by the way, no one is forcing anyone to respond to NOS

What has Marx to do with democracy?

Marx isn't talking about democracy, especially not as an safety valve for society, but as a means for proletarian dictatorship in the class struggle. Proletarian dictatorship is a way to eradicate private property, the final goal for Marx. Marx doesn't give a shit about democracy, only if it furthers the exact cause of the proletariat: — ssu

Yeah what could Marx, the most prominent political thinker in the 19th century, have to do with democracy, the most contemplated political idea of the 19th century.

Of course Marx wrote quite a bit on democracy; advocating and organizing the formation of class conscious proletariat classes and organizations, and a political form that would appear alien to most inhabitants of the 21st century, much less to those that lean economically conservative. Marx's rendition of democracy that would be of value to the proletarian class is Hegelian in concept: abolishing private property in order to socialize the benefits of productive property for the proletarian class to legitimately unite the universal (i.e. the form of government) with the particular (the interest of individuals or a class). Besides the fact that the proletarian (i.e. wage laborers) make up the majority of voting citizens it's curious that you think democracy dissolves into a literal dictatorship if a class conscious citizenry gains legitimate power and leverages it to further their own goals by reorganizing pre-existing property arrangements. In form, it's no different than a "capitalist dictatorship" furthering their own cause by destroying labor unions, overturning or blocking environmental regulations, etc.

That Trump's approval rating is .2 points higher than it was an exact year ago during mass unemployment, a pandemic that has killed nearly 200K people, and a major recession reveals a lot about his supporters.

Zizek really pitied him

Remember when Jordan Peterson prepared for a debate on Marxism just by reading the Manifesto, which he admitted he hadn't read since he was 18

how I long for sweet death

Pretty obvious that Kamala is Black since the Right is already trying to do birtherism on her

Her selection as VP strikes me as long term strategy by the Democratic elite to forcibly insert her as new face(ade) of the progressive wing of the democratic party, purely through her identity as black woman rather than actual political positions, at the expense of actual progressive women and men of color, in order to retain control of the technocratic/corporatist wing of the party. Despite lackluster support during her presidential run, which ended, laughably, prior to the primary election, she'll be well positioned for a presidential run and retain power for the technocrats in 2024 or 2028 through 2036 at the latest potentially thwarting actual progressive/left-wing women of color (or anyone else for that matter).

Oh fuck me they went with Harris as VP

Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson
The Fall of the House of Labor: The Workplace, the State, and American Labor Activism, 1865–1925 by David Montgomery
Trying to finish Phenomenology of Spirit by Hegel

I have to remind myself to watch this this weekend

The president is not a journalist and never has been, so holding him to the same standards as the people who are employed to inform us is stupid at best. — NOS4A2

I agree, presidents should not be expected to inform people. They should be expected to take photos with Goya products, play golf twice a day, and tweet at 3am. That's it.

Watching basketball

Excellent news. One of the founders of Turning Point carked it too. Can't wait till more of these fucks drop dead. — StreetlightX

God I would hate to die this ironically

So can we remove those Federalist judges?

Glad Calabresi realized Trump was a fascist 3 years and 192 days into his presidency.

German Cain Nein Nein Nein

Well Hermain Cain died of coronavirus after most likely contracting it at Trump's Tulsa rally

Historically speaking how have first world countries gotten rid of corruption? — Gitonga

lol

Eric Weinstein and senator Ted Cruz with a moderator Michael Knowles — ssu

:vomit:

It's not confidence in moral fibre but confidence in insufficient support for Trump among servicemen. — Benkei

I think this is more or less correct; it's been well reported that military leadership doesn't think highly of Trump and I think a scaled assault by military against US citizens is a fantasy.

"In your ruins I find shelter."
~Samuel Beckett, from letter to Emil Cioran — 180 Proof

:love:

My guess is that during this 'preparation stage' was the perfect male, who hunted for the perfect female, and their relationship resulted in the big bang.

I don't feel stupid for suggesting this, I feel inept. — opt-ae

alrighty then

It's funny how some people can't realize that "be glad you aren't living 200 years ago" is an extremely stupid defense of present day conditions.

I watched Portrait of a Lady on Fire a few days ago and I still can't stop thinking about it.

All trash, not a single good one

It is no surprise then that his “gardening” is to be delivered through the formal means of social control, enforced by the monopoly of violence, and not through voluntary cooperation. Thus he uses his vast wealth “to build narratives and to pass laws that will require all the other rich people to pay taxes and pay their workers better”, thereby increasing state power at the expense of private property and wealth. — NOS4A2

$15 minimum wage and increasing taxation for some multi-millionaires and billionaires is exactly what Orwell was talking about, absolutely.

How bout McSorley's? — Noble Dust

I've been a few times, it's always the place where the night takes a sharp turn given how cheap the beers are

Listen. If within 48 hours you still can't comprehend why it is necessary for an 8,000+ person study to provide respondents with a definition for a nebulous and controversial term, when asking for their view on it, then there's nothing further I can do to help you out.

Sorry to repeat this, but I don't really understand what is your problem.

If I remember correctly, you yourself gave the example of an Amazon worker leading a protest and then getting fired. Another example would be someone tweeting "all lives matter" and getting fired. Is there really a difference? Isn't it obvious from both examples of how utterly arbitrary the firing of people can be and how insecure employees are in the US? If all it takes what a person has said outside his work and the person gets fired?

Same really goes for the question "is extremism a problem?". The fact that just what extremism isn't mentioned simply cannot be a counterargument if people agree with the notion of extremism being a problem (or not). — ssu

I have no idea what you are talking about anymore, whatever you are saying is so far removed from the initial issue that 'political correctness' isn't even mentioned here.

How about you address your dirtbag cherrypicking? You are dishonest, and when your blatant dishonesty is pointed out you just carry on as if it didnt happen.
You quoted half a sentence, and tried to pass that off as a legitimate point. It wasnt, it was a lie. You are a liar.
You owe ssu an apology, and everyone else as well since you and your dirtbag tactics make discourse more difficult on this forum.
Its staggering how self righteous you are considering how little ethic you show in discussion. Shame on you sir. You are the problem. — DingoJones

Seems then you will have a lot of terms that aren't useful in the aggregate. — ssu

That's why a definition, and other caveats, would have been useful :wink:

but it does say something — ssu

The only reason it can "say something" is because you, or anyone else, have an interpretation of the term, but that doesn't make it useful in aggregate.

So what conclusions do you draw from that bit of data? — fdrake

So basically it doesn't say much — ssu

:clap:

It’s just untrue that political correctness has anything to do with hate speech. — NOS4A2

You can huff and puff all you want but that's ultimately just your opinion.

I bet you and NOS4A2 will surely differ in your views about just what kind of extremism is really the problem, but does that change the real issue? — ssu

Yes, that undeniably changes the issue because then you can't say "80% of respondents agree that extremism is a problem" or any other aggregate judgements, because that binds myself and NOS4A2 together in an unsound and baseless way, since we don't agree on the actual content of the word 'extremism' given definitions that are detached from one another. Likewise, without a given definition of 'political correctness' we have no way of knowing if respondents are aligned in their interpretation of the word or if there are disagreements in its meaning, which is precisely why the article (eventually) states, "But since the survey question did not define political correctness for respondents, we cannot be sure what, exactly, the 80 percent of Americans who regard it as a problem have in mind."

But political correctness was never about hate speech. — NOS4A2

For you. Not everyone has categorically drawn lines between speech that is considered hateful or offensive or just unpleasant and rude, and where political correctness intersects between this and other types insults and expressions, which is why it would have been prudent for the study to have provided a definition, otherwise it allows people like yourself to interpret it in whatever way you want to interpret it, and, in your case specifically, a self-serving way.

People have been speaking about, writing about, and have been warning us about political correctness for decades. Quibble all you need, but I wager most people understand the general sense of the term by now. — NOS4A2

If people are discussing a term over the course of a decade and approaching it from varying angles and perspectives then yeah it would be valuable for the study to provide a working definition to respondents for clarification, especially given that 82% of respondents in this study said that hate speech was a problem.

That's so funny, maw! Oooohhh, a proper defintion of political correctness is not used!!! Oh, that's a foul, a foul cries referee maw. — ssu

I didn't say a "proper definition", I said no definition was provided to those who were surveyed when they were asked a question about it. The article that @NOS4A2 provided even states: "But since the survey question did not define political correctness for respondents, we cannot be sure what, exactly, the 80 percent of Americans who regard it as a problem have in mind."

Do you think a definition would have been useful to provide if, as the survey points out, "82 percent of Americans agree that hate speech is a problem in America today"? Because for some, this would fall under political correctness. Given this, what does it mean when "88% of Native Americans oppose political correctness", do you think each and every Native American surveyed would agree with your meaning, and how do you know that? (I also don't see where in the survey is says 88% of Native Americans oppose political correctness, and it doesn't provide an actual sample size for that group).