Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 107

I don't know if I overestimate the horribleness of Sharia Law or breeze over the fact that Brazil is just a very violent place but I have a hard time believing it is better for an 18 yr old LGBTQ to live in Iran vs. Brazil. That may change given the current leadership in Brazil but Sharia Law and a lot of the culture in the Middle East is brutal. I mean I guess the same can be said for Brazil under a fascist leader..... My mind is not made up on this issue. I mean Mr. Pence fought hard for conversion therapy in his state of Indiana and I was infuriated with that but it seems so tame to these other situations. It makes me depressed. How could the people of Brazil lose the negotiations so bad? I am not even going to go around punching jihadists or ISIS in the face but what the fuck? Sharia law? People don't like to talk about it but there is clearly some sort of hierarchy in religious badness. Sharia law may be the worst besides some cult I don't know about yet. Some leftists might call me an Islamaphobe but I don't give a fuck. Fuck them. (Rehabilitate) or castrate the patriarchy of Sharia Law and let them bleed to death. I would say the same thing about the Catholic Church. (Rehabilitate) or cut off the hands and the penis of child molesting Priests and choke them to death with their own dicks. Obviously, it is more complicated than that and I am not actually advocating that level of punishment. Sending them to a German prison is more fair and humane. Which is kind of weird to say with how much we talk about Nazi concentration camps on here but it is true. There is certainly a better chance of rehabilitation in a German or Scandinavian prison than a U.S.A. prison or Sharia law or a country hypnotized by fascist propaganda.

Dunno how many times I'm going to have to repeat myself on this issue and quote people who live there. Sharia Law in Iran right now isn't just hanging someone who looks gay or says that they're gay or kisses in public.

“The police can’t do anything,” said one man I met in the park. He was wearing women’s shoes, heavy make-up, with a jewelled barrette in his hair and a small black leather purse in the crook of his elbow. “You need three people over the age of eighteen to go to court and swear on the Qur’an that they actually saw you having sex.” As he spoke he had his arm around his male friend’s waist. “It’s not the police I’m worried about,” said another. “It’s the reaction of the people that’s unpredictable, they’re so homophobic.”

From what I read they used to work around those requirements and find ways to punish gay people and it was really dreadful, but apparently they no longer do or it's significantly less. I was wrong to make the unqualified statement that it is better in Brazil than in Iran; I corrected myself by saying that what I meant was that there is less chance to be a victim of a brutal hate crime in Iran than Brazil right now. If I am wrong about that, show me the data, don't give me your opinion.

-----

I haven't listened to the MSM on Venezuela in the past couple days but I just read they all claim that Maduro is responsible for the four deaths on the bridge (partly due to the fire?), but apparently this was started by the opposition throwing one molotov cocktail or more. Marco Rubio's tweet "Maduro National Police set fire to an aid truck carrying food & medicine while people in #Venezuela starve." Interestingly, it was a strategy of the opposition to set on fire 50 tons of food a couple years ago.

Loco reminds me of Bernie Sanders praising the Soviet Union back in 1988 with his incoherent rambles supporting Maduro.

I'm sure he would be a great Democratic Party candidate in the future, if he manages to not work until his 40's.

On February 25 2019 23:07 Loco wrote: Odd for someone who has been leading opposition protests for so long and who signed the Carmona Decree supporting the 2002 coup to be walking freely in a repressive dictatorship. Wonder how she'd be treated if she was doing the same thing in the US where there is a real democracy.

You realize there are hundreds of political prisoners in Venezuela right?

Lawmakers and politicians are routinely send to prison, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...itional-freedom-to-ceballos-38-others

It has been a tremendous dissapointment hearing you discuss the venezuelan topic, I've never seen you fumble an argument this hard ever before I assume you get some distorted version of this from leftist media or reddit or something, but its quite bizarre.

https://sipse.com/mundo/nicolas-madur...5crW53cu7zDeCTZ53nFPx5m_8c2M8ttA985oc
(sorry the source is in spanish)



So just as we speak Maduro was being interviewed by Jorge Ramos and he didn't like the interview so they detain them for 2 hours in separate dark rooms, they confiscate all the material, cameras, cellphones and equipment and let them go after empty handed.

Yeah totally not a dictator lol.

On February 26 2019 03:10 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On February 25 2019 23:07 Loco wrote: Odd for someone who has been leading opposition protests for so long and who signed the Carmona Decree supporting the 2002 coup to be walking freely in a repressive dictatorship. Wonder how she'd be treated if she was doing the same thing in the US where there is a real democracy. You realize there are hundreds of political prisoners in Venezuela right? Lawmakers and politicians are routinely send to prison, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...itional-freedom-to-ceballos-38-others It has been a tremendous dissapointment hearing you discuss the venezuelan topic, I've never seen you fumble an argument this hard ever before I assume you get some distorted version of this from leftist media or reddit or something, but its quite bizarre.

You failed to address my point. How do you think that a person like the one I mentioned would be treated in the US? I know about the "political prisoners" and figures like Leopoldo Lopez who are merely on house-arrest despite having led violent guarimbas that have killed numerous people. Again, I ask how someone like that would be treated in the US to you.

Indeed, I have never fumbled an argument this bad before: advocating for the respect of international law and not killing people through sanctions. You got it right from the start though: gotta make the economy scream and torture people to make them turn against their democratically elected leader, it always leads to good results.

I get my news from the independent journalists without corporate or government funding that you didn't know existed and had to ask Stroggoz for.

So just as we speak Maduro was being interviewed by Jorge Ramos and he didn't like the interview so they detain them for 2 hours in separate dark rooms, they confiscate all the material, cameras, cellphones and equipment and let them go after empty handed.

I guess I'll research this later when I have the time; in the mean time I'll take yours and Fox News' reporting on it as the truth, since you have shown to both be equally reliable sources of information.

On February 26 2019 04:06 Loco wrote: You failed to address my point. How do you think that a person like the one I mentioned would be treated in the US? I know about the "political prisoners" and figures like Leopoldo Lopez who are merely on house-arrest despite having led violent guarimbas that have killed numerous people. Again, I ask how someone like that would be treated in the US to you.

Political dissidents are treated much better in the US than in fucking Venezuela... Gays are treated better in Brazil than in Iran.

The fact these two things aren't obvious to you is crazy, and no, I wont give statistics to back it up for the same reasons I wouldn't debate a flat-earther.

Indeed, I have never fumbled an argument this bad before: advocating for the respect of international law and not killing people through sanctions. You got it right from the start though: gotta make the economy scream and torture people to make them turn against their democratically elected leader, it always leads to good results.

Sanctions work perfectly fine within international law, so dont pretend to care about international law, you dont and neither do I, we care about what we think its right and wrong not what law books say it is, Maduro isn't a democratically elected leader, not that corrupt elections is reason enough to intervene any country though.

Anyway, I'm not talking about these two specifically obviously since I agree with non-intervention and your position in sanctions is reasonable and understandalbe, I mean the many arguments you have made about latinamerican dictators and people living under them, your views on violent supression on freedom of speech and now your daft beliefs that brazil is some anti-gay hell only a couple of months after a right-wing president was elected among others.

I get my news from the independent journalists without corporate or government funding that you didn't know existed and had to ask Stroggoz for.

So your sources are socialist news.. well that explains a lot.

I guess I'll research this later when I have the time; in the mean time I'll take yours and Fox News' reporting on it as the truth, since you have shown to both be equally reliable sources of information.

Jorge Ramos is literally saying what happened in the video, so its time to being your mental gymnastics to justify this one bud.

I find it funny that the reason for this discord is that you are ironically following JBP's advice to young men to not fall into the cynicism trap.

An overread antinatalist vegan in the passionate pursuit of minimizing suffering in this forsaken world, but in your Dantesque quest you have lost your compass and with all your intellectual might dulled, unable to cut through dogmatic ways.


You've also said I'm lost in dogma, perhaps I am its hard to see it by yourself and you've also said that "I think this is the best the world is going to be" which is partically true, not in the practical sense I think it can get much better in the present and even more so in distant futures but in a sense I've taken the cynics path of acceptance and I think it gives me a bit of an outsider perspective, not that I expect you to agree with this of course I just felt like discussing more phylosophically, like the old times.

On February 26 2019 04:06 Loco wrote: You failed to address my point. How do you think that a person like the one I mentioned would be treated in the US?

What are you implying here?

Lento pero avanzo

Lento pero avanzo wey

Lento pero avanzo Ché

¡Lento pero avanzo mis comaradas!

LIke Eliseé Recluse said: Build a body of work and set an example over the course of a lifetime. Whether that lifetime is getting gunned down by ISIS tomorrow or reading Schopenhauer on a death bed at 95. (Or, actually I would probably read Death of Ivan Illych by Tolstoy even if I don't like the conclusion).

On February 26 2019 15:08 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On February 26 2019 04:06 Loco wrote: You failed to address my point. How do you think that a person like the one I mentioned would be treated in the US? What are you implying here?

I am just trying to see if we can be on the same page here, put things in perspective. If you did just a fraction of what Machado has done in the US, according to U.S. Code §?2385, you'd probably be imprisoned for up to 20 years and couldn't be employed for 5 years after you're released. I am wondering what this does for those who believe the status of Venezuela as being one of the worst repressive dictatorships in the world. The US imprisoned and tortured Chelsea Manning for being a democratic hero and yet this person walks free in Venezuela.

Wanna know who is not a political hero? A person who shakes Bush's hand in 2005 and who received the U.S. "Democracy Prize". A country that has overthrown 67 sovereign government, most of them democracies, has such an award to give out, believe it or not.

On February 26 2019 09:02 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On February 26 2019 04:06 Loco wrote: You failed to address my point. How do you think that a person like the one I mentioned would be treated in the US? I know about the "political prisoners" and figures like Leopoldo Lopez who are merely on house-arrest despite having led violent guarimbas that have killed numerous people. Again, I ask how someone like that would be treated in the US to you. Political dissidents are treated much better in the US than in fucking Venezuela... Gays are treated better in Brazil than in Iran. The fact these two things aren't obvious to you is crazy, and no, I wont give statistics to back it up for the same reasons I wouldn't debate a flat-earther.   Indeed, I have never fumbled an argument this bad before: advocating for the respect of international law and not killing people through sanctions. You got it right from the start though: gotta make the economy scream and torture people to make them turn against their democratically elected leader, it always leads to good results. Sanctions work perfectly fine within international law, so dont pretend to care about international law, you dont and neither do I, we care about what we think its right and wrong not what law books say it is, Maduro isn't a democratically elected leader, not that corrupt elections is reason enough to intervene any country though. Anyway, I'm not talking about these two specifically obviously since I agree with non-intervention and your position in sanctions is reasonable and understandalbe, I mean the many arguments you have made about latinamerican dictators and people living under them, your views on violent supression on freedom of speech and now your daft beliefs that brazil is some anti-gay hell only a couple of months after a right-wing president was elected among others.   I get my news from the independent journalists without corporate or government funding that you didn't know existed and had to ask Stroggoz for. So your sources are socialist news.. well that explains a lot.   I guess I'll research this later when I have the time; in the mean time I'll take yours and Fox News' reporting on it as the truth, since you have shown to both be equally reliable sources of information. Jorge Ramos is literally saying what happened in the video, so its time to being your mental gymnastics to justify this one bud.

Lots of strong opinions here presented as facts, as usual. Can't find any facts at all or you engaging with the facts that I have presented. "I don't need to present evidence for something so obvious" lol, that's a gem... okay bud. So Bolsonaro is just a "right-wing" leader huh, not an insanely homophobic and openly fascist leader. Mm-hm.

Well there's at least one thing I can respond to with facts. Your claim that " these sanctions are legal" is patently false, as I have shown before.

"The first UN rapporteur to visit Venezuela for 21 years has told The Independent the US sanctions on the country are illegal and could amount to “crimes against humanity” under international law."

So you know what I care about and what I don't care about now? I don't have to care about it as a sacred principle, I can just take on a consequentialist stance and show that every time that the US hasn't respected it, it leads to more suffering and death, and say that it should not be supported. But you, in all your wisdom, "understand" that "this time it's different".... it's definitely not just the 68th coup against a sovereign nation to serve imperialist interests, no, it's okay to meddle with them because there is "a humanitarian crisis" and things will all get better once neoliberalism is back in Venezuela.

I don't know who Jorge Ramos is, it's important for me to have an idea as to what motivates him. The only thing I can see from a quick google search is that he is out to tell his story on all of the usual propaganda outlets. In the world that I live in, that makes alarm bells go off. When I see Marco Rubio pushing it hard on Twitter, it's even more suspicious. But if he was indeed mistreated by Maduro and was there to conduct a legitimate interview with him, I will have no problem condemning those actions. I want to read about it from a legitimate source before I evaluate the situation. If I were doing the same in the case of a story like the MAGA kids you'd applaud me for being careful and not jumping to conclusions based on one Nathan Phillips' "literally saying what happened", but here I am doing "mental gymnastics" for being careful about one man's opinion because it fits within your confirmation bias.

My position is not that Maduro is blameless, it's that the attacks on Venezuelan democracy are indefensible and that we should look at whatever happens or has happened in its proper context. Ultimately, it's unavoidable that Maduro will make mistakes, I can't imagine how on edge I would be if my country was about to be invaded and pillaged (again). Everyone is out to get a piece of you to provide something that will serve as the catalyst, and that's where anyone's worst authoritarian tendencies are most likely to come out.

On February 26 2019 09:17 Baalim wrote: I find it funny that the reason for this discord is that you are ironically following JBP's advice to young men to not fall into the cynicism trap. An overread antinatalist vegan in the passionate pursuit of minimizing suffering in this forsaken world, but in your Dantesque quest you have lost your compass and with all your intellectual might dulled, unable to cut through dogmatic ways. You've also said I'm lost in dogma, perhaps I am its hard to see it by yourself and you've also said that "I think this is the best the world is going to be" which is partically true, not in the practical sense I think it can get much better in the present and even more so in distant futures but in a sense I've taken the cynics path of acceptance and I think it gives me a bit of an outsider perspective, not that I expect you to agree with this of course I just felt like discussing more phylosophically, like the old times.

What the fuck are you talking about, "the cynicism trap"? If I was cynical I would be apolitical, like I was for most of my life. With cynicism comes detachment . . . do I look detached to you? I'm revolted. You even say that I'm "passionate" -- make up your damn mind dude.

There's no such thing as being "overread", there's only being over-specialized. It's only a criticism you can make because you're poorly-read. I don't consider myself an antinatalist anymore, and I don't know why you throw these labels around like it means something. They are not groups that I belong to and they are not dogmas. I am not on a quest to minimize suffering as much as I can, or else I wouldn't be posting here, and I'd have joined some effective altruism community.

You've already given this glib speech about being a largely resigned cynic before. It's trite. That's not what you are, that's just the comfortable rationalization you give yourself for having an incoherent view of the world, based in apathy and prejudice more than rationality and compassion. You have an inability to care for the struggles of people other than you or those very close to you and there is no constant willingness to deepen your understanding of the world around you because you find your pleasure elsewhere. I'm not saying that it's wrong, it's just what it is.

Without USA, I would be speaking german or russian.

So I actually did a bit of research cause I had no idea who that woman was.

Turns out she's a rather contradictive person. She did indeed go against Chavez, but she also acknowledged the good things he did.

She was charged with treason charges for the said case you said, but the court eventually dismissed the charges. Keep in mind all of this was still during Chavez.

Also indeed, if she was advocating for a coup, she should have been charged with treason and went to jail, that's how any sane system should work, if you advocate for violence, you should be punished.
Anyways this only shows how corrupt the system in Venezuela is and indeed that Chavez perhaps wasn't in that huge of control as he was portrayed to be in. It also means that the USA already had strings to pull in Venezuela. Chavez could have also underestimated her and tried to make an example out of her, but failed. The political plays there could be justified in many different ways, but we will never know.

I also don't believe Chavez was a dictator in the pure sense of the meaning of the word. He certainly didn't hold the entire country by its balls, however it seems like a situation where the country is so fucked and corrupt that the people felt he is the only option they have. It's a very common occurrence. It's not that he wasn't pushing his agenda towards that though

Post Chavez (aka Maduro times)

- She was illegally fired
- Falsely accused of assassination plots
- Illegally barred from taking part in elections
- Physically beaten and attacked multiple times


Also you seem to forget something... "if someone like that does those things in the USA " is a redundant comparison - one to be made just for the sake of it . It has absolutely zero value. There are solid reasons why Maduro is considered an authoritarian leader. There is pretext.

On February 26 2019 18:17 Loco wrote: Lots of strong opinions here presented as facts, as usual. Can't find any facts at all or you engaging with the facts that I have presented. "I don't need to present evidence for something so obvious" lol, that's a gem... okay bud.

I dont think evidence is required to know Brazil is a much better place for gay people than Iran or that Venezuela treats worse political dissidents than the US, these aren't strong opinions, I've written thousands of paragraphs discussin with you over the years, these subjects should be so blatantly obvious its insane to even ask for evidence... I mean come on.

So Bolsonaro is just a "right-wing" leader huh, not an insanely homophobic and openly fascist leader. Mm-hm.

I havent seen him talking about ethnic cleansing or him trying to become a dictator or anything that would make me qualify him as a fascist, it sure seems like he is a conservative imbecile and indeed homophobic. (also openly would mean he calls himself a fascist wouldnt it?)

Well there's at least one thing I can respond to with facts. Your claim that " these sanctions are legal" is patently false, as I have shown before. "The first UN rapporteur to visit Venezuela for 21 years has told The Independent the US sanctions on the country are illegal and could amount to “crimes against humanity” under international law." So you know what I care about and what I don't care about now? I don't have to care about it as a sacred principle, I can just take on a consequentialist stance and show that every time that the US hasn't respected it, it leads to more suffering and death, and say that it should not be supported. But you, in all your wisdom, "understand" that "this time it's different".... it's definitely not just the 68th coup against a sovereign nation to serve imperialist interests, no, it's okay to meddle with them because there is "a humanitarian crisis" and things will all get better once neoliberalism is back in Venezuela.

Yes I know you dont care about that the law, you just confirmed it and that is a good thing, I was just pointing out that you shouldnt say things like "its breaking the law" as if that was relevant.

I do not support military intervention in Venezuela, didn't I already said this like 3 times already?.

I think Venezuela would be better off if Maduro were toppled, however allowing other countries to military intervene other countries for these reasons is worse than the damage Maduro would make... unlike you I dont compromise my principles and dont make ideological exeptions, for freedom of speech, violence or military intervention.

I don't know who Jorge Ramos is, it's important for me to have an idea as to what motivates him. The only thing I can see from a quick google search is that he is out to tell his story on all of the usual propaganda outlets. In the world that I live in, that makes alarm bells go off. When I see Marco Rubio pushing it hard on Twitter, it's even more suspicious. But if he was indeed mistreated by Maduro and was there to conduct a legitimate interview with him, I will have no problem condemning those actions. I want to read about it from a legitimate source before I evaluate the situation. If I were doing the same in the case of a story like the MAGA kids you'd applaud me for being careful and not jumping to conclusions based on one Nathan Phillips' "literally saying what happened", but here I am doing "mental gymnastics" for being careful about one man's opinion because it fits within your confirmation bias.

Jorge Ramos is the most known latinamerican journalist in the world, he has interviewed Chavez and Maduro and he isn't remotely right wing, he is a democrat that despises Trump, this isn't a random hobo describing his subjective take.

My position is not that Maduro is blameless, it's that the attacks on Venezuelan democracy are indefensible and that we should look at whatever happens or has happened in its proper context. Ultimately, it's unavoidable that Maduro will make mistakes, I can't imagine how on edge I would be if my country was about to be invaded and pillaged (again). Everyone is out to get a piece of you to provide something that will serve as the catalyst, and that's where anyone's worst authoritarian tendencies are most likely to come out.

'

military intervention in Venezuela would be indefensible, Maduro's murderous starving regime is also indefensible, but you find it quite defensible.

On February 26 2019 18:45 Loco wrote: What the fuck are you talking about, "the cynicism trap"? If I was cynical I would be apolitical, like I was for most of my life. With cynicism comes detachment . . . do I look detached to you? I'm revolted. You even say that I'm "passionate" -- make up your damn mind dude.

overread but apparently cannot read at the same time... I said that you followed JBP's advise and DIDNT become a cynic.

There's no such thing as being "overread", there's only being over-specialized. It's only a criticism you can make because you're poorly-read.

Except there is, theres also overeducated or that isn't a thing either?

I think I'd fall on the top 1% reading wise but I guess anyone who read less than you is poorly-read, interesting position for the guy who has trascended ego itself lol

I don't consider myself an antinatalist anymore, and I don't know why you throw these labels around like it means something. They are not groups that I belong to and they are not dogmas.

I never said they were nor was I using them an insults, in fact quite the contrary I think they are great moral positions, apparently you aren't antinatalist anymore, a shame.

am not on a quest to minimize suffering as much as I can, or else I wouldn't be posting here

So a quest to maximize suffering? that would explain your ideas about communism.

based in apathy and prejudice more than rationality and compassion. You have an inability to care for the struggles of people other than you or those very close to you and there is no constant willingness to deepen your understanding of the world around you because you find your pleasure elsewhere.

Pretty crazy that you think I dont care about reason since its probably the thing I care the most about in this world.

I suppose the world is pretty easy when you create childish dichotomies comprised of the righteous compassionate against the unreasonable unempathetic.

On February 27 2019 01:42 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On February 26 2019 18:45 Loco wrote: What the fuck are you talking about, "the cynicism trap"? If I was cynical I would be apolitical, like I was for most of my life. With cynicism comes detachment . . . do I look detached to you? I'm revolted. You even say that I'm "passionate" -- make up your damn mind dude. overread but apparently cannot read at the same time... I said that you followed JBP's advise and DIDNT become a cynic.   There's no such thing as being "overread", there's only being over-specialized. It's only a criticism you can make because you're poorly-read. Except there is, theres also overeducated or that isn't a thing either? I think I'd fall on the top 1% reading wise but I guess anyone who read less than you is poorly-read, interesting position for the guy who has trascended ego itself lol   I don't consider myself an antinatalist anymore, and I don't know why you throw these labels around like it means something. They are not groups that I belong to and they are not dogmas. I never said they were nor was I using them an insults, in fact quite the contrary I think they are great moral positions, apparently you aren't antinatalist anymore, a shame.   am not on a quest to minimize suffering as much as I can, or else I wouldn't be posting here So a quest to maximize suffering? that would explain your ideas about communism.   based in apathy and prejudice more than rationality and compassion. You have an inability to care for the struggles of people other than you or those very close to you and there is no constant willingness to deepen your understanding of the world around you because you find your pleasure elsewhere. Pretty crazy that you think I dont care about reason since its probably the thing I care the most about in this world. I suppose the world is pretty easy when you create childish dichotomies comprised of the righteous compassionate against the unreasonable unempathetic.

I misread because I assumed you meant that I should have listened to him but didn't because I'm dogmatic, since you know I'm so opposed to his ideas and that was the theme of your post. I didn't "follow his advice" because that implies that I outgrew cynicism because of him, but he was completely irrelevant to this. I outgrew it through independent study. I said it from the beginning that I didn't completely oppose his "crusade" against post-modernism, that my main philosophical influences are not "postmodernists" (post-structuralists). I think it's a grave mistake to be too much engaged in that kind of philosophical literature at the expense of a scientific education.

You're making a claim that it's self-evident that there are over-educated or over-read people, but you're not explaining your rationale. From my perspective, there's no such thing per se. If I were to use those words I would mean that the person is over-educated or over-read in a specific area of knowledge, and it is that specialization that blinds them to the issues that cannot be understood from that knowledge-base alone, or as we say in systems thinking, from that level of organization. It's something I'd usually associate with being a STEM academic, usually an arrogant one, like the many who dismiss philosophy as a useless field. Other than that, I don't see how you can "read too much". It's not a matter of quantity, it's a matter of quality: reading well, contextualizing your knowledge, being able to communicate it, etc. The only person I know who referred to herself as "over-educated" (on a dating site no less) is actually poorly educated even in her field of specialization (biology) and she is a philistine. I don't know what the fuck they teach in those schools but she had never heard of structural determinism before and she thought people have libertarian free will (and she has New Age beliefs too).

If I have a quest it is a quest to not be fooled -- to not live in illusion. It is to unapologetically be myself and speak my mind, no matter if I am the only person going against the grain and I am condemned or mocked for it, or, as is most often the case here, completely misunderstood and misrepresented. You're trying to mirror my previous criticism of your binary thinking and you fail at it, because in that same post you once again use that very thinking by associating my ideas with the spooky ghost of "communism" because if I'm not a capitalist like you then I automatically must be a communist (you mean a Marxist), even though I have been extremely clear in my criticisms of Marxism. It's so sad to be so poorly-read on subjects that you supposedly care much about. Communism/socialism/marxism, all terms that can be interchanged for you and which shouldn't be, and all used to avoid dealing with the arguments presented by other people, because you can always lazily reduce their views to "that old discredited idea" and feel warm and fuzzy about your intellectual superiority.