Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

Ben No.3

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    528

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Ben No.3

  1. Ben No.3
    Responding to algroth I completely agree with you. And to be honest, I have no idea what to change. But it seems to work... At least over here, we only stop people from being actually racist, sexist, etc... We even make fun of Americas extreme political correctness. But honestly don't know what we are doing differently, but I do know that it works.
  2. Ben No.3
    The people who use the phrase almost always haven't read . I did... But mainly about Marx, not of himself... Poor writing skills imo, not very interesting to read CLARIFICATION: I by no means consider myself an expert on Marx, I only have a rough idea. but I do think I've read more than the average user around here
  3. Ben No.3
    wait, what? You lost me there... Are you seriously saying that Marx and Mussolini both followed the same ideology only in different times? No. As the etymology of the word describes, it is the voicing of an opinion that goes against the current political dogma. In the 80's and 90's it was fit to call it a form of fascism because of the conservatives in the US enforcing moral purity everywhere. Today it is political incorrect to go against equality. Isn't going against equality against the very foundation of the US? "That all men are created equal, that they have been endowed by their creator with with certain unalienable rights" and so on.... Going against equality is a much more serious issue than the overuse of political correctness What you think qualifies for equality has nothing to do with what political correctness is. I think "equality" in this context means that all humans regardless of gender, race, social class, religion, personal beliefs, past, sexual orientation and identity and whatever other differences there might be should be considered equal, but please do explain to me what your definition is I'll bite the bullet. So... Equality is an ideal the US constitution stands for, which has unfortunately not yet been reached because still to this day Western society is tipped to the favour of some minorities over others, largely for standing prejudices, discrimination and so on. Political correctness is an attempt to forcefully correct this on a social and systemic level, but it is rather more like throwing a mantle over the tensions that still exist between minorities. Political correctness is not equality so much as it is a means to reach to it, and thus you can certainly approach and attack the notion of political correctness without standing against the notion of equality. Fair point! Here is the problem with political correctness as I see it: What PC should be: A moral boundary that socially punishes those who oppose equality of people based on racism, sexism, etc. What it has become: A censorship that is overprotective and tries to make everyone happy, but in doing so only creates confusion and doesn't really help. So, I'd say PC is a good idea, only it has been extremely overused and thus lost its power.
  4. Ben No.3
    TrueNeutral, you just gave me a bag full of arguments thank you
  5. Ben No.3
    Also, am I the only one wondering why "dangerous ****" is a tag to this thread?
  6. Ben No.3
    i agree with you on Mussolini being an a$$, not on Marx though. I explained my view pretty detailed, so mind to share yours?
  7. Ben No.3
    wait, what? You lost me there... Are you seriously saying that Marx and Mussolini both followed the same ideology only in different times? No. As the etymology of the word describes, it is the voicing of an opinion that goes against the current political dogma. In the 80's and 90's it was fit to call it a form of fascism because of the conservatives in the US enforcing moral purity everywhere. Today it is political incorrect to go against equality. Isn't going against equality against the very foundation of the US? "That all men are created equal, that they have been endowed by their creator with with certain unalienable rights" and so on.... Going against equality is a much more serious issue than the overuse of political correctness What you think qualifies for equality has nothing to do with what political correctness is. I think "equality" in this context means that all humans regardless of gender, race, social class, religion, personal beliefs, past, sexual orientation and identity and whatever other differences there might be should be considered equal, but please do explain to me what your definition is
  8. Ben No.3
    It advocates for bloody revolution to steal the property of others to enforce poverty.What do you think is the link between equity and poverty?People respond to incentives. If you penalize hard work, ambition, and innovation by redistributing the wealth generated by such, and incentivize those who aren't hard working, ambitious, or innovative by giving him the fruits of the others work, you eventually get people who see no point in working. If the society isn't productive and the wealth at the top redistributed to the bottom, you get poverty across the board. So the only options are to enforce work through force, or allow free capitalism.I realise (and so does Marx) that communism is only doable with non-selfish humans, which are a work of fiction. I previously already explained what I believe to be practically applyable everywhere where people feel t is right to do. But see how much more civilised your criticism now is? Before, it was barley scraping the surface, now it is viable criticism of an idea
  9. Ben No.3
    wait, what? You lost me there... Are you seriously saying that Marx and Mussolini both followed the same ideology only in different times? No. As the etymology of the word describes, it is the voicing of an opinion that goes against the current political dogma. In the 80's and 90's it was fit to call it a form of fascism because of the conservatives in the US enforcing moral purity everywhere. Today it is political incorrect to go against equality. Isn't going against equality against the very foundation of the US? "That all men are created equal, that they have been endowed by their creator with with certain unalienable rights" and so on.... Going against equality is a much more serious issue than the overuse of political correctness
  10. Ben No.3
    wait, what? You lost me there... Are you seriously saying that Marx and Mussolini both followed the same ideology only in different times?
  11. Ben No.3
    It's very multicultural, you would'nt understand. Then explain... How do such polar opposites combine?
  12. Ben No.3
    It's origins is different, it has been switched back and forth during the years: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/287100.html Roger Ebert describes it as fascism since it promotes self-censorship: First it is inspired by Marx, now by Mussolini? I recommend you set your mind on what it is
  13. Ben No.3
    It advocates for bloody revolution to steal the property of others to enforce poverty. What do you think is the link between equity and poverty?
  14. Ben No.3
    I'm happy that we can have a civilised debate on this subject As a person that is generally more in favour than against Marx, let me try to answer that. First of all, some historical background: Marx created his theory during the time of the industrial revolution. It was a time of extreme class division between wealthy and poor, an extreme injustice towards the poor. 16 work hours a day with little pay and no security whatsoever was common. Insurance or workers rights were unheard of. So, in this situation there comes Marx. And he is against this injustice and comes up with something he considers a better system. Now, extreme circumstances create extreme opinions, and so he created the idea of communism and the absence of such things as say private property. Now, I agree with you that Marx concrete ideas are not viable. They are to extreme, and for them to work they'd require "better" humans (and Marx even admits pretty much exactly this) without any sense of egotistical motivations. But that doesn't mean that the underlying thought is bad. Now, I like to refer to "everyone according to his abilities, to everyone according to his needs". It basically means that everyone contributes as much as he can to society, and everyone is given as much as he needs by society. And to be honest, if Marx would have been around in for example today's Germany, I think he probably would be quite happy and would not have come up with similarly extreme thoughts. BUT as I said, I still support the underlying thought. And to realise especially the second part (everyone is given as much as he needs), you need government intervention to protect workers rights or society. I'm not saying all capitals is bad (that's a ridiculous claim), but I'm saying a fusion of the two is great, something we in Germany would refer to as "social market economy". Free market is great! But society should do two things: 1. Give everyone as much as he needs, so I heavily support such things as free healthcare, free education (both school and university), good welfare and so on (I'm also a supporter of guaranteed basic income, an idea where everyone gets a small number of money every month regardless of everything; the money is to assure a certain standard of living for everyone) 2. Every member of society needs to contribute as it is necessary to support the system in place: basically means high taxes
  15. Ben No.3
    Well it depends on your view of wheter 90 millions killed for this idea is bad or not. Wrong answer! The question is what is bad about Marxism, not what is bad about communistic regimes in the past
  16. Ben No.3
    Guessing that is quite true... Guys, if you want to call me a Marxist (which to some extend is true I guess...), please know what that even means
  17. Ben No.3
    WHAT is "cultural Marxism" even supposed to mean? Has anyone here actually read Marx?
  18. Ben No.3
    But for example I support abortion. So, even though I tolerate your opinion, as in I won't punish you for having it, I will still oppose it and have the discussion about it (not on this thread). So, even though I tolerate the opinion, I don't need to not go against it, wouldn't you say,
  19. Ben No.3
    I am? Well why on earth am I still in Germany??? Because trump, Clinton, Lack of sanders, two party system, electoral college, poor welfare and poor state healthcare, far to expensive colleges, to much racism for my taste and guns I'm guessing... Are a autocratic state, a monarchic, sometimes a theocratic state not totalitarian systems? None of these a a police state. You can switch Marxism for any technical legal yet highly controversial opinion. And if no one stops by to discuss with me, that's a sign of disinterest, not tolerance. Tolerance means you oppose something, but let it happen. It does not mean you agree with it.
  20. Ben No.3
    political correctness is a tool that purpose it is to protect minorities. It has been overused and in some cases even abused, but that makes ONLY te abusers bad, not the tool. That is the case for anything, really. No philosophy is actually evil, it is just a thought. It is only evil if it is used to harm other humans. But that can be done with literally anything. And if Marxism has nothing to do with it (with I also would say), then what on earth does the title mean?
  21. Ben No.3
    I read through that... The first thing I noticed was simply a mistake: the article says "totalitarian aka police state". That is simply not true. A police state is a totalitarian system, but not all totalitarian systems are police states. The author is either intentionally or unintentionally working with placative yet wrong images, whatever it is, he does not exactly earn my favour. Anyway, here is the thing about free speech: In a society, you need to play by the rules. In the case of many western countries such as the US that rules are the constitution. And any speech that goes against that constitution will obviously be prohibited, because the constitution is the foundation of the society we live in. And let's say your view is technically not against the constitution but is very controversial: if you are contriversial, you can not not expect backlash. If I go on the streets in the US praising Marx, then I will have the right to do that, yes, but society will be against me. And that is because my view is against the common believe. It is not a question of right or wrong. If I rebel against a popular believe, I should expect nothing but backlash. Maybe I will find some agreement, and maybe I am even right, but I will still get that backlash because I go against common beliefs. I just made the same point several times, but that's okay.
  22. Ben No.3
    But what does ANY of this have to do with the philosophy of Karl Marx?
  23. Ben No.3
    Found it... Not even ten minutes in and already some heavy mistakes, most prominently: if a bad student says he got a bad grade due to prejudice and he uses the system, therefore the system is bad, right? No, he ABUSES the system! But you can do that with every system, and I'd rather have a system that calls for equality actively rather than trusting us not to create prejudice.
  24. Ben No.3
    I can't see the videos, can I have the links please? And how do you connect political correctness to Marxism? And why is Marxism bad? I do see the problem with SJWs... They're... Not great and often counterproductive to they're own cause
  25. Ben No.3
    I just found a fitting quote... From "the music of the night", a song from phantom of the opera (saw it today... Genius work ) "[...]Silently the senses abandon their defenses [...] Softly, deftly, music shall caress you Hear it, feel it, secretly possess you Open up your mind, let your fantasies unwind In this darkness which you know you cannot fight The darkness of the music of the night." Whole mind control thing and so on...
×
×
  • Create New...