Language (1 Viewer)

[Farb]

In another thread, it was brought to my attention that we am not allowed to use certain centuries old definitions because they have been 'updated'. That discussion was about the definition of 'racism'. I asked who controls the 'words' and who exactly gets to update the meaning of those commonly used words.

I saw this yesterday and thought this would be a discussion to attempt to have.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...e-terms-like-birthing-parents-human-milk.html

https://news.yahoo.com/democrats-replace-women-birthing-people-033500864.html

IMO this is a move to be 'inclusive' to trans people at the sake of women (we are discussing birthing humans after all).

The recent call to change the word for a person who comes into a country illegally from Alien to undocumented. Why? What possible purpose does it serve?

Even 'white supremacy' doesn't mean 'white supremacy'.

I am sure we are all somewhat familiar with Orwell and 1984. So i thought this would be a good place to post and discuss the language that we are seeing right in front of us. If we can't even share a language with common definitions, how do we expect to share a government?

 

[V Chip]

I have lots of empathy. But, I do not assume others have empathy. I would not try to make it in this world assuming others will feel sorry for me. That is not a plan.

Well that's one problem -- you think empathy is feeling sorry for someone else.

 

[RobF]

Socialism: refers to a specific stage of social and economic development that will displace capitalism, characterized by coordinated production, public or cooperative ownership of capital.

Authoritarianism is characterized by highly concentrated and centralized government power maintained by political repression and the exclusion of potential challengers.

Democratic socialism, even when not being conflated with social democracy as it typically is in the US, does not exclude potential challengers. It's in the 'democratic' bit. I'd have thought that would have been a bit of a giveaway to be honest.

Why do you need definitions of the obvious?

You'd have to have a remarkably simplistic point of view to think definitions of the complex terms 'socialism' and 'authoritarian' are obvious. It's also not terribly convincing after spending post after post after post avoiding providing them. Though it's pretty obvious why.

 

[Paul]

Democratic socialism, even when not being conflated with social democracy as it typically is in the US, does not exclude potential challengers. It's in the 'democratic' bit. I'd have thought that would have been a bit of a giveaway to be honest.


You'd have to have a remarkably simplistic point of view to think definitions of the complex terms 'socialism' and 'authoritarian' are obvious. It's also not terribly convincing after spending post after post after post avoiding providing them. Though it's pretty obvious why.

Do you have an argument?
Thanks

 

[Paul]

Well that's one problem -- you think empathy is feeling sorry for someone else.

I agree that was hyperbole which is an acceptable figure of speech. I rather plan my life according to my own efforts rather than the empathy of others. Don’t get me wrong many of us need empathy.

 

[V Chip]

I agree that was hyperbole which is an acceptable figure of speech. I rather plan my life according to my own efforts rather than the empathy of others. Don’t get me wrong many of us need empathy.

It’s weird that you seemingly pine for the great American singular “society” of the past (or incorrectly romanticize European countries for their ”social cohesion” which is largely based on empathy for others in the society due to their “sameness”) yet here sound more of a Randian, “survival of the fittest,” “I got mine who cares about the rest” ethos.

 

[dtc]

It’s weird that you seemingly pine for the great American singular “society” of the past (or incorrectly romanticize European countries for their ”social cohesion” which is largely based on empathy for others in the society due to their “sameness”) yet here sound more of a Randian, “survival of the fittest,” “I got mine who cares about the rest” ethos.

The problem with what passes as modern "conservatism" is that it's stupid, incoherent, gibberish expressed as the literal word of God.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Paul, Socialism isn't black and white. Capitalism isn't black and white. Democracy isn't black or white.
There are many levels of each. The USA isn't a true capitalist country, we are more defined as a Mixed Market economy. Even you can admit the US has some socialists gov't programs. And if we do, then that would mean that there are differences in types of socialism, wouldn't you agree? How can we be a capitalist country and have some socialist programs at the same time?
If we had true capitalism, the gov't wouldn't have so much control over the market like they do. Subsidies, restrictions, price caps/minimums on certain products, etc.
So don't pretend that it is Do or Do Not with economic policies of the world.
In your explanations, since it has to be one or the other, then China isn't a communists country. Heck Vietnam isn't really communists by proof of economy, but they identify as such. So tell me, how can a economic policies be branded as one thing, but operate as another? because there are no rules that are telling each country they can only follow their defined economic policies that they say they are...

 

[Paul]

It’s weird that you seemingly pine for the great American singular “society” of the past (or incorrectly romanticize European countries for their ”social cohesion” which is largely based on empathy for others in the society due to their “sameness”) yet here sound more of a Randian, “survival of the fittest,” “I got mine who cares about the rest” ethos.

Great points! The solutions to our problems are not 100%on the left or 100% on the right. The solutions have to do with common sense and using whatever works best on both sides of the spectrum. That may sound like a contradiction for those that are firmly planted in their end of the political spectrum.

The left does not have all the answers to solve poverty and they rely too much on "feelings". The right does not have the solution either, but have some aspects that are desirable. The sad history is that both the left and the right continue to push the same worn out ideas even though we are not seeing any solutions.

There are contradictions in our current philosophy with regards to societal unity. Being American is now the domain of the right and not the left. Both sides preach division by emphasizing Americanism on one side (a single culture) and multiculturalism and the emphasis on group identity on the other side as an avenue to unity. This will not work for obvious reasons. If different tribes are to come together a new tribe with common goals and characteristics is needed. That is why sports teams unite diverse people so so well, they have a new team with a common culture.

As for empathy and altruism: This is what Rand has to say:

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence.

 

[Paul]

Paul, Socialism isn't black and white. Capitalism isn't black and white. Democracy isn't black or white.
There are many levels of each. The USA isn't a true capitalist country, we are more defined as a Mixed Market economy. Even you can admit the US has some socialists gov't programs. And if we do, then that would mean that there are differences in types of socialism, wouldn't you agree? How can we be a capitalist country and have some socialist programs at the same time?
If we had true capitalism, the gov't wouldn't have so much control over the market like they do. Subsidies, restrictions, price caps/minimums on certain products, etc.
So don't pretend that it is Do or Do Not with economic policies of the world.
In your explanations, since it has to be one or the other, then China isn't a communists country. Heck Vietnam isn't really communists by proof of economy, but they identify as such. So tell me, how can a economic policies be branded as one thing, but operate as another? because there are no rules that are telling each country they can only follow their defined economic policies that they say they are...

I agree, we need a Nordic model. A strong healthy capitalist system to pay for social programs. We also need unity and a common culture to move forward.

Definitions matter and the above is not socialism. China was dirt poor until they decided to practice capitalism, however, they remain an authoritarian fascist nation.

Lastly, capitalism has given us the greatest prosperity in world history.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

So you are sticking to your guns that if it isn't text book socialism, then it isn't socialism?
So since the US isn't textbook capitalism, so its not capitalism at all?
If definitions matter, then explain how we are a capitalist country that has some socialist policies? by definition, that cannot be the case.

Since you are so into definitions,
social democracy has a definition:

social democracy​

noun

Definition of social democracy

1: a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means
2: a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices

First Known Use of social democracy

1848, in the meaning defined at sense 1

Definition of SOCIAL DEMOCRACY

a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means; a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Definitions don't lie.
Maybe Merriam-Webster just made this term up? lol.

 

[Paul]

The problem with what passes as modern "conservatism" is that it's stupid, incoherent, gibberish expressed as the literal word of God.

As an agnostic I am 100% in agreement.

 

[samiam5211]

I agree that was hyperbole which is an acceptable figure of speech. I rather plan my life according to my own efforts rather than the empathy of others. Don’t get me wrong many of us need empathy.

You don't seem to understand empathy.

You don't get it, you have it.

I do agree with you though, many of us do need empathy because we don't have it.

 

[RobF]

So you are sticking to your guns that if it isn't text book socialism, then it isn't socialism?
So since the US isn't textbook capitalism, so its not capitalism at all?
If definitions matter, then explain how we are a capitalist country that has some socialist policies? by definition, that cannot be the case.

Since you are so into definitions,
social democracy has a definition:

social democracy​

noun

Definition of social democracy

1: a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means
2: a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices

First Known Use of social democracy

1848, in the meaning defined at sense 1

Definition of SOCIAL DEMOCRACY

a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means; a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Definitions don't lie.
Maybe Merriam-Webster just made this term up? lol.

It's what you get when someone redefines terms to support whatever argument they happen to be making at the time, instead of reconsidering their arguments in the light of the reality of the terms.

Hence, when the argument is about whether something is socialist or not, in terms of whether it can co-exist with things like capitalism or democracy, no, it's absolute, socialism is pure, text book, socialism, can be nothing else, and hence must always be 'authoritarian' (by a particular, overly broad, and not very well thought out definition of 'authoritarian').

But when the argument is focused on capitalism and drawing a distinction in terms of it being 'authoritarian', asking the question of whether capitalism can co-exist with things like democracy and socialism, yes, of course it can, socialism can just be a commune or a worker owned business.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

so, in short, a Social Democracy is a real thing. because the language has changed in the 150 years since social democracy has been used, you just refuse to acknowledge it.

So out of curiosity, at what point in the dictionaries existence did you decide what the cut off date for changes and additions? 1500? 1700? 1825? 1941? 2001? just some random ballpark dates i threw out there...

 

[Paul]

Since you are so into definitions,
social democracy has a definition:

social democracy​

noun

Definition of social democracy

1: a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means
2: a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices

The issue is simple. Socialism is generally imposed by coercion. An individual would not be allowed to create a business for personal profit in a socialist country. If any individual is allowed to have a business for profit then the nation allows capitalism and is no longer truly socialist. China now allows capitalism and hence is not socialist anymore. They have transitioned into fascism.

The concept "peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism" is very misleading and an invention by those on the extreme left to bring socialism through the back door. If a socialism platform is victorious on a democratic election this would mean that those citizens that are business owners for personal profit would no longer be able to have a business. This would be coercion and rule by mob. Thank God the USA is a republic.

The second definition is basically a capitalist economy that uses the profits to pay for a welfare state. That is a million miles away from the basic definition of socialism.

Don't get me wrong. I understand the multiple number of definitions used with regards to what is socialism. However, at the end of the day it is just semantics to bring a particular ideology into reality. SOCIAL PROGRAMS PAID BY A CAPITALIST ECONOMY IS NOT SOCIALISM.

 

[Paul]

so, in short, a Social Democracy is a real thing. because the language has changed in the 150 years since social democracy has been used, you just refuse to acknowledge it.

So out of curiosity, at what point in the dictionaries existence did you decide what the cut off date for changes and additions? 1500? 1700? 1825? 1941? 2001? just some random ballpark dates i threw out there...

A dictionary is concerned with the meaning of single words. Once a dictionary engages into the definition of political movements then we have much more than just a dictionary. The opinion could be biased to the left or the right.

 

[samiam5211]

SOCIAL PROGRAMS PAID BY A CAPITALIST ECONOMY IS NOT SOCIALISM.

Market socialism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[SFIDC3]

For the love of God! Did you look at the federal government tax revenue. They collected more taxes than ever. What really matters is that the tax revenue goes up. However, you are more interested in class warfare and sticking it to the rich.

Did you read my post? Maybe you can explain to me how wanting an uber wealthy billionaire to pay the same percentage in taxes as a middle class worker somehow equates to "sticking it to the rich".....

Increased tax revenue by itself means next to nothing, we are also carrying more debt and income inequality is at an all time high, and I believe one of the main culprits is the tax code....this is nearly as bad as your dating apps are for losers comment....you have no clue what you are talking about....much of the time....