ideology likely influenced those people. Countries less obsessed with Capitalist ideals did not embrace these expansionist exploitative ideals and people to the same degree or in the same manner.

Also, individual ownership and prosperity is uniquely tied to Capitalism as an economic system. Feudalism was about prosperity and ownership by and for elites, and protection and survival for the masses. The economic systems of Rome and antiquity were similar. In Capitalism everyone has ownership rights and everyone seeks out their own prosperity rather than giving away those rights in exchange for protection by Lords or Patrons. American settlers went west based on promises of land for themselves, and waged war with Natives to attain said land.

American settlers waged war for their land? You sure it wasn't armies ordered by reason of Manifest Destiny. Less private ownership was not going to slow down Manifest Destiny. It sure as hell didn't hinder Napolean's ambition.

And countries that didn't embrace those ideals were less expansionist? I'm not blaming communism for the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. I'm not blaming whatever the hell economy the mongols were for whatever the hell genghis kahn did. Why on earth do you think capitalism is a causal factor in American expansion? America hit the west coast by Manifest Destiny, not individual monetary desires. We got Alaska in case of war with Canada, not so that people could own it. History does not support you.

jamail77:
communism is not evil... the only real political philosophy that can be called evil is fascism or anything with a similarity to fascism.

Dude, Communism and fascism are different flavors of the same shit. You might as well say "oranges aren't evil, but you know what is? Fruit and anything with a similarity to fruit"

jamail77:
How exactly is it directly communism's fault that 100 million people died unnecessarily early over the last century? Where are you getting this figure anyway?

I assume you'd add up the tens of millions of Soviet citizens killed by the Soviet government, the tens of millions of Chinese killed by Mao, the North Koreans killed by the Kim dynasty, the Cambodians killed by Pol Pot...

Unless you want to pull some No True Scotsman bullshit and say that every government in the world that has ever identified itself as Communist was actually "state capitalist".

jamail77:
Also, that analogy about bridges doesn't work here. Half a bridge won't get you to your destination. Half of good implemented economic policies avoids the results that would occur if we were to implement full on negative economic policies (so by your view on the situation the former is 1/2 liberal/bad policies and 1/2 conservative/good policies while the latter situation is only liberal policies). You did more good than harm by compromising especially if we were to assume in this hypothetical scenario that your good side was losing anyway.

Wrong. "Good economic policies" would include getting rid of both the Federal Reserve and Glass-Steagall. "Bad economic policies" include keeping them. But if you get rid of Glass-Steagall and keep the Fed (like Clinton did), you end up with a nuclear clusterfuck waiting to happen.

Nil Kafashle:
The deaths caused by capitalist's imperialism, wars, slavery, child labour, worker exploitation, genocide and inherent poverty far eclipse those of the varying "socialist" regimes of the 20th century."

Capitalism has NOTHING to do with imperialism, wars, slavery, or genocide. It has done more to END poverty than any other force in human history. Child labor is not an inherently bad thing and "exploitation" is a meaningless buzzword.

Go educate yourself. Jeez.

Revnak:
Technically, there was a lot of imperialism and genocide as a consequence of capitalism. The imperialism of the 19th century was arguably capitalist imperialism, as were the corresponding genocides.

No, that was just the same kind of empire-building and genocide that had been seen since before money existed. Or as Big Willie puts it,

Big_Willie_Styles:
That was just authoritarian dickishness.

yup.

Revnak:
Pioneers went west because they wanted their own property. The "rugged individualism" and "Protestant work ethic" of American settlers was a product and significant engine of the economic system of their country, which was, inarguably, Capitalism. Trying to seperate the concept of individual ownership and individual prosperity from Capitalism is a fool's errand. That is what Capitalism was all about, and that is exactly what motivated American settlers.

Nobody is "trying to separate the concept of individual ownership and individual prosperity from Capitalism". We're saying that the displacement of the Native Americans had nothing to do with either of those things. Pro tip: when one group of people wants to use the force of government to take shit from other people and redistribute it to themselves, that has more in common with socialism than capitalism.

Revnak:
And the specific Imperialism of the 19th century couldn't have come into existence without the revolutions of the day

You mean the revolutions that didn't happen anywhere in Europe except for France, after which France started shedding its overseas possessions? Sure, that makes perfect sense.

tstorm823:

Revnak:

I blame Capitalism for these acts in the same way I blame Communism for acts largely caused by the cruelty and paranoia of horrible authoritarian leaders, which is to say, I only blame them to the degree which the ideology likely influenced those people. Countries less obsessed with Capitalist ideals did not embrace these expansionist exploitative ideals and people to the same degree or in the same manner.

Also, individual ownership and prosperity is uniquely tied to Capitalism as an economic system. Feudalism was about prosperity and ownership by and for elites, and protection and survival for the masses. The economic systems of Rome and antiquity were similar. In Capitalism everyone has ownership rights and everyone seeks out their own prosperity rather than giving away those rights in exchange for protection by Lords or Patrons. American settlers went west based on promises of land for themselves, and waged war with Natives to attain said land.

American settlers waged war for their land? You sure it wasn't armies ordered by reason of Manifest Destiny. Less private ownership was not going to slow down Manifest Destiny. It sure as hell didn't hinder Napolean's ambition.

And countries that didn't embrace those ideals were less expansionist? I'm not blaming communism for the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. I'm not blaming whatever the hell economy the mongols were for whatever the hell genghis kahn did. Why on earth do you think capitalism is a causal factor in American expansion? America hit the west coast by Manifest Destiny, not individual monetary desires. We got Alaska in case of war with Canada, not so that people could own it. History does not support you.

Manifest Destiny was, in many ways, a collection of ideals based around ideas of American individualism, as well as concepts of individual ownership and prosperity, so by saying that they were motivated by Manifest Destiny, you are saying that they were motivated by Capitalism. Certainly, it was also based on the idea of the superiority of the American peoples, but really, that was by far the least relevant part to the common settler. They were in it for themselves, not the ideals of some Romantic poet.
Also, I did not say that other societies were not expansionist, I said that they were not expansionist in the particular way that America was. The individual people pushed for expansion as they continued to settle further and further west. And, generally speaking, the government and military wasn't that interested in making Natives leave their lands, settlers who were already encroaching on them were, and after Natives rightfully got pissed and fought over that the military would intervene.

Doublegee:

Capitalism has NOTHING to do with imperialism, wars, slavery, or genocide. It has done more to END poverty than any other force in human history. Child labor is not an inherently bad thing and "exploitation" is a meaningless buzzword.

Go educate yourself. Jeez.

So, when a communist government causes people to die, that's "communism being responsible for people dying", and when a capitalist government causes people to die that's not "capitalism being responsible for people dying".

I'm not sure I can wrap my mind around that one.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked