The French Revolution isn't Communist, but it was a revolution against the ruling classes and was generally regarded as a model and lesson by the Marxists - Lenin and the Bolsheviks studied the French Revolution intensely, with Lenin particularly praising Danton.
In both cases, however, significant portions of the military - typically the disaffected junior officer corps - ended up sympathizing with and joining the revolution as a way of protecting their interests and securing their advancement. The current left is not exactly offering this clique anything that they do not already have, which again is a larger problem with wannabe insurrectionists in today's day and age.
No, they're not going to join the revolution because the communists are nice to them, but they're not going to actively support any revolution that does not offer some sort of advancement or bettering of their condition. The military has health care, food, and relative financial security; their material needs are met. Getting the military on the side of a revolution depends, therefore, on sympathy. Any sympathy the rank and file has for leftist causes will evaporate when they get called murderers for cooking eggs in a cafeteria five days a week, or fixing radar sets in rural Oklahoma while never seeing a foreign land.
A revolution needs people who are, y'know, gonna do violent things. The Chapo fans ain't gonna do them, that's for damn sure, so all the people who are really good at violence are the people they need to win over, not alienate.
I understand what you mean and I don't disagree on the whole, aside from the fact that "sympathy" is more of a product of larger factors than built by actual day to day interactions. I think the absence of these factors - oppression, non-mobility, famine, etc - are ultimately a much larger issue for any would-be revolution than being mean to soldiers or police. Like, today's America isn't 1789's France or 1917's Russia. In our current state, I'd argue the step is so high already, it's not like specifically including soldier or police into class warfare will do much to bring them into the fold, so to speak.
You're correct that there are much larger factors at work, but actively alienating your only route for a revolution does not work to bring it closer. You dismiss it as "being mean to soldiers" as if words don't mean things. How people behave and the signals they give off towards any group will change how that group perceives them, and they're not being petty by changing their perceptions.
I'm not trying to make this a bigger issue than it is, of course. It's just a particularly interesting facet of what I see as the American far-left's perennial flaw: they cannot accept any ally that is not perfectly pure by their own arbitrary standard that means little or nothing to the majority of the population. Liberals and conservatives take allies where they can get them, even morally reprehensible ones, which is why they run the country and the left does not.
Oh don't get me wrong, I don't think talking shit about soldiers or police is going to bring the revolution closer - that's what I mean by "agreeing on the whole" - it's just that whatever impact it has on the forthcoming revolution is pretty much non-existent in the first place. They're not even at the point where use of force can even be considered, much less prepared for. It's not like there's a bunch of lost love for communism in the armed forces or the police services to be capitalized on either, as far as I'm aware. It's not about them being petty, although it wouldn't really matter if they were, they're just not exactly easy friends.
I get what you mean with the purity testing, but I think it's a bit out of place in that particular context. It's not about the military "not being perfectly pure", it's about it standing pretty much for the antithesis of their whole philosophy. As I've said, if you think of the world in terms of class war, people hired and paid to "wage that war" on you aren't your first pick of bedmate. Even if communists were to look for allies more actively, military personnel and police officers aren't near the top half of that list.
Load more comments
It wasn't sufficient because it did not corroborate your world view.
Honestly, I thought it was sufficient for the question I was asking. I continued having a good dialogue privately afterwards.
You're happy using that data uncritically
I removed my comment about one study because it was shown to be dubious and any criticism of the analysis of studies on desisting I've asked for clarification.
you'll be very sceptical of any alternative sources
Only if it shows signs of having poor methodology. As of yet, no-one's provided alternative sources.
you push away any criticism of the evidence you selected
I've accepted some which caused me to disregard a study and I've asked for clarification on the criticism of others.
playing the oppression card - you're trying to paint me as a bigot
I was pointing out an inclination to paint me as a bigot so as to point out bias. Someone commented 'Don't you think a site called transgender trend might be a bit bias?' and they're right. It might be. Similarly - don't you think somebody who's convinced I'm a bigot might not care about the substance of my argument?
Only if it shows signs of having poor methodology. As of yet, no-one's provided alternative sources.
Yet you've been content with ignoring obvious bias in your own selection of sources. As I've pointed out, you tend to be much more critical of documents that do not support your argument.
Besides, there multiple alternative sources around this very thread. Here, here, here and here. There's a pretty good point about your source here.
Similarly - don't you think somebody who's convinced I'm a bigot might not care about the substance of my argument?
Yes, once you show yourself to be a bigot, people tend to not take your argument seriously. That's generally how it works. The problem isn't that people are ignoring the substance of your argument, it's that you require tacit admission that there's substance to it or you'll claim to be unfairly painted as a bigot. From what I've seen, whatever substance there is to your position has been addressed pretty thoroughly, yet you choose to focus on my examination of your motives instead.
What documents that don't support my argument have I been critical of exactly?
Addressing the 'multiple alternative sources'...
Number 1 - I retracted the comment+study regarding suicide rates soon after I saw the criticism of it.
Number 2 - I never claimed there were a lot of de-trainsitioners.
Number 3 and 5 - This criticism is just inaccurate. I've addressed it with the OP.
Number 4 - Brilliant post, exactly what I was looking for. Going to absorb it and reply more thoroughly over the next couple of days.
Yes, once you show yourself to be a bigot, people tend to not take your argument seriously.
Which is one reason why people may be determined to paint you as a bigot - because then they don't have to take your arguments seriously.
or you'll claim to be unfairly painted as a bigot.
If somebody fairly paints me as a bigot then I'm okay with that. If someone points to this, this and this and explains why that's bigoted then fair enough. But what I'm seeing a lot is the 'You must be bigoted because I don't like this view you hold' mentality. If people believe I'm bigoted - they should tell me how.
yet you choose to focus on my examination of your motives instead
You're right in saying I'm quicker in addressing criticism than I am in absorbing the answers to the actual question. That's fair.
Which is one reason why people may be determined to paint you as a bigot - because then they don't have to take your arguments seriously.
The big flaw in this logic is the lack of argument. You barely have an argument for us to even laugh at, so it's not like there's any substance to attack. You have very little actual data, most of which has been seriously undermined by other posters. You've "retracted" a solid half of your empirical basis when faced with actual studies - giving out no delta, by the way - which speaks more to a need to strengthen your own position by dropping the bad bits than genuine willingness to re-examine it. From there, you have a the equivalent of a blog-post with a seriously questionable agenda - the primary sources of which you made no effort to address - and a twitter link. Now, even if all of this wasn't so obviously skewed, it's so very thin it's see-through.
If people believe I'm bigoted - they should tell me how.
I believe I've been quite clear on that point. You went into this with your mind made up, you picked the first pieces of evidence that would support your preliminary view, no matter how spurious, and ran with it. You're happy using data uncritically as long as it supports your argument, but somehow become very sceptical of other sources or criticisms. You make unsubstantiated claims and leave the job of dismantling them to others. You're not bigoted because I don't like your view - although I don't, obviously - you're bigoted because you're obstinate in sticking to your unsupported prejudices.
Then, left with no real point to make, you accuse people of painting you as a bigot to "dismiss" an argument that never existed.
Load more comments
But by acknowledging white supremacist rhetoric, you’re giving them too much power! We should just ignore racists until they shoot up another church. But you can’t talk about it then either, because it’s ToO SoOn.
/s because I think I Poe’d myself.
Wait, aren't you supposed to pretend they're ultra leftists or lonely centrists with social problems when they shoot up stuff?
How is fortnite an abusive business model? It's probably the best free to play model out there..Its not pay to win and doesnt use lootboxes, and if you buy the battlepass once it gives you enough vbucks to buy the next. Id say its the gold standard for free to play honestly.
I don't think the business model is bad, it's obviously successful. Now keep in mind that's just my opinion. I think the game is bad - I don't like it for various reasons we can get into if you'd like - that relies on an abusive business model of endless grinding targetting kids a bit too much for my liking. In my opinion, it's pretty much a monetization scheme tacked on a shell of a game and I'd rather it didn't spread. Like, I think calling the Epic store a "launcher" is charitable.
I just dont understand what you mean by the endless grinding part. Like the only real thing to grind towards is the battlepass and even as someone who only plays a few hours a week I'm able to finish it every season no problem. Theres other games with wayy more grinding and scummy practises.
Ok...but are we talking about Fornite and Epic or all games ever made? Because these are two different conversations. The fact that scummier games exist out there doesn't really change my opinion on Fornite being an abusive business model.
As for Fornite, all the more power to you I guess. It appears very clear to me, just by looking a numbers, that Fornite does extract a lot of value from players. Monetization is constantly put on the forefront as well as heavily incentivized - it's tied very strongly to progression, for instance, which is something everybody wants in games - while the value of transactions is obfuscated in various ways. I find the model exploitative, that's all.
Load more comments
Nobody is pushing it aside, slavery was unequivocally the worst thing our country has ever done next to the extermination/displacement of the natives. I think when we interact with each ther we need to be conscious of this past and how certain things you say could be taken differently by different people because of the environment they grew up in and the history that they have to live with in their heads that white people don’t.
All that being said though, these jokes would be funny and harmless if that’s how all white people took them. That isn’t how white people are taking them. You’re not gonna convince 99% of white people with “its okay because history”, you’re going to make them even angrier and even more racist. I don’t think the racism from that is justified and I’m sure you don’t either, but it doesn’t matter if we think it’s justified or not, it’s there and it’s growing more and more with every little thing like this that happens, every little “joke” at white folks expense is going to rub someone the wrong way.
It’s essentially “haha white people lmao you’re banned get out of my face cracker, WTF why are you more racist after this it was just a prank”. It’s unreasonable from both sides. Put away ideology and be a bit more pragmatic about these issues, ideology is worthless
making a poor taste joke. Let's not kid ourselves, nobody that's foaming today about BPT going Jim Crow was any kind of worried about the very real consequences of Jim crow yesterday.
Just to be clear, this is the type of sentence I was talking about. Nobody is born racist, nobody just randomly turns into a racist. Racists have reasons in their heads to justify their racism and even though they’re overreacting and it’s never justified, you’re still adding fuel to the growing flame of racial tension in America whether or not you think they should react the way they are. White folks are just getting tired of it all
Nobody is pushing it aside, slavery was unequivocally the worst thing our country has ever done next to the extermination/displacement of the natives
I disagree, very strongly. Every single person that comes out whining about "switch the races..." argument - which is a lot of people - is pushing it aside or ignoring it entirely. That's the minimum condition of making such inane statements.
you’re still adding fuel to the growing flame of racial tension in America whether or not you think they should react the way they are. White folks are just getting tired of it all
That's what they always say, however. Every time people discuss race relation, no matter how or when, there's some guy making exactly that point: "you're just making it worst". If everybody listened to these types of argument, we'd never go anywhere. I'm sorry, it's simply the truth. Nobody currently throwing a fit about BPT being racist was any kind of worried about racism yesterday. They didn't care, at best, because it wasn't about them. That's the same pattern that repeats over and over and over. Appeasing them does not work, it never did and it never will.
Basically, they're holding a gun to all our heads to get a blowjob and I just have no appetite for blowjobs.
I disagree, very strongly. Every single person that comes out whining about "switch the races..." argument - which is a lot of people - is pushing it aside or ignoring it entirely. That's the minimum condition of making such inane statements.
When you toss aside the ideology that you’re essentially using as an axiom for your entire mindset regarding these issues you realize that “reverse the races!!!” is a perfectly legitimate point. It’s not okay to do to group of people, it’s not okay to do to a group of another. You don’t get to decide who gets mad at what. This turns regular ass white people into racists when you tell them that black people are allowed to take digs at them and they aren’t allowed to say anything back and you make fun of them if they get mad about it. Unequivocally. This creates more racists, which in turn make things worse for black people, so black people get angry and make fun of all white people, which turns more white people into racists. This is how the world works whether or not you think any reaction is justified
That's what they always say, however. Every time people discuss race relation, no matter how or when, there's some guy making exactly that point: "you're just making it worst".
“Haha this is a prank but fuck white people you’re not allowed here lmao” isn’t discourse, it’s low effort flamebait and you can’t be surprised when white people get mad about it
Nobody currently throwing a fit about BPT being racist was any kind of worried about racism yesterday.
I agree completely, yesterday they weren’t concerned with racism, now because of this they might be, now because of this they might like black people less. They might now pay more attention to these things and allow every instance of it to make them angrier. Would you rather have moldable apathy or outright disdain from someone?
Nobody is talking about “appeasement”, I’m not owed anything from black folks, I don’t expect shit from black folks except “don’t be an asshole to me because I’m white”. That’s literally it, and yet too many people have to get their laughs that way, consequences be damned. Ideology is dangerous, you get it into your head that “this behavior is acceptable because of the past” and expect everyone to go along with it. That doesn’t work and never will. That’s been the approach for decades now and race relations have only gotten worse, it just doesn’t work. Now it’s radicalizing an entire new generation of white kids, a generation black folks will have to deal with for like 70 more years now
When you toss aside the ideology that you’re essentially using as an axiom for your entire mindset regarding these issues you realize that “reverse the races!!!” is a perfectly legitimate point.
Hardly. As I've said, it ignores a very long history of racism and oppression for the sake of a gotcha. If you'd truly switch races, make it so black people oppressed white people for centuries, people would be just as mad. They aren't because that's not the world we live in. We don't look at these things differently because we harbour some deep seated hatred for white people - hell, I am a white person - or because white people are the primary victims of racism. We look at them differently because the "all else being equal" part strongly implied by the argument is actually a giant chunk of our lived-in reality.
Constant efforts to flush that giant chunk of reality down the drain, or just ignore it, because it's inconvenient are very annoying. Because this is what it is, ignoring the larger history of racism and its consequences at all cost. There's a pretty obvious reasons why minorities want things like sage spaces (not saying BPT is a good example mind you), for instance. It has to do with everything that "switch the races!!!" arguments want us to ignore.
“Haha this is a prank but fuck white people you’re not allowed here lmao” isn’t discourse, it’s low effort flamebait and you can’t be surprised when white people get mad about it
Yes, you're right, that's cheap flamebait. Which would matter a whole lot more if it's all people were mad about, but that's not the case. They get mad when you talk about privilege, they get mad when you talk about racism, they get mad about Black Lives Matter, they get mad at feminists, they get mad at transgender people, they get mad a women talking about video games, they get mad at video games with minorities, they get mad at women in movies, they get mad at footballers kneeling, they get mad at coffee machines, they get mad at sports commercials, they get mad at toiletry commercials, etc.
I mean, certainly you're not missing how it's pretty hard for minorities to exist and talk about their issues in ways that do not make white people mad, right? Like, where's the outrage tempest about minorities being politically marginalized? Nowhere, really. But Black people twitter? Well now wait a second...
This apathy isn't moldable is the point. You can't be neutral on a moving train.
Nobody is talking about “appeasement”
That's basically all you're doing. "Don't do this because it makes them mad", when pretty much everything that doesn't align with their world view makes them mad, is a call to appeasement. We're literally stuck in an abusive relationship where minorities get kinda beat up and the best you can tell them is to shut up so they don't get beat up worst next time. I'm sure you can see how that's not super useful. Like I said, I'm not interested in blowjobs at gunpoint.
Load more comments
"open and honest discussion" so often sounds to me like "I wanna question/denigrate the presence of minority characters without people calling my biases/bigotries out."
Because if you complain about "open and honest discussion" being stifled in that context, it's exactly what you're saying. If someone tells you "antisemitism will not be tolerated here" and you protest with something like "what about honest discussion" you've pretty much painted yourself as an anti-Semite.
I prefer not dying of alcohol poisoning thanks
Luckily, you'd drown first.
Load more comments
I'm not saying that this doesn't happen but if some white director said he wouldn't hire a black lead people would lose their minds.
Almost like there's history here....weird.
Simply sharing information or links to the correct view isn't enough. You need to dialogue with them and try to understand their perspective before you try to prove them wrong.
There, there little nazi, would you like a cookie and some coco while I gently explain that I'm a human being worthy of respect? Oh I'm being too mean? I shouldn't have been so mean, I'll come back when you're done shooting up a mosque.
Give me a fucking break.
Who's worst, really? Steve, that wants to exterminate a bunch of people he doesn't like or Mike, the guy that would rather avoid ever talking to Steve?
Steve. Steve is the worst.
