Help Rebutalling with a Liberal

[Hexen]

I've been arguing with a Liberal on FB lately:

http://pastebin.com/hVR2ayK0

Is there any rebuttal here?

[Alan OldStudent]

Hexen,

Please sum up concisely what arguments you'd like us to rebut. The thread you referred us to is long, tedious, and lacks focus. Searching for the argument is like searching for a lost trinket in a landfill. The pastebin item looks like a screen dump from a Facebook gaming page. Making such a request is a bit of an imposition.

Before one can rebut an argument, one has to be able to articulate it precisely, coherently, and briefly. That requires listening, absorbing, and analyzing. Analysis and understanding of an opponent's position is the minimum requirement for answering it.

If you present us with the summary of the argument you wish to rebut, you may find that you don't need anyone's assistance in answering it. So do that. Do the preliminary work.

Regards,
AOS

[Hexen]

Hexen,

Please sum up concisely what arguments you'd like us to rebut. The thread you referred us to is long, tedious, and lacks focus. Searching for the argument is like searching for a lost trinket in a landfill. The pastebin item looks like a screen dump from a Facebook gaming page. Making such a request is a bit of an imposition.

Before one can rebut an argument, one has to be able to articulate it precisely, coherently, and briefly. That requires listening, absorbing, and analyzing. Analysis and understanding of an opponent's position is the minimum requirement for answering it.

If you present us with the summary of the argument you wish to rebut, you may find that you don't need anyone's assistance in answering it. So do that. Do the preliminary work.

Regards,
AOS

Well if you want specifics well I'll start how the conversation originally began at context which we were talking about Vampires and Vampire: The Masquerade which scroll down further scroll down below then he starts revealing his true color liberal (if that's the proper way to describe him) which he then get's to that "we non-violent reforms" "permanent revolution is a myth" and crap:

Blake Sadler
Hello Cody I've spoken to Nancy Collins and here's what she had to say:

"I don't think people who genuinely want to be vampires give it a hell of a lot of thought beyond the "live forever" and "be powerful" elements, frankly. There is an element of narcissism and sociopathy mixed in with the wish-fulfillment. If someone wants to identify with vampires, that's up to them. But they should be honest with themselves about the dark and negative aspects of what such creatures represent, both in the folklore and symbolically."

So what do you make out of this?
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
7:03pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

I'm mostly in agreement.
Blake Sadler
7:05pm
Blake Sadler

So...I guess I understand what the personal horror theme is all about which is really about Vampires identifying with their humanity.

Because there is nothing to identify with the Vampire because they're monsters.
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
7:07pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

The point of vampire, at least for me, is not that they are incapable of being identified with, it's to shine a light on the ways that we normal humans slip into horrible inhumanity. The game devs regularly say that people are worse than kindred for a reason. So we play these characters to interrogate how we ourselves experience and fight against the same moral slide.
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
7:07pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

The people who miss the point play the game as juvenile and sociopathic wish fulfillment

We can't blame "the beast". We just have our own human fallibility to contend with, which makes us much worse

We're not cursed, just shitty
Blake Sadler
7:09pm
Blake Sadler

With that in mind, since we're rather shitty how is the Vampire supposed to identify with that?
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
7:10pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

By recognizing that there is no split, outside of fiction. Vampires actually aren't other. They are us, maybe writ large, but us nonetheless. That's why their moral code is called Humanity
Blake Sadler
7:12pm
Blake Sadler

Which means Vampires are still people.
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
7:12pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

Yes
Blake Sadler
7:13pm
Blake Sadler

and Vampires need to identify with that.
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
7:13pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

Even the most fucked up Tzimisce. That's the tragedy and delightful irony of the game. Even the antediluvians are fundamentally human and small, despite their pretensions to power and monstrosity. Every monster story ever told is a reflection of humanity

Frankenstein, the invisible man, Dracula, all of them
Blake Sadler
7:15pm
Blake Sadler

Of course what about the Path of Enlightenment and the other Roads?
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
7:22pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

More distancing they think they do. Consider the dark ages road of heaven. I would argue that real world fundamentalist terrorists are on the same road.
Blake Sadler
7:23pm
Blake Sadler

So guess none of the roads and path of enlightenment are recommended and humanity is the only path I should stay on?
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
7:24pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

They're all interesting choices for roleplaying. Play what you want
Blake Sadler
7:27pm
Blake Sadler

Well...here's thing I've always wanted to ask but afraid to in communities like these...

I guess it's possible to play as a Vampire who believes in Social Justice or basically a Intersectional Feminist and Vampire with left wing politics (like socialism/communism/anarchism)?
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
7:27pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

Sure.

There are plenty of Brujah and Malks that could get behind that

Maybe toreador or gangrel too. Really any c lab with an anti-authoritarian bent

Any clan*
Blake Sadler
7:29pm
Blake Sadler

BTW here's something interesting speaking of which: http://bloodsuckingfeminists.com/
Bloodsucking Feminists
Fangs, Feminism and Fangirling
bloodsuckingfeminists.com
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
7:30pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

Hmm
Blake Sadler
7:30pm
Blake Sadler

Well I always been wondering if was possible to play as a anti-authoritian feminist Lasombra or Tzimisce character?
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
7:31pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

I have an independent Tzimisce who is a complete sjw

You can do what you want, just find a way to make it make sense
Blake Sadler
7:31pm
Blake Sadler

Since I've wondering these ideas are supported in the Sabbat...
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
7:32pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

Ha no

Not really in the cam either, but certainly not in the sabbat
Blake Sadler
7:33pm
Blake Sadler

I guess the Sabbat are like Vampire surpremicists who most likely support Fascism while the Camarilla are vampire capitalists/liberals.
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
7:33pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

Yeah

Camarilla at least have pretentious towards humanity, so you have public space to make it work

Independents and anarchs are really the communities for that kind of thing

Cams can do it in the right domain
Blake Sadler
7:34pm
Blake Sadler

Well I think it's because the Camarilla tries to fit in with Capitalist society especially I can see the bourgiose when embraced can easily fitted into the Camarilla
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
7:34pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

Depends on the political spectrum

Yeah
Blake Sadler
7:35pm
Blake Sadler

So basically the Camarilla is Vampire Capitalism.
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
7:35pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

Well, that's a little too neat.

Fascism is often capitalist

Fascism is control through power, capitalism is the pursuit of power through money
Blake Sadler
7:36pm
Blake Sadler

So the two are interchangable
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
7:37pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

They're all perfectly willing to work in capitalist systems, likewise communist

That's the other great irony

They are interchangeable in most ways
Blake Sadler
7:37pm
Blake Sadler

and I can easily see the Camarilla using the Sabbat to put down Anarch uprisings just like the brown shirts.

You know it only makes me wonder if the Camarilla and the Sabbat are actually one of the same...
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
7:39pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

In many ways they are

Look at Cold War US and Russia

The soviets were way more capitaist than they'd admit, and shared next to nothing with Marx's actual theories, and the US has always held deep seated socialist traditions

They were both imperialist warmongers headed by an elite completely disconnected from the main bodies of their citizenry
Blake Sadler
7:42pm
Blake Sadler

" and the US has always held deep seated socialist traditions"

Ummm...how so?

Since there's nothing socialist about the US at all but rather they're always been capitalist since the "Founding Fathers" are inspired by Adam Smith's ideas hence well Capitalism.

Since the entire American Revolutionary War was meant to kick out Feudalism hence the means of production went into land/bond owner control who are the bourgeoisie since the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc were originally written for and by them not for the lower classes.
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
7:51pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

Certainly, on the surface, but our vast system of publicly funded institutions are inherently socialist. Otherwise police, fire departments, roads, education, etc. would all be privatized (which the oligarch class desperately wants)
Blake Sadler
7:53pm
Blake Sadler

I think we could say that the Camarilla represents the Vampire Oligarchy
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
7:53pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

That's messy too, because the sabbat, for all their pretentious to equality, are deeply oligarchic (much like Soviet Russia)
Blake Sadler
7:54pm
Blake Sadler

So they're both Oligarchies
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
7:54pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

Of course

That's the nature of kindred sure relationships (and human ones, obviously)

You have a class of elders with all the power doling out resources as befits them

Like I said, not much difference between them or between vampires and mortal power structures
Blake Sadler
7:55pm
Blake Sadler

You know I've wondering if the Anarchs are composed of not only ex-camarilla but also ex-sabbat members as well (hence why I think the Lasombra and Tzimisce should be allowed in the Anarchs).
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
7:56pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

Well, anarchs are technically sorta kinda part of the Camarilla, but that's complicated

But they are basically comprised of every clan that doesn't keep a really tight control

You won't find many Tzimisce or Lasombra

But don't be fooled, the anarchs aren't that much different either

They put off the appearance of difference, but they all work the same way

As with all mortal revolutionaries
Blake Sadler
7:59pm
Blake Sadler

I guess you maybe falling into that Gen-X apathy trap again...
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
7:59pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

Not at all

I don't want that to be the case, and work against it, but I'm not naive. To do otherwise would be ahistorical

Even Che Guevara devolved, despite his other admirable qualities

That's the nature of power

The oppressed, in revenging themselves, become oppressors. Only in nonviolence can such movements be transcended

Kindred and real humans are leery of such notions because they threaten their power.

Or the power they hope to one day have
Blake Sadler
8:04pm
Blake Sadler

"The oppressed, in revenging themselves, become oppressors. Only in nonviolence can such movements be transcended"

I strongly disagree with this narrative since this is exactly the same trap of the Gen-X Apathy there if you're applying the "Human Nature" fallacy there since history doesn't prove anything especially omitting the actual details or not getting actual facts straight. Also non-violence has and will accomplish nothing since it's basically suicide which is how capitalism remains in power.
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
8:05pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

That's not remotely true. Read some Paolo Frieri, not to mention MLK and Ghandi

Not killing people is not the same as suicide. That's childish and self centered thinking that puts ones own pain over others, and it's what leads revolutionaries to become terrorists

When you can justify violence, you can justify anything

For that matter, read some Foucault and Chomsky

It's also not "all humans suck" it is "power is deeply corrupting and it's depredations must be guarded against"

It is the most hopeful position, because it fundamentally recognizes the flawed nature of humans and powers and works to address it, rather than covering ones eyes and ears to it when it benefits you and claiming it to be unjust persecution when it does not
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
8:10pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

Isis fighters who join their movement because they had to pull pieces of their children out of buildings blown up by drones make the same mistake. That doesn't make the US the good guy, by any stretch of the imagination. This is why the us military continually justifies its actions with "national security" we make our citizens fee persecuted so they will support our imperialist policies
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
8:11pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

Feel persecuted*
Blake Sadler
8:14pm
Blake Sadler

Sounds like you went full liberal there I'm sorry to say that but do you think that a non-violent protest would give us Communism? I'm sorry the world doesn't work that way since you must understand that power is maintained through violence and the only to remove power is through violence since the bourgeoisie aren't going to hand their means of production without a fight and also I think you're also using the False Equivalency argument as well.

Also Ghandi was a racist and a misogynist as well same thing can be said about MLK who reportedly beat his wife .

Also anyone who says anything about the "Flawed nature of humans" should not be taken seriously since there isn't any empirical evidence of "Human Nature".
Blake Sadler
8:16pm
Blake Sadler

Yes and I subscribe to Marxism BTW.

Also the American Revolutionary was violent which is how we got Capitalism today

So don't be so hypocritical....

Also the French Revolutionary war.
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
8:24pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

"Do you think nonviolent protest would give us communism"

No, nor should it. Communism isn't the answer, neither is capitalism or anarchy. Marx was brilliant, but many of his ideas were deeply flawed, ahistorical, and lacked perspective.

I don't see how I'm hypocritical. I don't support any of those systems. Yes Ghandi and MLK were problematic. Marx was an asshole in his personal life. Chomsky can be an intellectual elitist. To subscribe to any of their positions in their entirety is silly and binary thinking. You collect what is valuable.

Go ahead and tell me that the communist revolution was a good thing for anyone involved. Certainly, the tsarists were terrible. But so were the soviets.

Perhaps human nature was a poor choice of words, but you clearly have an interpretive lens you chose to view the world through and don't allow for discourse outside of that lens.

I suspect most modern "Marxists" haven't really read Marx (or Engels) and compared that to what has historically come from their theories. There has never been a truly Marxist system employed in this earth, nor will there be, because nothing works in purity. Not capitalism, not Marxism. We succeed by blending approaches, which isn't hypocritical. Ideological purity, on the other hand, almost always is
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
8:25pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

You are mistaken if you imagine that I support capitalism. You are also mistaken if you imagine I support Marxism. That, my friend, is a false equivalency. You have brought binary thinking into this conversation, not I.

You are making assumptions about my positions, my political ideologies, and any assumptions you think I have
Blake Sadler
8:27pm
Blake Sadler

Then what is the answer then?
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
8:27pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

There is none, which is some flavor of what I've been trying to say this whole time.

By trying to reduce groups into modes of political or economic thinking, we reduce complexity. The sabbat isn't purely fascist, the cam isn't purely capitalist, and they don't have to be separated. Nor do they have to be unified.

The answer, i suppose, is to find what makes sense from as diverse a field of thought as possible, pull it together, and change what no longer works when it stops working

That's the nature of critical inquiry

And of intersectionality

I know "nature" is a problematic choice of words, but it's an easy short hand
Blake Sadler
8:32pm
Blake Sadler

So you're basically telling me that you have no answer, and we all must bow down our heads saying that Capitalism is our final answer to everything and must demand our bourgeoisie gods to grant us our "rights" through non-violence...yeah I can dig that...
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
8:32pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

I *just* said that capitalism isn't the answer

I just said that

I didn't say that I have no answer. I said there *is* no answer. To suggest otherwise is massively arrogant and imagines that you can imagine every situation and that the theory to which you ascribe magically covers them all

The answer is to do the best we can and not lose our humanity in the process

Or rather, that's probably the best we can do, unless we somehow become all knowing

We are limited, and our most frequent failure is to imagine otherwise.
Blake Sadler
8:38pm
Blake Sadler

Well I what I mean is that you're basically telling me that the economic system we have is the "only one we got and work with" and we must rely on blind faith through non-violence that our rights will be granted while historically though, things like workers unions, women's right to vote, etc were gained because there was bloodshed and they fought for them.
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
8:38pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

Which is why, btw, so many social justice groups fail at intersectionality. We prioritize that which is closest to us, which makes us lose sight of the greater field of misery. It's hard to move in solidarity when there is an injustice staring you in the face. We have a rather narrow field of vision
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
8:38pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

I didn't *remotely* say that

Nowhere did i say that

I said that we shouldn't go around killing people to effect that change, because it's short sighted and ineffective

It simply doesn't work

At least, not on a long scale

If it did, we'd all still live under the first empire to consider itself an empire

Entropy proves all such systems flawed. Only adaptable systems, ones that can manage entropy, can survive. Part of that adaptability is not watering the fields with the blood on unbelievers, because once you do that, you are bound to the code you mirdered for

Murdered*
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
8:42pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

My positions necessarily change with new information. That is the heart of the scientific method, but somehow we refuse to think that way in a political or economic sense. We often stay in the fields we adopt when we're young and lack a contextual awareness of the world. That includes adherence to a particular philosophy
Blake Sadler
8:45pm
Blake Sadler

"I said that we shouldn't go around killing people to effect that change, because it's short sighted and ineffective

It simply doesn't work

At least, not on a long scale

If it did, we'd all still live under the first empire to consider itself an empire"

Sounds like you got everything backwards there, actually if we relied on non-violence, we'll be most likely still living under the first empire. What do you think the American and French Revolutionary wars were all about then?
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
8:46pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

I fee like you keep trying to pin me down to a position that you can argue against (straw man, btw) but that doesn't work because I am flexible. You then seem to want to throw out terms you fee are insulting (full liberal, bow our heads to capitalism) which is an ad hominem. I don't get mad at these because I've been there and because my students do the same thing all the time
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
8:47pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

If we relied on nonviolence, we'd have the opportunity to fix broken systems, rather than drag millions through war and death for the sake of our ideological purity. This can only be the position of someone with the privilege not to care or be affected by those lives

This being supporting violence l, whether state sanctioned or "revolutionary"

It all works out to the same shit heap of death and misery

I don't say this to sound condescending, so please don't take it that way, but I really think you'd be interested in reading Paolo Frieri's "Pedagogy of the Oppressed"

He was a Marxist in South America who worked to bring literacy programs to the most disadvantaged people, many of whom were smack dab in the middle of revolutions

I don't agree with everything he says, but there is a lot worth reading
Blake Sadler
8:51pm
Blake Sadler

Well here's the thing, seems like you want to fix capitalism while I in the other hand wants to abolish it completely and replace it with Communism at a world scale which the only way to do that is through violence since historically violence has been used to abolish Slave based and Feudal based economic systems.
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
8:51pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

Again, assumptions
Blake Sadler
8:53pm
Blake Sadler

You do realize that Capitalism cannot be "fixed" because the system perfectly works what it's designed for right?
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
8:53pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

Forcing a political ideology on the entire world is the surest way to ensure its demise. Capitalism and Communism have both suffered this. You keep going back to the binary that I must support one or the other

There's that assumption again

Stop misrepresenting my positions

I have not uttered one word in support of capitalism

I want systems, whatever they are, to change in support of humanity, not ideology

All systems must be reformed, capitalism or Marxism
Blake Sadler
8:55pm
Blake Sadler

So..."The Truth is in the Middle" I guess?
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
8:55pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

Close, I suppose

But that's fallacious too

I'd rather say "the truth is mobile and ultimately subjective"

If you are in a communist society, I want to see you make that Marxist society work for the betterment of the people in it, not fall into the trap every other Marxist power has before

If you are in a capitalist society, I want to see you make that capitalist society work for the betterment of the people in it, not fall into the trap every other capitalist power has before

Broadly applying your theory to an entire planet and killing the people who defend their native thinking is the definition of imperialism

Will you kill African tribal leaders who don't want to be communist? Will you kill the aborigines of Australia for resisting your supposed wisdom?

It's easy to say "I want everyone to do what I want and I'm willing To fight for it" but it's only easy to do if you ignore the reality of it

Much like the purist ideologies we fight for, which only ever work on the page

It completely ignores history and human life and places the power in our own hands

What you propose is no different that what Nixon wanted in Vietnam.

Extremism is almost always wrong, and killing in the name of one's ideology is almost always extremism.

Killing to legitimately defend one's self and one's community is different, and can easily run out of hand as well

Just look at stand your ground laws, which are broken to say the least

Nonviolence doesn't mean meekness. It means fighting using your words and being principled

Violence is the coward's tool, despite the ways we frame it as heroic

Sure, it's fun in games and movies, but those are diversions

And still problematic, for reasons we've already discussed
Blake Sadler
9:06pm
Blake Sadler

"Broadly applying your theory to an entire planet and killing the people who defend their native thinking is the definition of imperialism"

Rather Marx actually said that Revolution was supposed to spread like a wild fire throughout the globe starting with industrial societies and working it's way across the world which was the Russian Revolution's main flaw since it was "Socialism in One State".
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
9:06pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

Yeah. And he was wrong. That is imperialism

Marx gets a lot right, but not everything

Taking his word as gospel is as flawed a perspective as taking Adam Smith as gospel

If you can't challenge those you respect, any challenge to those you oppose is meaningless

The examined life and all that

(I dislike Plato too, btw, before we get into that diversion)
Blake Sadler
9:08pm
Blake Sadler

I can't see how people's uprisings can be classified as "imperialism" if you know the term actually means.

Which is how revolutions are supposed to work
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
9:09pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

Nationalism, imperialism, class war, nationalism

So the soviets weren't imperialist?

Are you really taking that position?

And the permanent revolution is a myth

It's a utopic idea, definitely one to try for, but it's ahistorical to imagine it's a reality

Utopic thinking is great for starting things, and great as an ideal to strive ever towards, but once you start, if you imagine you've succeeded, you've really just given up

That was lenin's mistake
Blake Sadler
9:11pm
Blake Sadler

The Soviets were imperialist because they were competeing with the US because the world was still capitalist.
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
9:11pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

No

They were imperialist because they invaded nearby countries and forced their system on them

The us was doing the same thing, obviously

But again, you fall into the trap of ignoring the real ugliness in favor of upholding a mythical version of a system that you never were a part of and have only received deeply biased information about

Again, the same should be said for those that support the us

Lest you again accuse me of positions I don't actually hold

It's also easy to imagine that if you like Marx, you have to support the soviets. The soviets were not, by any objective measure, Marxist

And that you have to agree with everything Marx said

Also, let's destroy the myth of "the people's revolution"

It's always "some people's revolution"

Most just want to feed their kids, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Blake Sadler
9:17pm
Blake Sadler

The Soviets were well Trotskyists like to call it a "Deformed Worker State"
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
9:18pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

Yeah, and look what they did to him

He was right (about that, at any rate)

That's the point I've been trying to make

Violence is inherently deformative

The "revolution" was corrupt and malignant from the start, full of people angling for power

As was the American Revolution

You are too willing to trust power, as long as that power aligns with your preconceptions

Point me to a violent revolution, and I will point you to the mass graves those revolutions have filled

But again, that's easy to ignore when the perpetrators of those crimes are on your side

Jihadists are telling themselves the same thing you are, only replace "global communism" with "global caliphate"

Again, the us does the same

And how exactly is it sociopathic and monstrous to play out characters who would do these things at the game table, but somehow same to actually want these things in real life?

Somehow sane*

How is actually wanting millions to die in support of your ideology better than roleplaying a character who subsides on blood?

Your positions are incongruous
Blake Sadler
9:31pm
Blake Sadler

Then again I guess it's fully confirmed you're a liberal and I think there is no further discussion here since we have our own worldviews and there is no point changing ones mind. This is why I find philosophical/political debates a waste of time.
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
9:31pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

Clearly you don't because we've been talking for days

And clearly, you can't come up with a refutation to my point, because you've resorted to dismissing me as "fully liberal" and claiming that there's no point

To the discussion

But I'm not keeping you in this conversation.

You might consider that the world is big and complicated and doesn't fit easily into any system. But if you don't want to, I can't make you.

You're not paying me for my labor, and teaching on exactly these issues is my actual job, so I have invested myself in this conversation because I thought you wanted to discuss things with someone, not have someone parrot your portions back to you

Positions*

• If you can't handle disagreement, and walk away from complicated discussion where people won't go along with you, of course violence seems a sensible option.

[ckaihatsu]

The liberal position is derived from balancing on a see-saw -- to those on one side or the other it looks ridiculous, of course, because if class-interest dynamics are left to their own (proletariat vs. bourgeoisie), any middle-balancing would be entirely superfluous and ineffective. But as things are those in the 'middle' -- those in and around the political establishment -- are able to carve out a socio-material political base by *mediating* between the conflicting class interests, for 'compromise'.

Those who don't fully acknowledge a class perspective will inevitably fall under the state's sway, encouraged that it has reformed-away chattel slavery, or officially instituted the 8-hour workday, while ignoring that the bourgeoisie and its state still control every major aspect of social production while being vastly numerically outnumbered by the world's working class.

The issues you raise are about violence and a potential free-producers' permanent revolution, so you *could* focus on these and address them directly: *Who* (what interests) should be enabled to use the force of violence in a society, and to what ends, and: What would a 'revolution' look like, to begin with, and how could it be / not-be 'permanent' -- ?

I find that in discussions participants often assume that the other party uses the same definitions and understandings as oneself -- it's usually best to take the time to lay down a 'foundation' of shared terminology, even if there's disagreement *around* such concepts.

The liberal is obviously 'balancing' on the see-saw by darting directly for the compromising-middle, starting with terminology itself. It would be good to 'flush them out' into the open by prompting a pre-discussion around key terms like 'violence' and 'permanent revolution', mostly to see just how vacillating they are in their approach to politics and to the world in general.

Also maybe see the 'ideology' diagrams of mine that I recently posted to another thread, at this link:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/19...77#post2872077

[Prof. Oblivion]

Just stop talking to him. It's a facebook discussion, it's completely irrelevant to real life.

[Hexen]

Just stop talking to him. It's a facebook discussion, it's completely irrelevant to real life.

Well he already blocked me anyways.

Of course the worst part of it all I thought I've found an at least 'decent' person in the WoD community but turned out he was no better than all the others when this conversation came out of the blue. Stuff like this makes me start to think that the WoD games are made by and for liberals who don't support a Leftist (especially Marxist) worldview anyways.

[Alan OldStudent]

Well if you want specifics well I'll start how the conversation originally began at context which we were talking about Vampires and Vampire: The Masquerade which scroll down further scroll down below then he starts revealing his true color liberal (if that's the proper way to describe him) which he then get's to that "we non-violent reforms" "permanent revolution is a myth" and crap:

Oy vey, Hexen,

I'll try again.

Try to summarize your opponent's argument in as few words as possible. What are the basic premises of his argument? Are they valid or not? What are your reasons? Do you think his conclusions follow from the premises? If not, why not?

To rebut an argument, you first must analyze it. That requires critical thought. Critical thinking requires some effort. If you can summarize his argument in your own words, you may find you don't need our assistance.

And for goddess's sake, summarize it in your own words. Don't (p-l-e-a-s-e) just cut and paste, okay?.

I'm not trying to be hard on you, Comrade. But I just don't have the patience to pour through that unfocused and boring text that you cut and pasted.

[Hexen]

Oy vey, Hexen,

I'll try again.

Try to summarize your opponent's argument in as few words as possible. What are the basic premises of his argument? Are they valid or not? What are your reasons? Do you think his conclusions follow from the premises? If not, why not?

To rebut an argument, you first must analyze it. That requires critical thought. Critical thinking requires some effort. If you can summarize his argument in your own words, you may find you don't need our assistance.

And for goddess's sake, summarize it in your own words. Don't (p-l-e-a-s-e) just cut and paste, okay?.

I'm not trying to be hard on you, Comrade. But I just don't have the patience to pour through that unfocused and boring text that you cut and pasted.

Neither do I have the patience to explain his worldview which there is too much to type for me which is why I copied and pasted that log hopefully you'll or someone else here would read it carefully enough.

Although I was actually hoping someone would be quoting Cody's words though and responding to them.

[Hexen]

Actually let me put his words in quotations:

If we relied on nonviolence, we'd have the opportunity to fix broken systems, rather than drag millions through war and death for the sake of our ideological purity. This can only be the position of someone with the privilege not to care or be affected by those lives

This being supporting violence l, whether state sanctioned or "revolutionary"

It all works out to the same shit heap of death and misery

I don't say this to sound condescending, so please don't take it that way, but I really think you'd be interested in reading Paolo Frieri's "Pedagogy of the Oppressed"

He was a Marxist in South America who worked to bring literacy programs to the most disadvantaged people, many of whom were smack dab in the middle of revolutions

I don't agree with everything he says, but there is a lot worth reading

Close, I suppose

But that's fallacious too

I'd rather say "the truth is mobile and ultimately subjective"

If you are in a communist society, I want to see you make that Marxist society work for the betterment of the people in it, not fall into the trap every other Marxist power has before

If you are in a capitalist society, I want to see you make that capitalist society work for the betterment of the people in it, not fall into the trap every other capitalist power has before

Broadly applying your theory to an entire planet and killing the people who defend their native thinking is the definition of imperialism

Will you kill African tribal leaders who don't want to be communist? Will you kill the aborigines of Australia for resisting your supposed wisdom?

It's easy to say "I want everyone to do what I want and I'm willing To fight for it" but it's only easy to do if you ignore the reality of it

Much like the purist ideologies we fight for, which only ever work on the page

It completely ignores history and human life and places the power in our own hands

What you propose is no different that what Nixon wanted in Vietnam.

Extremism is almost always wrong, and killing in the name of one's ideology is almost always extremism.

Killing to legitimately defend one's self and one's community is different, and can easily run out of hand as well

Just look at stand your ground laws, which are broken to say the least

Nonviolence doesn't mean meekness. It means fighting using your words and being principled

Violence is the coward's tool, despite the ways we frame it as heroic

Sure, it's fun in games and movies, but those are diversions

And still problematic, for reasons we've already discussed

Not at all

I don't want that to be the case, and work against it, but I'm not naive. To do otherwise would be ahistorical

Even Che Guevara devolved, despite his other admirable qualities

That's the nature of power

The oppressed, in revenging themselves, become oppressors. Only in nonviolence can such movements be transcended

Kindred and real humans are leery of such notions because they threaten their power.

Or the power they hope to one day have

"The oppressed, in revenging themselves, become oppressors. Only in nonviolence can such movements be transcended"

I strongly disagree with this narrative since this is exactly the same trap of the Gen-X Apathy there if you're applying the "Human Nature" fallacy there since history doesn't prove anything especially omitting the actual details or not getting actual facts straight. Also non-violence has and will accomplish nothing since it's basically suicide which is how capitalism remains in power.
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson
8:05pm
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson

That's not remotely true. Read some Paolo Frieri, not to mention MLK and Ghandi

Not killing people is not the same as suicide. That's childish and self centered thinking that puts ones own pain over others, and it's what leads revolutionaries to become terrorists

When you can justify violence, you can justify anything

For that matter, read some Foucault and Chomsky

It's also not "all humans suck" it is "power is deeply corrupting and it's depredations must be guarded against"

It is the most hopeful position, because it fundamentally recognizes the flawed nature of humans and powers and works to address it, rather than covering ones eyes and ears to it when it benefits you and claiming it to be unjust persecution when it does not
Cody Lee Arthur Slauson]

Yeah, and look what they did to him

He was right (about that, at any rate)

That's the point I've been trying to make

Violence is inherently deformative

The "revolution" was corrupt and malignant from the start, full of people angling for power

As was the American Revolution

You are too willing to trust power, as long as that power aligns with your preconceptions

Point me to a violent revolution, and I will point you to the mass graves those revolutions have filled

But again, that's easy to ignore when the perpetrators of those crimes are on your side

Jihadists are telling themselves the same thing you are, only replace "global communism" with "global caliphate"

Again, the us does the same

And how exactly is it sociopathic and monstrous to play out characters who would do these things at the game table, but somehow same to actually want these things in real life?

Somehow sane*

How is actually wanting millions to die in support of your ideology better than roleplaying a character who subsides on blood?

Your positions are incongruous

[Jimmie Higgins]

Lol "Cody"... I can't think that name without imagining a bro with a berkinstocks and a Prius with a "Co-exist" bumper-sticker.

My name-stereotyping aside, there's really little point in debating someone like this about ideas because it's pretty much textbook "idealism". "Power" what power? Whose revolution? "Corrupts" what, and from what heavenly ideal state of being?

He is making moralistic arguments that allow for excuses for the status quo while keeping his hands clean from the actual violence and oppression needed to maintain that status quo.

In regards to violence and non-violence, this is a question of strategy and tactics but he treats it as a moral absolute.

You can not win a debate with an idealists over morals and ideals than you can win a Christian to Atheism by debating the merits of the Son of God.

If you find yourself in debates like this, don't get dragged into abstractions. But mostly, it's a waste of time to debate someone like this on the internet. Sometimes you have to in real life, but generally that's because they are involved in the same movement. But in those cases, you can make it a political debate about how to move shared goals forward. I don't think this person really has any shared goals, they are fine with the way things are as long as they can feel morally pure.

[Hexen]

Oh yeah not only that he also points to Paolo Frieri's "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" if you ever noticed which I wonder what is everyone's thoughts of that book and the author himself? Not mention he also says I should read "Ghandi and MLK" as a example of "non-violent activism".

Are these full of shit?

[Luís Henrique]

Paulo Freire, not "Paolo Frieri"; the guy was Brazilian, not Italian.

Freire is not in the same league as Gandhi or MLK. His work is about Didactics or Pedagogy, not about non-violence. And he certainly isn't "full of shit".

Luís Henrique

[Hexen]

Paulo Freire, not "Paolo Frieri"; the guy was Brazilian, not Italian.

Freire is not in the same league as Gandhi or MLK. His work is about Didactics or Pedagogy, not about non-violence. And he certainly isn't "full of shit".

Luís Henrique

Okay, but what do you or anyone else here think of his work or his book in particular? Is he leftist friendly or not?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Okay, but what do you or anyone else here think of his work or his book in particular? Is he leftist friendly or not?

His ideas are interesting and the dude was a Marxist. So yeah there's that. His main critique was against the "banking" model of education - at least in the pedagogy of the oppressed - which is an educational system where one group has a monopoly on the supply of knowledge and doles it out to those who need it. Of course, his critique was of adult education, not child education, but I think the ideas can be applied.