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]

while the US has a top marginal rate of 46%.

Source?

Our top nominal federal tax bracket is 37%, so to come up with this number there's something else involved.

Additionally, marginal <> effective. It matters not the marginal rate if the tax burden can be reduced through other means.

 

[V Chip]

Up until this year there was basically no inflation.

It's still there, and it affects everything. Additionally, our GDP grows every year (well except 2020) and that affects revenues as well.

 

[RobF]

In a truly socialist nation those individuals that want to be capitalists would not be able to pursue that goal.

All nations have laws and many proponents of socialism use that as an excuse to impose socialism. That is a worn out excuse to justify the tyranny of socialism.

In a capitalist nation any group of individuals have the freedom to establish a commune. They can donate all their private property to the commune and start a workers owned business.

There is a reason why all socialist nations are authoritarian. If they don't then capitalism happens.

1) You haven't defined authoritarian. You can't just repeat an assertion that X is Y, just with added empty rhetoric, if you're not willing to define Y. If you're just posting yet more opinions that you're unwilling to back up, please make that clear.

2) You also appear to be stating that socialism can be pursued within a capitalist system, for example by the establishment of a commune. That would invalidate the argument that if a nation is capitalist it cannot also, in any way, be socialist.

And I don't think I'll drag this out any further. You're applying your own, unspecified, definition of authoritarian, so we can just ignore that, and you're applying a particular and absolutist definition of socialism, ignoring how the term 'democratic socialism' is used in practice (and often interchangeably with social democracy).

What we have is people who describe themselves as democratic socialists in the US saying, "By that, we mean very specifically this," and you're saying, "No they don't, I know what they really mean!" Which isn't how language works. You can argue they shouldn't really be using that term, if you want to be pedantic, but you can't just assert that they mean your preferred definition of the term. Why would they? They're not you. If you want to assert that, back it up. But it's just another empty opinion, isn't it.

 

[Paul]

It's been a month or so since I looked at these numbers for some other discussion on some other board, but federal tax revenue has increased every year since the 1960s, with only one or two exceptions. It dipped in 1971, then from 2001-2003, and finally during the 2009 recession. Trump had nothing to do with it, other than inheriting an economy that bounced back under Obama's leadership. And estimates are that revenues would have been higher if not for the tax cuts, so Trump actually cost us money.

I am obviously not for Trump. What I wanted to illustrate is that with d=few exceptions the tax revenues go up every year unless the economy tanks, This year the IRS will collect even more. The argument made by those that propose very high taxes is that the revenue will be higher and there will be more money for social programs. That may be true up until a certain point. There is a sweet spot in terms of taxation. If they overshoot the sweet spot the economy tanks and they end up collecting less taxes.

 

[V Chip]

I am obviously not for Trump. What I wanted to illustrate is that with d=few exceptions the tax revenues go up every year unless the economy tanks, This year the IRS will collect even more. The argument made by those that propose very high taxes is that the revenue will be higher and there will be more money for social programs. That may be true up until a certain point. There is a sweet spot in terms of taxation. If they overshoot the sweet spot the economy tanks and they end up collecting less taxes.

The sweet spot to tank the economy surely isn't anywhere near even the highest proposed tax rates on the wealthy. We've had tax rates twice our current top rates and our economy was doing just fine.

 

[Paul]

1) You haven't defined authoritarian. You can't just repeat an assertion that X is Y, just with added empty rhetoric, if you're not willing to define Y. If you're just posting yet more opinions that you're unwilling to back up, please make that clear.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a state of affairs in which the proletariat holds political power. ... The term dictatorship indicates full control of the means of production by the state apparatus.

2) You also appear to be stating that socialism can be pursued within a capitalist system, for example by the establishment of a commune. That would invalidate the argument that if a nation is capitalist it cannot also, in any way, be socialist.

IN a capitalist nation you and your friends have the freedom to establish a commune and practice socialism in that commune. You could also create a workers owned business. In fact this has been done in the USA.

And I don't think I'll drag this out any further. You're applying your own, unspecified, definition of authoritarian, so we can just ignore that, and you're applying a particular and absolutist definition of socialism, ignoring how the term 'democratic socialism' is used in practice (and often interchangeably with social democracy).

Democratic socialism is an oxymoron. Socialism does not allow individual entrepreneurship. There would not be people like Bezos, Gates, or Musk.

What we have is people who describe themselves as democratic socialists in the US saying, "By that, we mean very specifically this," and you're saying, "No they don't, I know what they really mean!" Which isn't how language works. You can argue they shouldn't really be using that term, if you want to be pedantic, but you can't just assert that they mean your preferred definition of the term. Why would they? They're not you. If you want to assert that, back it up. But it's just another empty opinion, isn't it.

It all started in 2015, when Bernie Sanders, in a Democratic primary debate with Hillary Clinton, responded to a question by Anderson Cooper about whether Americans would support a socialist for president.
“I think we should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden and Norway, and learn from what they have accomplished for their working people,” Sanders said. This led to our prime minister at the time asserting in a speech at Harvard University that Denmark, far from being a socialist economy, was in fact a market economy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/22/we-danes-arent-living-american-dream-we-still-arent-socialist/

Eleven years before Adam Smith published his classic book “The Wealth of Nations” in 1776, regarded as the foundation of contemporary economic thought, a Swedish parliamentarian had already published his own work advocating for the necessity of free markets in fostering economic prosperity.

Denmark's prime minister says Bernie Sanders is wrong to call his country socialist​

Denmark's prime minister says Bernie Sanders is wrong to call his country socialist

Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...

www.vox.com

 

[Paul]

The sweet spot to tank the economy surely isn't anywhere near even the highest proposed tax rates on the wealthy. We've had tax rates twice our current top rates and our economy was doing just fine.

Yes, there was a time when the top rate was 90%. That was an era where Americans where much more patriotic and willing to pay up for the well being of the nation. The social cohesion was much greater than today. In fact, this social cohesion is what makes the Nordic countries so successful.

 

[V Chip]

Yes, there was a time when the top rate was 90%. That was an era where Americans where much more patriotic and willing to pay up for the well being of the nation. The social cohesion was much greater than today. In fact, this social cohesion is what makes the Nordic countries so successful.

Nah, it's called empathy for your fellow humans. It's something lacking from a whole slew of people on the right these days.

 

[Paul]

Nah, it's called empathy for your fellow humans. It's something lacking from a whole slew of people on the right these days.

Let me be frank with you. Those that make a plan to make it in this world based on the empathy of others need a better plan.

 

[V Chip]

Democratic socialism is an oxymoron. Socialism does not allow individual entrepreneurship. There would not be people like Bezos, Gates, or Musk.

No it's not.

You see the phrase "democratic socialism" and you completely ignore the first word. You're like one of those people who sees that the Nazi party official name was "National Socialist German Workers' Party" and think they were socialists. They weren't, and Democratic Socialism isn't socialism.

What Denmark and other countries are calling "market economy with an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens" is the same thing Sanders describes for Democratic Socialism. You (and Denmark's prime minister, and a lot of the right-wing reactionaries in the US) aren't listening to the words Sanders and others use to describe what they believe, you're just reacting to one word and going off on it.

Read his whole speech from 2019 and tell me you honestly think this is authoritarian.

Read: Bernie Sanders defines his vision for democratic socialism in the United States

Sanders gave a speech on this in 2015. Now he’s back, calling for a new era of New Deal politics.

www.vox.com

 

[V Chip]

Let me be frank with you. Those that make a plan to make it in this world based on the empathy of others need a better plan.

Let me be frank with you: those without empathy for their fellow human beings will not excel very long without turning to authoritarianism.

 

[RobF]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a state of affairs in which the proletariat holds political power. ... The term dictatorship indicates full control of the means of production by the state apparatus.

IN a capitalist nation you and your friends have the freedom to establish a commune and practice socialism in that commune. You could also create a workers owned business. In fact this has been done in the USA.

Democratic socialism is an oxymoron. Socialism does not allow individual entrepreneurship. There would not be people like Bezos, Gates, or Musk.

It all started in 2015, when Bernie Sanders, in a Democratic primary debate with Hillary Clinton, responded to a question by Anderson Cooper about whether Americans would support a socialist for president.
“I think we should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden and Norway, and learn from what they have accomplished for their working people,” Sanders said. This led to our prime minister at the time asserting in a speech at Harvard University that Denmark, far from being a socialist economy, was in fact a market economy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/22/we-danes-arent-living-american-dream-we-still-arent-socialist/

Eleven years before Adam Smith published his classic book “The Wealth of Nations” in 1776, regarded as the foundation of contemporary economic thought, a Swedish parliamentarian had already published his own work advocating for the necessity of free markets in fostering economic prosperity.

Denmark's prime minister says Bernie Sanders is wrong to call his country socialist​

Denmark's prime minister says Bernie Sanders is wrong to call his country socialist

Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...

www.vox.com

1) You still haven't defined authoritarian.
2) You just largely repeated the same empty rhetoric, again asserting your own preferred definition of the term 'democratic socialism', completely ignoring the point that the usage of the term 'democratic socialism' in this context is being defined by those using it, not by you.
3) It's also not defined by centre-right Danes, no matter how much you refer to them.

That's not how this works here. If you express an opinion as fact, and you're asked to back it up, you do so. If you can't, you make it clear it's just an opinion. Just repeating yourself wastes everyone's time.

 

[Paul]

1) You still haven't defined authoritarian.
2) You just largely repeated the same empty rhetoric, again asserting your own preferred definition of the term 'democratic socialism', completely ignoring the point that the usage of the term 'democratic socialism' in this context is being defined by those using it, not by you.
3) It's also not defined by centre-right Danes, no matter how much you refer to them.

That's not how this works here. If you express an opinion as fact, and you're asked to back it up, you do so. If you can't, you make it clear it's just an opinion. Just repeating yourself wastes everyone's time.

That was an empty post mate.

 

[RobF]

That was an empty post mate.

Requesting that you define authoritarian, and pointing out that you're repeatedly avoiding doing so, when you have asserted that 'Socialism is always authoritarian', is entirely pertinent.

Pointing out that you're largely just repeating yourself is also pertinent.

And so is pointing out that you're repeatedly asserting your own preferred definition of a term, ignoring that you can't simply assert your definition of a term over someone else's. You would need to show that they share your definition. You have not.

Saying, "That was an empty post mate", on the other hand, is an empty post. Well, empty apart from the evasiveness and passive-aggression.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I am obviously not for Trump. What I wanted to illustrate is that with d=few exceptions the tax revenues go up every year unless the economy tanks, This year the IRS will collect even more. The argument made by those that propose very high taxes is that the revenue will be higher and there will be more money for social programs. That may be true up until a certain point. There is a sweet spot in terms of taxation. If they overshoot the sweet spot the economy tanks and they end up collecting less taxes.

This is the exact opposite of your original implication, though. You are highly inconsistent in your points.

 

[dtc]

I am obviously not for Trump. What I wanted to illustrate is that with d=few exceptions the tax revenues go up every year unless the economy tanks, This year the IRS will collect even more. The argument made by those that propose very high taxes is that the revenue will be higher and there will be more money for social programs. That may be true up until a certain point. There is a sweet spot in terms of taxation. If they overshoot the sweet spot the economy tanks and they end up collecting less taxes.

There's really no evidence to support what you're saying.

Essentially, you are mindlessly and without understanding, paraphrasing the tired and discredited clown circus of supply side economics.

George HW Bush once referred to the magical assertion made by Reagan that tax cuts always result in revenue increases as "Voodoo Economics" And, while Bushes have never been known as artful speakers, the first President Bush was absolutely correct.

It is a simple mathematical fact that cutting nominal tax rates does not and cannot always result in economic growth and increased governmental revenue. In fact, it's never actually happened. It failed after Reagan's cuts. It failed after George W's cuts and it failed after Trump's cuts. The only absolute is that tax cuts for the rich result in more money for the rich and more money for Republican politicians who fully understand that they're lying to the poor and middle class in order to get reelected and benefit their wealthy donors.

All that said, there is a balance. And it has nothing to do with nominal rates, but that's another discussion.

 

[Paul]

1) You haven't defined authoritarian. You can't just repeat an assertion that X is Y, just with added empty rhetoric, if you're not willing to define Y. If you're just posting yet more opinions that you're unwilling to back up, please make that clear.

2) You also appear to be stating that socialism can be pursued within a capitalist system, for example by the establishment of a commune. That would invalidate the argument that if a nation is capitalist it cannot also, in any way, be socialist.

And I don't think I'll drag this out any further. You're applying your own, unspecified, definition of authoritarian, so we can just ignore that, and you're applying a particular and absolutist definition of socialism, ignoring how the term 'democratic socialism' is used in practice (and often interchangeably with social democracy).

What we have is people who describe themselves as democratic socialists in the US saying, "By that, we mean very specifically this," and you're saying, "No they don't, I know what they really mean!" Which isn't how language works. You can argue they shouldn't really be using that term, if you want to be pedantic, but you can't just assert that they mean your preferred definition of the term. Why would they? They're not you. If you want to assert that, back it up. But it's just another empty opinion, isn't it.

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.

Why do you need definitions of the obvious?

 

[Paul]

Let me be frank with you: those without empathy for their fellow human beings will not excel very long without turning to authoritarianism.

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.