Why post in OI

[Hegemonicretribution]

This post is partially doctored from one I made earlier, but to which no one responded, I am am re-doing it because I am genuinly intrigued as to how people will respond if at all.

Basically It is a question: Why do people post in this forum? This applies equally to left and right.

An intelligent, unbiased person would not quote Fox news for accurate and fair reporting of news stories, just as a Marxist could not use the USSR's figures for production to reflect life under state capitalism. To be a real Marxist is to be critical of all media, left and right. Not to simply take a prescribed doctrine as gospel.

No real Marxist could compare the unfair state of the world today to what Smith implied as capitalism (actually to play the semantics game Marx coined the term, but lets let that slide).

Basically I am questioning the motives of posts such as "memorial to victims of communism" and and wonderful repostes such as "what about victims of capitalism" In fact the vast majority of posts here are provokative in nature. They are made often with an understanding of how people will reply in mind, measured replies ignored, and outrageous comments sfocused on. This causes problems.

There is nothing intelligent about provoking somebody to get a reaction, it isn't hard to do. Provoking people often makes them behave irrationally. It is true of all of us. It just seems that posts are made in order to get various answers, and then, as normally happens, the restricted members (or leftwingers) eat up the contradictions, and poorly reasons responses of angry people. This point scoring may seek to reinforce a view that the opposition is without intellect, but nothing is learnt. None of us have a monopoly on truth or righteousness, and by not attempting to learn you seek to increase your own ignorance. This is not an attack on the tactics on right-wingers only, it is true of the left also.

Sometimes a debate of real issues occurs, actually theory is compared, and communism/capitalism/other is debated. What Washington says is not communism, if you think it is then fair enough, but you are not a communist and do not know, no matter what you have been told or have heard. Criticise Marx's work by all means, a Marxist should also do this as well, but criticise your own position also.

Marx once said "I am not a Marxist." This was a response to some of what had become Marxism, it is essentially your choice which line you choose, but if you want to learn you know what to do. If you are so definite that you are right, and nobody else can be then fair enough, debate is not possible anyway. If this is the case why bother posting here? This again is true of both the left and the right. I do not know everything, far from it, but it is shocking the amount that the majority of each side knows about the otherside.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Sometimes it's necessary to debate with those who don't agree with you. Asking questions like "What's so good about free trade?" can only be done in OI.

[Axel1917]

I don't spend loads of time in OI, but it is a great place for beginner Marxists to test their knowledge in arguments against supporters of capitalism.

[KC]

Debate is good for your theory. It is a great way to test, expand and mold your theories to better support an argument for them.

[Andy Bowden]

It can be good craic at times :lol:

[FleasTheLemur]

Even as a Marxist, I don't 100% subscribe to everything that Marx proclaimed to be the ultimate truth. (My main beef with Marx is theological and the outright rejection of 'abstract' rights, but that's a whole different can of worms I don't wanna open.)

Besides, it's just ultimately healthy for a person to sit back and listen to another opinion, no matter how uneducated or down right cruel it is. If anything, it'll only firment your beliefs and perhaps give you a perspective on thing. ....and who knows? Your point of view might turn a Libertarian into a Council Communist. ;)

[Elect Marx]

I post for similar reasons to Lazar and FleasTheLemur. Honestly, some more "clever" distractionary members here have enhanced my debating skills :P

Opps! Cappies shoot themselves in the foot :lol:

Also TAT made me OI mod... so I am bound to the forum :D

[Hegemonicretribution]

What you have said are the reasons people should post in here, and why this is one of the most important forums on the board. However it is a shame that the vast majority of threads are designed with provokation in mind only. The cappies know what they are doing when they post shit from dubious sources and slate communism based on the likes of the DRPK. It is not their ignorance that causes them to post like this, it is because they are here for a bit of arguing in general and all threads tend to go the same way. Debate or actually learning anything was never a priority because the decision had been made and arguments just had to be moulded to fit this.

To be fair there are also few decent criticisms of capitalism. That is theoretically; not the mixed economy hell hole that is most of the world. The same agenda is true for both sides here. That is a shouting competition from which little substantial emerges. Part of the problem is that most posters don't have a clue about the opponents ideology. No-one has read everything, but there are a lot of left wingers that don't know the blindest thing about capitalism and are here for a bit of cappie bashing where they are in the majority, and the board is ran by them. If this is petty role reversal it is a shame.

This wasn't supposed to be a ***** about the stiffled and repetitious debate of this forum, rather a call to self assessment.

Is there really a need to approach threads in an aggressive mannor? Even when debate occurs a tone has often been set, and particuarly daft posts are torn to shreads and the less easy to deal with ones ignored. When was the last time somebody actually learned something in here, rather thanmade them selves feel good about the stupidity of the opposition?

I may be way off the mark, but I have posted a fair bit in this forum for some time, and the same pattern still occurs. Is this forum serving as an outpost for intelligent debate, or as a place to stick members not suitable for the rest of the board and mock them?

[Amusing Scrotum]

I had some pretty good debates with quincunx5. In particular the Hurricane Katrina thread where we debated for a couple of pages with just the two of us contributing. It was very informative for me to debate with someone of an "Opposing Ideology" for this length of time. It gave me a far better insight into the "murky" world of Anarcho Capitalism. However as I was the last one to post a couple of weeks ago I guess my stubbornness must have won the day. I'll bet any money he'll resurrect this thread within the next three days.

[Publius]

If I haven't caused some people to either change their views or re-evaluate them, people must not have been reading what I've posted.

I post because I absolutely believe I'm right and, to be truthfully honest, that I'm pretty damn good at debating.

I enjoy it; battle of wits and all that. I have a conceited nature.

Needless to say, I think I've won most of my debates, and I'm sure you feel likewise.

I came here wishing to debate and having some doubts, but I've since learned to tear you arguments to shreds.

When I first arrived, I made the usual "Communism failed in Russia so it doesn't work." type posts, but now, I can destroy any and all of your delusions, without resorting to logical fallacies.

I'm more assured than ever that, whatever the faults of capitalism, communism and its brethern are not the answer.

[Zingu]

But, Publius, is it possible to argue away the discontent and unhappiness of a worker with your supreme logic and knowledge of economics?

"Oh, I'm sorry, life can't get better for you."

You can't, or is that discontent just an other "delusion"?

[encephalon]

If I haven't caused some people to either change their views or re-evaluate them, people must not have been reading what I've posted.

Or they don't fall for your excessive rhetoric. You're like a parrot for capitalism.com, stating ideological convictions as arguments.


I post because I absolutely believe I'm right and, to be truthfully honest, that I'm pretty damn good at debating.

So did hitler, so was hitler.


I enjoy it; battle of wits and all that. I have a conceited nature.
Needless to say, I think I've won most of my debates, and I'm sure you feel likewise.

yup.


I came here wishing to debate and having some doubts, but I've since learned to tear you arguments to shreds.

bah.


When I first arrived, I made the usual "Communism failed in Russia so it doesn't work." type posts, but now, I can destroy any and all of your delusions, without resorting to logical fallacies.

You're so convinced that you're right that you refuse to notice your own logical fallacies.


I'm more assured than ever that, whatever the faults of capitalism, communism and its brethern are not the answer.

Whatever the faults of communism, I'm positive capitalism will end in tyranny.

Oh.. that's why I post here. I get bored. I learned pretty quickly that serious debate rarely happens in OI.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Hegemonicretribution+Oct 19 2005, 05:17 PM--> (Hegemonicretribution @ Oct 19 2005, 05:17 PM)However it is a shame that the vast majority of threads are designed with provokation in mind only. The cappies know what they are doing when they post shit from dubious sources and slate communism based on the likes of the DRPK. It is not their ignorance that causes them to post like this, it is because they are here for a bit of arguing in general and all threads tend to go the same way. Debate or actually learning anything was never a priority because the decision had been made and arguments just had to be moulded to fit this.[/b]
I agree and this is why I get frustrated with this forum so often.


To be fair there are also few decent criticisms of capitalism. That is theoretically; not the mixed economy hell hole that is most of the world. The same agenda is true for both sides here. That is a shouting competition from which little substantial emerges. Part of the problem is that most posters don't have a clue about the opponents ideology. No-one has read everything, but there are a lot of left wingers that don't know the blindest thing about capitalism and are here for a bit of cappie bashing where they are in the majority, and the board is ran by them. If this is petty role reversal it is a shame.

You have to understand ideological role-reversal is very common. Often people will jump on any particular ideological bandwagon without considering the personal implications or applying the standards to their own life and whenever someone grows tired of pretending, they can shed this fake skin. This is why people "grow out of" being leftists.


Is there really a need to approach threads in an aggressive mannor? Even when debate occurs a tone has often been set, and particuarly daft posts are torn to shreads and the less easy to deal with ones ignored. When was the last time somebody actually learned something in here, rather thanmade them selves feel good about the stupidity of the opposition?

The standard has already been set; it would take a cohesive effort to change the climate in this forum but as you have said, the cappies don't want that and trolling will likely increase if people start to hold "higher" debate standards/self discipline. This would be a massive long-term change, if anyone would allow it.


I may be way off the mark, but I have posted a fair bit in this forum for some time, and the same pattern still occurs. Is this forum serving as an outpost for intelligent debate, or as a place to stick members not suitable for the rest of the board and mock them?

Honestly; a little bit of both.


Originally posted by [email protected]
I had some pretty good debates with quincunx5. In particular the Hurricane Katrina thread where we debated for a couple of pages with just the two of us contributing. It was very informative for me to debate with someone of an "Opposing Ideology" for this length of time. It gave me a far better insight into the "murky" world of Anarcho Capitalism. However as I was the last one to post a couple of weeks ago I guess my stubbornness must have won the day. I'll bet any money he'll resurrect this thread within the next three days.

I have had reasonable debates with him but he resorts to flaming and eventually quits when his ideological shipwreck doesn't float.


Publius
I'm more assured than ever that, whatever the faults of capitalism, communism and its brethern are not the answer.

The last thing people should do is follow a conceited individual that admits to having no solutions to their problems.

I'm here to destroy hope for sheer enjoyment. You must be great at parties ;)

[KC]

Oh.. that's why I post here. I get bored. I learned pretty quickly that serious debate rarely happens in OI.

That's because of shit like this being posted all the time:


You're like a parrot for capitalism.com, stating ideological convictions as arguments.



So did hitler, so was hitler.

[Hegemonicretribution]

At least now I know that I am not the only person here that feels this way.

Publius, I get the impression that your post was incredibly sarcastic based on the fact you seem to be more intelligent than many here. What is your honest view? Did you really come here only in the certainty you were absolutely correct and infallible, with the intention of preaching to and mocking lesser beings, or to to learn and teach?

It would be nice to hear a capitalists oppinion as well, not saying implying the lefties are not not aggressive, rather that by the very nature of the board, those that come here in opposition to it do tend to be of a mindset.

[Publius]

But, Publius, is it possible to argue away the discontent and unhappiness of a worker with your supreme logic and knowledge of economics?

No.

But I alos realize that you, and your supreme knowledge of socialism would do far less to help him, indeed, to hurt him.

There are no easy answers.

For the last 200,000 years we lived as apes, why should we now expect to live like kings?

Is modern capitalism perfect? No, I believe that in the future it will take more a socialist bent, but nothing, and I mean nothing, can occur to improve the lot of the majority of Earth's population without increasing efficiency drastically.



"Oh, I'm sorry, life can't get better for you."

You can't, or is that discontent just an other "delusion"?

It's no delusion, it's cold reality.

Get in touch with it.

Become practical.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 03:49 AM










Or they don't fall for your excessive rhetoric. You're like a parrot for capitalism.com, stating ideological convictions as arguments.

I can't be a parrot for capitalism.com because I'm not a Randian.

How I ever said that capitalism is moral?

I believe that is is amoral.

Only people are moral or immoral. Don't 'fight the system', fight the people that comprise it, or more accurately, realize that you can't.


So did hitler, so was hitler.

So didn't you, and so you aren't.



You're so convinced that you're right that you refuse to notice your own logical fallacies.

I don't refuse to notice, I refuse to note them.


Whatever the faults of communism, I'm positive capitalism will end in tyranny.

Capitalism began in tyranny; it won't 'end'.

[Publius]

he last thing people should do is follow a conceited individual that admits to having no solutions to their problems.

I'm here to destroy hope for sheer enjoyment. You must be great at parties

Not Communist Parties.

Listen to this shit you spew for once; if you made the claim that walking sucks, and flying is better, and that in order to fly, we all should just leap off a tall building, would I be a downer for telling you that we're stuck walking, and that no matter how much you want to fly, it won't happen?

It may not be as 'hopeful' (Read: ignorant) as your grandiose dreams, but it'll prevent you and your ilk from crashing into the ground at 35 miles per hour.

You guys are supposed to be the rational ones, yet I'm the one that forgoes emotion?

How's that for ironic?

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 06:32 PM
Listen to this shit you spew for once; if you made the claim that walking sucks, and flying is better, and that in order to fly, we all should just leap off a tall building, would I be a downer for telling you that we're stuck walking, and that no matter how much you want to fly, it won't happen?

It may not be as 'hopeful' (Read: ignorant) as your grandiose dreams, but it'll prevent you and your ilk from crashing into the ground at 35 miles per hour.

You guys are supposed to be the rational ones, yet I'm the one that forgoes emotion?
Blah, blah,blah; so much abstract rhetoric. It doesn't count as rational if it is simply idealist delusion. Try proving a point if you are to make the pompous claim that you are "the rational one."


How's that for ironic?

Tasteless and forced?

[Publius]

At least now I know that I am not the only person here that feels this way.

Such is the domain of internet debate.



Publius, I get the impression that your post was incredibly sarcastic based on the fact you seem to be more intelligent than many here. What is your honest view? Did you really come here only in the certainty you were absolutely correct and infallible, with the intention of preaching to and mocking lesser beings, or to to learn and teach?

It was more sardonic than sarcastic.

My honest view was that I came here to kick your asses in debate, quickly learned I didn't understand communism, spent some time learning about it, left the forum for a while, and THEN returned to 'learn and teach'.

I really did come here to 'kick all of your asses' as it were, but I realized I was attacking characterizations, not your actual views and have since rectified my mistake.

I honestly do think I've faired quite well in my more recent debates, but I must admit it's becoming boring, traipsing through the same arguments time and time again.

And as a side-note, a question I've not read a good answer to: Using the LTV, if someone can produce twice as many boxes as someone else in the same amount of time, are his boxes worth half as much?

[Publius]

Originally posted by 313C7 [email protected] 20 2005, 11:38 PM





Blah, blah,blah; so much abstract rhetoric. It doesn't count as rational if it is simply idealist delusion.

Rationality; non-contradiction; following logically from one point to the next; use of Occam's razor; creation of salient points and connections between seperate ideas;

I would say my example is sufficiently rational.

Abstract? Try jumping off a building.

Idealist? Try anti-idealist.

Or does 'idealist' suddenly now mean 'one who rejects idealism'?



Try proving a point if you are to make the pompous claim that you are "the rational one."

'Prove a point'? I was making an analogy.

Obviously you disagree with my assessment. That's the point of me making the analogy; to elucidate on our common misunderstanding.

Now was it pejoritive and rhetorical? Certainly. Pompous? Rather.

But it 'splained my position well-enough.

To wit, you're wrong.

Obviously you disagree.

[CrazyModerate]

I post here because there are no good debates anywhere else. I think I would prefer a general politics forum, where I can debate with any political group. Thats not ciriticizing the RevLeft forums, I understand their point is to discuss revolutionary leftism.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 11:49 PM
Rationality; non-contradiction; following logically from one point to the next; use of Occam's razor; creation of salient points and connections between seperate ideas;

How does Occams Razor automatically increase chances of being rational, and is it rational in itself?

Anyway it is good to know that you at least spent some time studying the other side, it is a shame not that many leftists do the same.

[Goatse]

OI is just a place where both sides provoke each other into saying stupid things by saying stupid things.

There are quite a few in this thread.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 12:25 PM





How does Occams Razor automatically increase chances of being rational, and is it rational in itself?

From Wikipedia: For example, a charred tree could be caused by a lightning strike or by someone who used a machine to burn the upper branches of a tree and then replanted the grass leading up to the tree to hide the machine's tracks. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions.


THat's as good an explanatin as I can find/come up with.

It is MORE logical to assume that 'lightening' was the cause, as it is more simple/more likely.

It's a good rule to follow, almost universally.


Anyway it is good to know that you at least spent some time studying the other side, it is a shame not that many leftists do the same.

Yes it is.

I wager I could argue as a communist better than most commies could a capitalist.

[Elect Marx]

:lol: sufficiently rational? Rational is a definitive term; you either are or aren't being rational but I'll give you the credit for probably just being a little liberal with your writing form.

You are however being irrational; where you attack those of the general left, without making any contribution to solving the problems you admit exist in capitalism. You contradict yourself as you focus on the problems in your opposition's ideology and ignore your own (as you have admitted to not addressing your logical fallacies).


Idealist? Try anti-idealist.

Or does 'idealist' suddenly now mean 'one who rejects idealism'?

Not at all. If you were anti-idealist, you would be looking for solutions to problems, not simply more problems and loopholes for logical fallacy.



Try proving a point if you are to make the pompous claim that you are "the rational one."

'Prove a point'? I was making an analogy.

I never said you weren't; I said you didn't "prov[e] a point."


Obviously you disagree with my assessment. That's the point of me making the analogy; to elucidate on our common misunderstanding.

You haven't demonstrated any misunderstanding on my part, so that logically brings you into question.


But it 'splained my position well-enough.

To wit, you're wrong.

Obviously you disagree.

Yes, exactly, and that is the quality of your explanation; hollow as all baseless rhetoric.

[Hegemonicretribution]

It's a good rule to follow, almost universally.

I know what it is, and it is useful, I was just questioning the use of it as cornerstone of rational. Whilst the razor is useful in some cases it can be easily misused. For example creation could be a lengthy process relying on unimaginably different occurances in a particular order to create life. Or god did it. All I am saying is it is far from perfect, and can be used for day to day occurances, but when dealing with more complicated and fundamental deas even this method of thought should be questioned.


I wager I could argue as a communist better than most commies could a capitalist.

An interesting proposal, I have work in a few hours and I would have to check out if it would be allowed but I think that could make an excellent thread. When learning how to actually debate it is common practice (as you all know) to argue from an opposing standpoint also. I think a bit of role reversal could straghten outy quite a lot of msconceptions about each other's ideology, and also unmask a weakness in our understanding of each other.

[Latifa]

Yeah, we should have a doublethink thread. That would be cool.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I wager I could argue as a communist better than most commies could a capitalist.

Thats because you are more intelligent than most of us. Our lack of intelligence does not make you right. It just means you need to find a higher calibre of opponent.

For example I could win an argument against a five year old that 2+2=5, when he thought it equalled 4. This does not make me right, it just means I am more able to present a winning argument due to superior intelligence.


Yeah, we should have a doublethink thread. That would be cool.

It would be very amusing. <_<

[Freedom Works]

Our lack of intelligence does not make you right.

Only from a Collectivist will you hear that&#33; :lol:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Only from a Collectivist will you hear that&#33;

I was referring to the intelligence of Publius. You are a completely different matter as your intelligence is nowhere near as high as Publius&#39; intelligence. So when you are out debated and proven wrong this does not mean your ideas are necessarily wrong, it just means you are not very good at conveying them.

Think about it, a Capitalist economist could rip my arguments to shreds in a matter of minutes. The same way a Communist economist could destroy your arguments.

Does this mean either of our arguments are wrong?

[Freedom Works]

The point is that you said our not my.

[Amusing Scrotum]

The point is that you said our not my.

I said it because Publius is more intelligent than most of the Communists here. Using proper grammar does in no way reflect collectivist thinking.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 04:26 PM

The point is that you said our not my.

I said it because Publius is more intelligent than most of the Communists here. Using proper grammar does in no way reflect collectivist thinking.
You took an IQ test of the entire membership or something?

How could you possibly know that?

Good debate ability doesn&#39;t necessarily equate with high intelligence.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Anyway it is good to know that you at least spent some time studying the other side, it is a shame not that many leftists do the same.

As the study of leftist theory is largely a study of criticisms of capitalism, I don&#39;t see your basis for making this blanket statement.

[Amusing Scrotum]

You took an IQ test of the entire membership or something?

Of course not.


How could you possibly know that?

It is quite obvious from looking at Publius posts he is an intelligent person. Granted there may be more intelligent people here than him, he does appear more intelligent than most members, restricted or not.


Good debate ability doesn&#39;t necessarily equate with high intelligence.

True it doesn&#39;t, however it does give an indication of someones intelligence. Also perhaps it would be better to have said Publius&#39; debating skills are better than most members.

You can&#39;t deny Publius is up there in the top 5% of members in terms of his debating ability. I&#39;d say Redstar, LSD and a few others are better, but Publius beats most of us mortals.


As the study of leftist theory is largely a study of criticisms of capitalism, I don&#39;t see your basis for making this blanket statement.

Good point.

[Publius]

This panegyric is effusive.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 04:37 PM




As the study of leftist theory is largely a study of criticisms of capitalism, I don&#39;t see your basis for making this blanket statement.

If you only studied criticism of the theory of evolution, would you at all understand the science behind evolution itself?

Of course not, as much of the criticism can be easily replied to, debunked, or shown to be a lie or distortion.

Studying &#39;Intelligent design&#39; doesn&#39;t afford you any true understanding of evolution, in fact, it hinders it.

Leftism is much the same.

[Amusing Scrotum]

This panegyric is effusive.

Alright then, you&#39;re a fucking idiot who&#39;s a complete moron. Happy now? :lol: