So we did the "socialist classroom" experiment...

[Gromnir]

 

Well I'm also thinking of names from the past like Lord of the Flies, Humodor, Nur Ab Sal, Yushaa (substitute socilaisim for islam) and that one girl that used to rant about how we're all gonna die.

Wait , what?

 

congrats. your name has been added to a kinda rogue's gallery for the wot forum.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Ben No.3]

Regarding the one trick pony... I don't know if you realise, but so are most of you. Sharp_one is an excellent example. Everyone will probably remain in his political camp, and so calling someone a one trick pony because he sticks to his views seems a bit... useless?

[Leferd]

At the risk of going OT have you guys noticed over the years the posting habits of the self proclaimed "socialists" and "communists"? Even the ones that were not trolls they seem to have a single minded devotion to their favored socioeconomic philosophy. It's all they ever talk about. Every topic they start, nearly every word they write range from the rantings of a zealot to the pleadings of a preacher trying to "convert" everyone to their faith. Don't get me wrong. We all love to argue over politics and economics but we also talk about sports, booze, women, men, movies, games, and day to day life. We have had a few (maybe more than a few) "true believers" along the way and it seems to me they can discuss nothing else. Real one-trick-ponies. I don't mean this as a criticism, merely and observation.

 

GD's saying the One Trick Ponies only stay in their particular lane and keep their blinders on. Never venturing off to discuss anything else.

 

Like Oby. Obisidian's very own pet Putin mole.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

You're being called a one-trick pony because the only frame of reference you only have is socialism. And given the content of your posts one you lack an understanding of, including any knowledge of the literature written by the two men in your avatar.

[Ben No.3]

You're being called a one-trick pony because the only frame of reference you only have is socialism. And given the content of your posts one you lack an understanding of, including any knowledge of the literature written by the two men in your avatar.

Who has less understanding of a historical figure? The one who takes biographical information and tries to set them up in today's world or the one who doesn't comprehend the difference between discussing a mans biography and a mans theory?

 

I have laid out what I mean in front of you before. Instead of giving a proper comment, you just simply said "wrong". So don't come to me talking about how I don't understand anything when you are incapable of showing me why.

Edited March 23, 2017 by Ben No.3

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Who has less understanding of a historical figure? The one who takes biographical information and tries to set them up in today's world or the one who doesn't comprehend the difference between discussing a mans biography and a mans theory?

The one who hasn't bothered to read their work. Your understanding seems to come from wikipedia and fan fiction.

 

I have laid out what I mean in front of you before. Instead of giving a proper comment, you just simply said "wrong". So don't come to me talking about how I don't understand anything when you are incapable of showing me why.

At best what you meant was that you like to play with alternative history navel gazing. It doesn't matter what Marx would think if somehow ripped from the 19th century to be transplanted in the modern world, becauae that's not going to happen and is frankly irrelevant to a discussion on his theory or historocal contributions. You may as well speculate if Thomas Jefferson would have been a white nationalist or if Genghis Khan would be operating a resturant if taken out of historical context and given modern sensibilities.

[Chilloutman]

At best what you meant was that you like to play with alternative history navel gazing. It doesn't matter what Marx would think if somehow ripped from the 19th century to be transplanted in the modern world, becauae that's not going to happen and is frankly irrelevant to a discussion on his theory or historocal contributions. You may as well speculate if Thomas Jefferson would have been a white nationalist or if Genghis Khan would be operating a resturant if taken out of historical context and given modern sensibilities.

Savage

[Rosbjerg]

Breaking news: Teamwork helps students do better.

 

Up next - Vygotsky's zone of proximal development! Are we more motivated when properly challenged? Find out next!

[FlintlockJazz]

At the risk of going OT have you guys noticed over the years the posting habits of the self proclaimed "socialists" and "communists"? Even the ones that were not trolls they seem to have a single minded devotion to their favored socioeconomic philosophy. It's all they ever talk about. Every topic they start, nearly every word they write range from the rantings of a zealot to the pleadings of a preacher trying to "convert" everyone to their faith. Don't get me wrong. We all love to argue over politics and economics but we also talk about sports, booze, women, men, movies, games, and day to day life. We have had a few (maybe more than a few) "true believers" along the way and it seems to me they can discuss nothing else. Real one-trick-ponies. I don't mean this as a criticism, merely and observation.

Er, personally I see it from all sides, think it depends on your own political leanings and who you hang around with.  People often only knowingly engage a person of a differing view when they are arguing with them, other times they hang with like-minded friends or don't discuss politics at all.

 

The most extreme example of what you are suggesting that I have seen was of a (US political party) Libertarian who loved Ayn Rand.  Both the Right and Left leaning members of the forum we were on found his constant postings of his favourite pet hates and proclamations to be tiring, especially since trying to engage with him usually resulted in him launching personal attacks while accusing everyone else of ad hominens and dichotomies and the like.  Fun times.

[Guard Dog]

 

At the risk of going OT have you guys noticed over the years the posting habits of the self proclaimed "socialists" and "communists"? Even the ones that were not trolls they seem to have a single minded devotion to their favored socioeconomic philosophy. It's all they ever talk about. Every topic they start, nearly every word they write range from the rantings of a zealot to the pleadings of a preacher trying to "convert" everyone to their faith. Don't get me wrong. We all love to argue over politics and economics but we also talk about sports, booze, women, men, movies, games, and day to day life. We have had a few (maybe more than a few) "true believers" along the way and it seems to me they can discuss nothing else. Real one-trick-ponies. I don't mean this as a criticism, merely and observation.

Er, personally I see it from all sides, think it depends on your own political leanings and who you hang around with.  People often only knowingly engage a person of a differing view when they are arguing with them, other times they hang with like-minded friends or don't discuss politics at all.

 

The most extreme example of what you are suggesting that I have seen was of a (US political party) Libertarian who loved Ayn Rand.  Both the Right and Left leaning members of the forum we were on found his constant postings of his favourite pet hates and proclamations to be tiring, especially since trying to engage with him usually resulted in him launching personal attacks while accusing everyone else of ad hominens and dichotomies and the like.  Fun times.

 

Zealotry is seldom a virtue no matter what cause it's dedicated to.

[Guard Dog]

 

At the risk of going OT have you guys noticed over the years the posting habits of the self proclaimed "socialists" and "communists"? Even the ones that were not trolls they seem to have a single minded devotion to their favored socioeconomic philosophy. It's all they ever talk about. Every topic they start, nearly every word they write range from the rantings of a zealot to the pleadings of a preacher trying to "convert" everyone to their faith. Don't get me wrong. We all love to argue over politics and economics but we also talk about sports, booze, women, men, movies, games, and day to day life. We have had a few (maybe more than a few) "true believers" along the way and it seems to me they can discuss nothing else. Real one-trick-ponies. I don't mean this as a criticism, merely and observation.

 

GD's saying the One Trick Ponies only stay in their particular lane and keep their blinders on. Never venturing off to discuss anything else.

 

Like Oby. Obisidian's very own pet Putin mole.

 

Exactly, perfect example by the way. KP too.

 

Ben, this is not a criticism of you. Although you do check off the box. And some of those names I listed were not nice folks. That certainly does not apply to you. But any time I see your name starting a new thread I don't need to read the title to know what it's about.  It's all you ever post about. You are of course free to post whatever you wish and talk socialism to your hearts content. Engaging folks with different views is both healthy and immensely entertaining and you are not it's only but probably most dedicated advocate here. But, as others have pointed out, when it's all you ever talk about it does wear thin after a while. How many times ca you have the same conversation? There is a lot more going on in the world than politics and economics. 

[Amentep]

Question answered, posting corrected

[Chilloutman]

 

http://www.kcra.com/article/british-police-search-for-associates-linked-to-parliament-attacker/9172017

 

8 arrests already, good and prompt work UK authorities 

 

Wrong thread?

 

well its kinda socialist experiment as well...

[FlintlockJazz]

 

 

At the risk of going OT have you guys noticed over the years the posting habits of the self proclaimed "socialists" and "communists"? Even the ones that were not trolls they seem to have a single minded devotion to their favored socioeconomic philosophy. It's all they ever talk about. Every topic they start, nearly every word they write range from the rantings of a zealot to the pleadings of a preacher trying to "convert" everyone to their faith. Don't get me wrong. We all love to argue over politics and economics but we also talk about sports, booze, women, men, movies, games, and day to day life. We have had a few (maybe more than a few) "true believers" along the way and it seems to me they can discuss nothing else. Real one-trick-ponies. I don't mean this as a criticism, merely and observation.

Er, personally I see it from all sides, think it depends on your own political leanings and who you hang around with.  People often only knowingly engage a person of a differing view when they are arguing with them, other times they hang with like-minded friends or don't discuss politics at all.

 

The most extreme example of what you are suggesting that I have seen was of a (US political party) Libertarian who loved Ayn Rand.  Both the Right and Left leaning members of the forum we were on found his constant postings of his favourite pet hates and proclamations to be tiring, especially since trying to engage with him usually resulted in him launching personal attacks while accusing everyone else of ad hominens and dichotomies and the like.  Fun times.

 

Zealotry is seldom a virtue no matter what cause it's dedicated to.

 

Damn right, its the polarisation that I see happening that has me worried more than anything else.  Trying to convince a friend that going too far Left is just as bad as going too far Right is not something I expected to have to do in this day and age...

[BruceVC]

 

http://www.kcra.com/article/british-police-search-for-associates-linked-to-parliament-attacker/9172017

 

8 arrests already, good and prompt work UK authorities 

 

Wrong thread?

 

Yes please move