.jpg.0bccb8086ba2feb3dabc5c590486aca2.jpg)
Red Light Racicot
-
Posts
1,876 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Red Light Racicot
-
-
9 hours ago, The Lock said:
I guess my question is is this actually the problem or is the problem more of the fact that there's not enough money in the lower and middle class? They may seem like the same problem, but are they?
I'm not exactly the best guy to talk to for this but I'm pretty sure those things are related.
I figure a good way to bolster the lower and middle classes would be to raise the taxes the of the uber wealthy and private corporations big time.
Roosevelt did something akin to this in the 30s and it worked remarkably if not outstandingly well. I think its the main reason he served 3 terms.
I figure the least these billionaires can do is pay enough so that wealth inequality is no longer poised to destroy our civilization
-
On 6/11/2020 at 11:34 AM, Smashian Kassian said:
Except anyone with more money / social status than working class people.
"..the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law. ......
........
Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society"
Aren't we all appreciative of someone like Dr.Bonnie Henry right now?
Wealth inequality comes not from something someone wrote 2 centuries ago, but in the form of a couple thousand billionaires owning the same amount of wealth as about 4 and a half billion people, or if you prefer 26 people owning half the wealth on the planet.
These people are either born into it and/or have the luxury to enrich themselves based purely on the fact they have a massive bulk of wealth. You never need incur any kind of overall risk when you have your tentacles into everything, along with the power to influence the market.
Does this sound like a meritocracy? Or... anything close to an ideal situation?
Those "Intellectual Dark Web" echo chambers are typically funded by billionaires. If you stick up for the status quo like Peterson does, well... in my opinion it would be more accurate to say you;re actually defending the guys who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
-
1
-
-
On 6/11/2020 at 10:01 PM, Smashian Kassian said:
Okay so if its not the government that 'governs' over the means of production than who does? People instituted by the government? Its the same thing. Or should it be an equal share of the responsibility for every person in the state? How does that work? Lets say your putting people in charge of the responsibility, if they are working harder & have the same lot in life as someone with less responsibility then they are just going to become corrupt. Which happened in the Soviet Union.
"Russia... Nothing like Marx had in mind"
So when Marx said:
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
He didn't mean that? and/or the Soviets didn't act that out in what they did to the Ukrainian farmers?
Give me a break. Obviously there is more to it then that, it's like you think people are just going to just take off their belt and not have to worry if their pants will stay in place:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative
A worker cooperative is a cooperative that is owned and self-managed by its workers. This control may mean a firm where every worker-owner participates in decision-making in a democratic fashion, or it may refer to one in which management is elected by every worker-owner who each have one vote.
In other words a perfectly valid business model where workers are actually involved in a meaningful way rather then having everything relegated to someone who makes decisions for them.
We already have these in North America, but they are far more popular in Europe because they are not terrified of Socialism.
However, you definitely have a good point. It's certainly possible the system is not realistic,. I'll admit, something like the abolition of the state sounds rather pie in the sky-ish.
But rest assured, you don't have worry about a Marxist takeover anyways. Pretty much no one has ever heard of the CPC (Communist Party of Canada) who obviously have no significant power or influence.
I don't understand how you guys get so worked up about something that is practically nonexistent. You'd think Peterson would at the very least be able to produce an extensive list of names belonging to influential people who actually identify as Cultural Marxists, along with the kind of evidence that justifies his paranoia as to their apparent mustache twirling agendae, but no of course not that's never going to happen
My main problem with people getting pissy about this kind of thing is that it creates a resistance to adopting programs that are hugely beneficial.
QuoteSo when Marx said:
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
He didn't mean that? and/or the Soviets didn't act that out in what they did to the Ukrainian farmers?
Did Marx say "Make sure you seize farmlands to ensure tens of millions of people starve to death"
"Have the Government seize temporary control over the means of production, but if they don't feel like giving it to the people ever, then that's okay"
"By, the way, about 15 years in you can go ahead and abolish labor unions, because it turns out those don't really matter. Ignore what I said about them before"
"Make a sure a totalitarian seizes control and creates a cult of personality which creates an environment where no one is allowed to speak in opposition for fear of death or perhaps even worse, decades of brutal slavery"
I don't understand why you think you can have it both ways. You seem to admit this is something that can't be done, and you may well be correct, and yet you're like "Oh, and by the way all the terrible things Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot etc did, those are actually Marx' fault." Again, this an absurd post-hoc way of looking at it. These despots were purely selective about how they wanted to proceed and largely filled in the gaps with a blatant disregard for human life. Worst of all, it totally ignores countries that exist today that were and are far more faithful to Marxist principles and enjoy some of the best quality of life on the planet.
Imagine the blueprints for a car, lets call it Marxism. It has the potential to run perfectly fine, but must be built methodically. Dudes like Stalin come along and forcefully take the blueprints, then either switch out many of the important parts or remove them altogether.
This car is of course nothing like the original plan but it still runs fairly well. Among other things it kills a lot of people because, for example, you've removed many of the safety features.
-
2
-
-
On 6/10/2020 at 7:26 AM, BoKnows said:
The comments he makes about Marx that I've heard are far from outrageous, and incoherent. I'm really not sure where this came from. He actually makes a lot of good points when it comes to Marxism.
Both China and "Communist" Russia were/are at best comprised of both capitalist and communist policies, and nothing like what Marx had in mind or what Peterson has led you to believe.
This has been common knowledge for decades and It's discouraging to see how willing people are to just take someone's word for it rather then having the curiously to look into the details of something they feel so passionate about, or at least familiarize themselves with an expert like Richard Wolff who has studied Marx for decades.
Peterson, on the other hand has never even read Marx save for an outdated 23 page pamphlet. If he is your primary source of information on this topic then I'm sorry, that is a monumental stumbling block.
Lenin himself admitted Russia's economy was state capitalism. This means the Government rather then the people had control over the means of production. While Marx explains that this is a necessary step in the transition, it was meant to be temporary. Soviet Russia, from 1917 to 1989, maintained this model the entire time.
When Stalin was in charge he abolished labor unions, the literal bedrock of socialism. Peterson blames Marx for the actions of despotic megalomaniacs decades after his death. Actions Marx would never approve of in the first place. Absurd!
Ironically, the USA, while clearly not a socialist country, has arguably this entire time been more eager then Russia to adopt the kind of policies and practices that Marx would approve of.
Also ironic is how Stalin had no problem announcing to his people and the world that the USSR was communist. It was expedient to him. People should have been taking that claim with a grain of salt. Stalin was not a very honest person after all.
By the way, did you JBP guys know that Orwell was actually a life long socialist? I havent met a single JBP fan who hasn't read 1984.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
22 hours ago, Jester13 said:
From what I've heard from JP, he compares Marxist ideology to the far left of today more so from the stance of adopting the victimized/oppressive narrative, in that anyone who is financially stable, successful, or the like, is the oppressor and everyone else is a victim. This mentality arguable adds to the tribal identity politics we're seeing more and more of every year. Adding to that, it's the idea that in society there should be an equality of outcome vs. equality of opportunity.
Before deciding on whether or not any of that is a correct viewpoint, it's clear that it's a set of interesting ideas to think more about. In Western society, is there really as much oppression going on as the left wants to believe, or is it their own perspective that's oppressing them?
Also, you can't use the term "butt load", as it's offensive language and discriminatory.
Marx was a humanist who genuinely wished to improve quality of life for everyone, but that's just the kind of thing Peterson loves to twist in order to make it seem like it is something abhorrent.
Labor unions, free health care, social programs... stuff we can't imagine living without. Good stuff every country on Earth has adopted to some extent. We are already living in a world that has been heavily influenced and transformed by the ideas Marx promoted.
It's frustrating when someone like Peterson, who has no real idea of who Marx was because its obvious he isn't familiar with his work, just goes ahead and conjures a straw man that barely applies. Worse is how he chooses to propagate such misinformation.
This penchant for nonsense seems to find its way into any subject Peterson attempts to tackle, as if he has a degree in every single relevant field. It'a a really annoying habit of his.
For example, he claimed lobsters and humans are to a large degree behaviorally and socially identical.
He also claimed that Nazis were atheists when Germany at the time was 99%+ Christian.
He also claimed that atheists are unaware that they are actually Christians, at least the ones who don't go around raping and killing people, like some silly Presuppositionalist.
This list goes on for days.
QuoteAlso, you can't use the term "butt load", as it's offensive language and discriminatory.
I apologize. Didn't know.
-
1
-
-
On 6/7/2020 at 7:11 PM, bishopshodan said:
My best friend likes him. I don't know much about him. I heard a bit about the pronoun stuff. My friend says the same thing I have read already in this thread a few times " I don't agree with everything that he has to say..."
As someone that doesn't follow him, can anyone that likes him tell me... what are some of the things he has to say that some of you disagree with?
Bill C-16 enshrines the rights of transgender or gender-diverse Canadians by including them under human rights and hate-crime laws, which basically means they just get the same treatment as anyone else. For example you can no longer fire someone for being transgendered which seems reasonable enough if you ask me.
Jordan Peterson made it out to be like he was going to go prison for misgendering people, when to this day not a single person has served a day in prison for misgendering anyone.
Here is a quote that essentially sums up how he felt about C-16: "at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century." I'm sorry but this... this is lunacy. The man speaks as if Stalin sent people to the gulags for misgendering people or something.
This is hugely misleading and antagonistic. Think about it. if you're a staunch JBP fan is this going to improve your opinion of transgendered people or worsen it? These people already get plenty of flak, just leave them alone please.
He misconstrues philosophers like Derida, Foucault and Marx; he rolls feminism, marxism and some other nonsense into what he calls cultural marxism, or Post-modern neo-marxism, or whatever, a phrase that doesn't even make sense since Marxism is incompatible with postmodern views, as Marxism itself is a narrative that sees the world structured in a certain way.
More disturbingly, cultural marxism is a direct descendant of what the Nazis called cultural bolshevism.
He has done a butt load of damage to the way people think about Marx based on his outrageous, often incoherent and fallaciously contrived statements and attacks. There is nothing good to say about this kind of behavior.
If listening to the advice he has is a positive then that's great. I'm not going to hold it against anyone in particular and at the very least I hope very much that the man doesn't inspire anyone to hold and then follow through on such extremist rhetoric, the details and context of which JBP fans may not have even been aware of. Its actually been a couple years since I've kept track of the guy so I suppose its possible that he has amended some of these views which would be fantastic.
QuoteAs someone that doesn't follow him, can anyone that likes him tell me...
Edit: Sorry I dont actually like the guy I missed that part
-
2
-
2
-
-
25 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:
Ever watch the 9/11 stuff? It's deliberately framed a certain way.
I remember the part where he tried to frame the evacuation of the Bin Ladins who lived in the US as if it gave credence to the that case 9/11 was an inside job, when really it only would have been genuinely suspect if they evacuated the Bin Ladins before 9/11 happened.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Ryan Strome said:
All documentaries are that way.
Thats a good point
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:
Its Michael Moore. The way he frames things is what I have had a problem with in the past. You take what he says and presents with a grain of salt.
-
I hate everything
-
4 hours ago, Warhippy said:
One of Sanders' staffers got asked how on earth he can expect to tax the wealthy to pay for his social programs. Citing that the wealthy are hesitant to ever just give away their money.
The staffer shrugged and simply said something along the lines of "Bloomberg just spent almost $700 million for a vanity campaign he had no hope of winning without blinking. When he was polling lower his response was to throw money at it".
Shut the interviewer up pretty quick.
If Bloomberg donated all of his money to the poor it would probably be enough to solve the housing crisis.
Whenever these confused people complain about how social programs are tantamount to giving away free stuff, they need to be reminded that the wealthy already get a mountain of free stuff in the form of inheritance, interest, etc
With that in mind I don't think it's all that unreasonable to allot the poor the resources they need just to survive.
-
Last night was unfortunate.
The problem here is that for whatever reason, Bernie supporters, in spite of their enthusiasm, didn't turn out. The support from younger voters was not as advertised, so there was a significant shortfall. Many are pointing fingers, but this lack of support is, at least to me, the main reason things transpired as they did.
The priority of the democratic base largely seems to be to vote for whomever is against Trump. Whatever gaffes and stumbles Biden has gone through to date don't seem to matter much, as his popularity has recently experienced a massive surge regardless.
As for any future debates he has against Trump; well, they'll be painful to watch. Just bear in mind that it's extraordinarily difficult to be more stupid and incompetent then Trump. My guess is that they'll be like any other debate, where whatever points or non-points either contestant makes will be good enough for the supporters on both sides to declare victory
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Kragar said:
It is a problem, I agree. I was disappointed to learn that a bill was being put together to combat one of the biggest causes of the overbilling, but it was stalled for some stupid reason, as some Dem congressman had some bug up his butt.
If you read the discussion that others took up after I quoted you, you can see my position on the matter. In short, I would far rather see them fix our system (I outline some major flaws to be addressed) than implement another flawed system used by our northern neighbors. Clearly, Bernie doesn't agree with me, but I'm not surprised.
Its a good reminder that nothing can change without bipartisanship. Both sides have to understand each other's concerns before any reform on health care is possible.
-
1
-
-
On 2/15/2020 at 12:29 AM, Kragar said:
No hyperbole to see here, people.
I honestly see this as a very serious problem and if I am coming across as exaggerating then this is unfortunate and I wish I could explain myself better.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, CBH1926 said:
I wonder if this is the same magic wand they were going to wave to get 20-30 trillions to cover this pipe dream?
AOC lowers expectations on Medicare for All, admitting Sanders 'can't wave a magic wand' to pass itAOC is simply stating what was already the case as far as I can tell.
Bernie is going to need a ton of help in order to implement Medicare for all, millions of people are going to have to want this to happen. Pharmaceutical companies are extremely powerful and influential entities.
America spends more money then any other country on healthcare, yet the people who live there can't even go to a hospital for fear of going bankrupt. Its obscene.
-
They called it! Feel the BERN!
-
82% of votes in:
Bernie has 26%
Buttigieg has 24.3?
I have no idea why people are voting for Buttigieg.
Also Biden has 6.4%. Wow.
-
2 hours ago, xereau said:
The guy led deathsquads around Iran for a long time.
Most recently over a thousand women were executed for not wearing veils.
Good damned riddance.
In any case this doesn't seem to matter one iota to the US, who recently fought alongside Soleimani in order to defeat ISIS.
Among other reasons this is why Trump ordering the assassination of Soleimani was a really stupid idea.
Zero thought was put into taking this action, zero thought was put into how to deal with it's potential consequences, and zero thought was put into how the rest of the world would assess this.
-
1
-
-
The most accurate drummer of all time, basically a human metronome.
But you have to check out his lyrics. He wrote most of the lyrics for Rush and they are immensely beautiful and insightful.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
23 hours ago, ItsAllOursBoys said:
Iran has consistently threatened to rip out the "cancer" of Israel from the Middle East. Iran refers to America as the "Great Satan" and Israel as his offspring. For the last 75 years, Iran has made these threats. Under the nuclear deal, Obama chose the policy of appeasement and so he Iran 150 Billion dollars to Iran, promising many sanctions would be lifted so they could continue their nuclear enrichment activities...all for national "energy" purposes of course.
Iran doesn't want peace with the US or Israel, they want "Islamic" peace with the US and Israel subjugated under Islamic Sharia law. That will NEVER happen and tonight is just the start of what is sure to turn into a clash of civilizations, the 21 century civilization vs 17th century civilization.
America has always been the instigator. The 1953 coup in order to turn Iran into a puppet state is the reason relations between the two countries have been terrible for such a long time.
This idea that America is the protagonist of the world is ridiculous and frankly, delusional.
-
On 9/8/2019 at 6:12 PM, 189lb enforcers? said:
Personally, I see what was described once as what the Brown Shirts were, and other examples of conscripted volunteerism, to usher in a 1984-like tomorrow by the types of antics I see groups like ANTIFA using. Rat out your enemy or brother for wrong think. We see it all over the place now. I could elaborate, but I know it’s not going to be worth the time in here.
I'm not a fan of ANTIFA, but I dont find them particularly terrifying. I think it might be helpful if you elaborated given the scope of the claim you are making.
I'm pretty sure the extreme right is far more of a problem. I mean it's easy to make the connection between their rhetoric and the violence they commit. For example, they are informed that non whites are "invading" the country, which can be interpreted as a reason to kill them.
I think a lot of people misunderstand Orwell. For one thing he was a lifelong socialist and 1984 was satire (even though the message and caution was quite real)On 9/8/2019 at 6:12 PM, 189lb enforcers? said:Global Warming, lol. Try Glaciation and Pangea; the earth does it’s own thing, puny, narcissistic Humans. It’s not as simple as that, but maybe it gets a convo going and flushes out some easily refutable narratives, not that it’s an enjoyable position to take - one not defending the environment, which is a false equivalence anyways.
The USA, among developed or undeveloped countries, is the only holdout when it comes to acknowledging that global warming is a real, man made problem.
More significant is the practically unanimous scientific consensus on the matter.
The scientific method is the most excruciatingly laborious process imaginable. It must make accurate predictions in order to be of any use of all. It is how we are able to send space craft billions of kilometers for a fly by of an object much smaller then our own moon. The computer you are using. The insulin you may be taking. The thermometer you may be reading. All the result of the same process.
Its as if people take all that for granted, then all the sudden become a skeptic on one specific issue.On 9/8/2019 at 6:12 PM, 189lb enforcers? said:The divisiveness isn’t accidental, it’s by design, but nobody seems to see it, they’d rather just play out the role they signed up for. That’s social engineering. So many videos and articles exist on that stuff, but they are getting harder and harder to find, but again, it seems Nobody is noticing that. I don’t get it.
The divisiveness I see comes from, for example, from those who point fingers everywhere else but themselves as the cause of people's maladies, meanwhile these same people proceed with a tax cut that guts everyone but the exceptionally wealthy.
It comes from the institutions and pundits funded by the very rich like Prager U, who try to convince people, for example, that labor unions (worker rights) are antithetical to your personal well being, when in fact they are (obviously) a significant reason why other industrialized countries are prosperous and great places to live.
-
1
-
2
-
-
On 8/28/2019 at 2:05 PM, Kragar said:
the decline of free speech on campus
Who is making this claim? To what extent is this happening? Why on Earth would a student focus on that rather then the classroom? What views are being marginalized?
I mean if pro-life students are harassing liberal students by calling them "baby killers" or students are pushing race realism or holocaust revisionism, then I can see why no University would tolerate any of that on their campus.
On 8/28/2019 at 2:05 PM, Kragar said:That doesn't mean I don't respect a well-earned and well-used MBA, MD, or variety of STEM degrees, to name a few. It just means there are a lot of people wasting time and money (including mine) pursuing unnecessary higher-ed degrees.
I totally agree that this is a serious problem in the USA.
Countries who have free college can afford to do so because it is considered an economical investment, which obliges colleges to give students the means to contribute to the economy after they have graduated.
The USA has serious problems putting this together, but shutting down certain programs because certain people dont like them based on opinion (if that's what you're getting at) is not a great way to fix the problem because of what that probably would lead to. (It's also a blatant violation of freedom of speech and expression in itself)
Finally, its a drop in the bucket compared to for example the military budget, of which many aspects are a monumental waste of money. (And also, outrageously, hardly bothers to cover veterans) Imagine how beneficial and practical it would be to downsize something like that.
On 8/28/2019 at 2:05 PM, Kragar said:Your later post is also misleading, as Dem voters are also losing faith in higher education. They are just doing so at a slower rate.
Sure a similar thing is going on with Democrats but so what? They are still much more enthusiastic about secondary education, which was my contention in the first place.
On 8/28/2019 at 2:05 PM, Kragar said:Go deeper into your link, and it shows both sides respect the degrees, but Republicans are concerned about who pays for it. Shocking!
Obviously people are not going to want to pay for things they don't find useful.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Red Light Racicot said:
Yes, and it is for a very simple reason. Republicans don't care about education. Education is always one of the first things on the chopping block as far as they're concerned.
Ive heard many claims that universities are prejudiced against conservatives when in truth it is conservatives who tend to distrust higher education and in particular the sciences, so its kind of the other way around.
There is no conspiracy going on, they simply don't have as many reasons to go.
Republicans don't care about education, at least not public education. They appointed Betsy Devos as the Secretary of Education. Enough said.
And it's true, conservatives do not trust higher education: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/08/20/majority-republicans-have-negative-view-higher-ed-pew-finds
Results from another recent Pew survey indicate that those views have persisted. In July, only 33 percent of Republican survey respondents said higher ed had a positive effect. And 59 percent believed higher ed had a negative effect on the country’s direction, the highest number in the survey’s findings so far.
I was pretty surprised to find this out myself. America is a very strange country.
-
On 7/31/2018 at 4:05 PM, Alflives said:
Aren’t universities usually left?
Yes, and it is for a very simple reason. Republicans don't care about education. Education is always one of the first things on the chopping block as far as they're concerned.
Ive heard many claims that universities are prejudiced against conservatives when in truth it is conservatives who tend to distrust higher education and in particular the sciences, so its kind of the other way around.
There is no conspiracy going on, they simply don't have as many reasons to go.
-
2
-
1
-
[GDT] Vancouver Canucks vs. Minnesota Wild | August 6th, 2020 | 11:30am PT, SNP | SCQ Game #3
in Canucks Talk
Posted
I cheered at first then saw the replay. Its a bit too much by Myers there