Politics Episode 8: WWF Edition

[Raithe]

Vox - Pew Study

 

 

 

 

Most Republicans think colleges are bad for the country, and the vast majority think the news media is too, according to new data from the Pew Research Center. The Pew study, conducted from June 8 to 18 among more than 2,000 respondents, found that Democrats and Republicans are growing substantially more divided in their opinions on public institutions.

 

 

 

According to the survey results released Monday, 58 percent of Republican and Republican-leaning independents say that colleges and universities have had a negative impact on the nation — the first time a majority of Republicans have thought colleges are bad for the country. As recently as 2015, 54 percent of Republicans said colleges and universities had a positive impact on the way things were going in the country, but by 2016 those results split to 43 percent positive and 45 percent negative.

 

On the other side of the aisle, 72 percent of Democrats and Democratic leaners say they think colleges and universities have a positive effect on the country, holding steady with past years’ results.

 

Pew doesn’t speculate on the reason for the decline, but over the past few years, colleges, particularly elite colleges, have made headlines for a series of controversies and protests around racism, free speech, and civil rights. In 2015, the football team at the University of Missouri went on strike to protest the handling of racist incidents on campus, and Yale was rocked by controversy about the proper way to address insensitive Halloween costumes.

 

More recently, students have protested and sometimes disrupted appearances from controversial figures associated with Donald Trump or the conservative movement. Fox News has closely tracked these protests, portraying liberals on campus as frequently violent and disruptive.

Republicans are especially cynical about the news

The partisan divide was even sharper when it came to the media. Only 10 percent of Republicans thought the media had a positive effect on the way things are going in the US.

Meanwhile, 44 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents have a positive view of the news media’s impact on the nation — an 11-point increase since August 2016.

 

Much of this widening divide might be attributed to Trump’s political messaging, which declares an all-out war on the media. This month alone, the president tweeted a GIF featuring himself beating up a man with a CNN logo superimposed over his head and a personal attack on MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski. Indeed, since the presidential election in November, Google search trends reveal that mentions of “fake news” have skyrocketed, hinting at the changing public opinion toward news outlets.

 

Despite the widening partisan gap, however, Pew reports that the public’s overall views on the effect of institutions on the nation are relatively unchanged. Polarization may have increased, but the uptick in Democrats’ positive views balance out Republicans’ increasingly negative ones.

 

 

[Gfted1]

The mods have embraced the immortal science of Marxism-Leninism.

 

Does that somehow involve drones?

[Ben No.3]

Well, to be fair, Russian communism, which is the example you have been using, is itself a bit of a take on Marxism with Leninism added. Every other 'communist' has been some variant off of Marxism/Socialism.

Be careful with the term "Marxism-Leninism"... it has surprisingly little to do with either Marx or Lenin and is, more or less, a product of Stalin, mostly used for justification of his actions. Later became the term for specifically Soviet-style communism.

 

Also, this doesn't always apply... Castro for example has repeatedly described himself as a Marxist-Leninist.

Edited July 10, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Blarghagh]

The mods have embraced the immortal science of Marxism-Leninism.

I'm a singularitarian.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

The mods have embraced the immortal science of Marxism-Leninism.

 

 

Does that somehow involve drones?

Only an army of them.

 

Is socialism too dirty?

Oh yes.

 

[Zoraptor]

 

 

[quote name="BruceVC" post="1923287"

So unless you can produce links we will just ignore your comment

 

And when you do produce links BruceVC will ignore them also as he did numerous times before so just don't bother.

No I can produce a link anytime if required and applicable. Why do you think I am always correct in our debates and why do I always come across as convincing

 

You need to start learning to create your views based on links....this way you will be comfortable having a debate 

 

Everytime someone gives a link you ignore the link.

Everytime I saw you made a claim you were 99% time wrong and you convinced no one ever.

 

 

I ain't going to reply to Bruce unless he puts some genuine effort in. He already admitted to low effort trolling of people who are ignoring him (pointlessly asking for links, deliberately writing wrong stuff to get corrections) to get replies so he won't get anything at all until he's earned it.

 

Fair to say that I will not be holding my breath waiting.

[Malcador]

Seems like that impenetrable cyber security initiative died quicker than planned.

[Meshugger]

What Ben is trying to say is that if he was in charge we would have the right kind communism. Why do all these faux communists behave like the aristocracy that they claim to hate?

[Rosbjerg]

Hey, I can do it too

 

 

Both system are less than ideal.. And while Capitalism certainly worked wonders from 1750 til 1980 - it's starting to show weaknesses. It's designed for a closed system of exponential industrial growth, that requires ever increasing capital, which is pretty hard to achieve on a finite planet hitting its sustainable population limit.

 

But perhaps crytpo-currency might save capitalism and make it compatible with an electronic age - there's after all room for exponential growth in human ingenuity.

If we don't do something however, we might be adding a fifth to that list above.

[Chilloutman]

capitalism at least worked for some time already and it seems its not killing its own citizens where communism worked for few years in one country and even then it was killing its own citizens. I just can't see why someone still believe it as viable option

[Guard Dog]

 I just can't see why someone still believe it as viable option

There are folks who just love the notion of seeing everyone with opinions differing from theirs lined up and shot.

[Rosbjerg]

capitalism at least worked for some time already and it seems its not killing its own citizens where communism worked for few years in one country and even then it was killing its own citizens. I just can't see why someone still believe it as viable option

 

Capitalism certainly kill less of the citizen that benefit from it and it does so much differently than failed communism states, who brutalizes those who oppose it's political ideology. But to say that capitalism has completely blood-free hands is equally naive. 

 

We allow millions to die of starvation and disease, because it would be unprofitable to cure the cause. We can sugarcoat it in as much ideology as we want, but those are hard facts.

 

In it's worst manifestation, imperialism, capitalism also drives nations to invade and and conquer other nations to offset trade imbalances and export suffering away from those who benefit from it - it is, by a very large degree, one of the best systems we have devised for building a middle class. But it does not come without suffering.

 

Edit: this is not to advocate communism by the way - I'm in no way a supporter of that system. Just to say that we too easily discard the true cost of our way of life.

[Guard Dog]

Yep. Capitalism, the worst system in the world. Except all the others.

 

You all have heard me say this a hundred times. The goal should be a society that maximizes the freedom of the individual. The biggest incentive to work and improve oneself is the ability to enjoy the rewards of doing that. You won't hear me arguing for complete laissez-faire capitalism. There must be some regulation on a free market. but it should be kept to a minimum. That's good for consumers, good for producers, good for everyone. Even the liberty we hold so dear cannot be absolute. Only nearly so. And we are forced to accept a government that had can keep a free market free while being lightly regulated and a free society free while being lightly restrained. No one has quite figured out how to do that yet. We certainly haven't even after 241 years of trying in the USA. But going in the opposite direction, a government that controls everything and equalizes everyone by force? No. I'd take up arms against it today. I'd rather die with my guns in my hands than live one day under even the most benevolent form of communism.

 

To quote Thomas Paine "Government even in it's best state is but a necessary evil. In it's worst state an intolerable one."

[Malcador]

capitalism at least worked for some time already and it seems its not killing its own citizens where communism worked for few years in one country and even then it was killing its own citizens. I just can't see why someone still believe it as viable option

Think there's a famous Marine's quote about this. Should have gone with killing less instead of none

[Chilloutman]

 

capitalism at least worked for some time already and it seems its not killing its own citizens where communism worked for few years in one country and even then it was killing its own citizens. I just can't see why someone still believe it as viable option

Think there's a famous Marine's quote about this. Should have gone with killing less instead of none

 

I was talking about own citizens, but ok less

[Gorgon]

 

We allow millions to die of starvation and disease, because it would be unprofitable to cure the cause. We can sugarcoat it in as much ideology as we want, but those are hard facts.

Name those capitalistic countries that allow their citizens to die of starvation and disease by the millions.

And to stop you from going that way. No! Not helping some other country halfway around the globe that have suffered by failed socialistic/communistic "utopia" isn't capitalism "failure". We judge the system by how it cater to it's own citizens. Everything they do for other countries is just icing on the cake.

It boggles me that there are people who can see murdering their own citizens as a "minor bug" in communism, but if capitalism cannot save the entire world from hunger and disease by this afternoon it's somehow a critical failure of the system.

 

In it's worst manifestation, imperialism, capitalism also drives nations to invade and and conquer other nations to offset trade imbalances and export suffering away from those who benefit from it - it is, by a very large degree, one of the best systems we have devised for building a middle class. But it does not come without suffering.

WUT?!

 

How imperialism can be a manifestation of capitalism when it predates capitalism by a longshot?

Imperialism is extending nations power by the acquisition of territories and capitalism is an economic system.

They have nothing to do with each other.

Imperialism can be present in capitalistic countries like US and also in communistic countries like Soviet Union.

 

Blaming capitalism for things that happen or would happen regardless of the presence of capitalism is weird.

If there is "oh so much" wrong with capitalism why the examples are always superfluous and nonsensical?

 

Colonialism and Capitalism go hand in hand. There are too many examples to list. just to chose one ; the East India company ?

[injurai]

The ol' talk that even capitalism is only perfect on paper. But at least if actually functions in some degree as a decentralized hierarchy. One that you can advance in over time. One that benefits from economic mobility and can shift labor around. Communism requires strong centralization and misses it's opportunity to act in the economic sphere, to disastrous effect.

 

I also don't think people say capitalism and mean a pure system. Not for a long time at least, even predating communism. Communism by it's very nature wants to be better than a hybridized system and it needs a strong arm to pull it off. Otherwise you will always end up with a hybrid system that is an emergent result of optimizing on the freedom of the individual. The real debate is how socialist/capitalist and where and when and how each side of that coin should pan out.

 

The real problem is that the boom or bust nature of well... nature, now plays out at a global economic scale. Just like a slime mold that consumes all its food, it will die off at the fringes. I think communism is a system that kills itself. Capitalism just let's itself grow until it reaches a limit where it's own fringes wither (literally meaning people dying.) But overall things have balanced out so there is almost a "standing wave of suffering." Which seems far less severe than the suffering that results from imposing the communist model on entire populations.

[Zoraptor]

 

Colonialism and Capitalism go hand in hand. There are too many examples to list. just to chose one ; the East India company ?

 

 

Yep, tens of millions of Indians starved growing opium to sell to the Chinese literally so that Britain could get cheap tea. That's pretty human though, Kongo Free State was probably worse in terms of being inhuman and calculatedly brutal. I bet a billion dollars against 2c there will be a No True Scotsman defence incoming.

 

There's also plenty of example of ideologically driven mass killings in the name of capitalism, Latin America is riven with examples (eg Mayan Genocide in Guatemala, pretty much anything involving UFC/ Chiquita).

Edited July 11, 2017 by Zoraptor

[Chilloutman]

seems like you all missed OWN citizens part...

[Zoraptor]

Queen Vic was Empress of India- they were her subjects every bit as much as the Ockers, Canadians or Brits. At the time most Brits had the exact same voting rights as an Indian, too, ie none. The modern concept of 'citizen' is, well, modern. If we go by citizens then capitalism in the southern US had no victims because the slave owners were citizens while the slaves weren't.

 

Hmm. There are claims coming in that al-Baghdadi was killed in a Russian airstrike 3 weeks ago. There were lots of rumours and circumstantial evidence at the time, but some now claim that ISIS has a statement admitting it.

Edited July 11, 2017 by Zoraptor

[Chilloutman]

now you mixing feudal system versus democracy into mix...

[Malcador]

seems like you all missed OWN citizens part...

Is that important? If a system (as much as ideas can do anything anyway) is racking up corpses, does their passport matter much when it comes to being "good" or not?

[Chilloutman]

ah, rainbow brigade is coming

[Gorgon]

seems like you all missed OWN citizens part...

Even if, it's not like that would make it better. It's easy enough to improve the lives of your citizens simply by exploiting someone else. That doesn't make it a preferable system. Rome was a success for the most part for the Romans, until the Gauls had had enough. It's a delicate thing a society, lots of factors go into making it durable and constant war and exploitation of your neighbors isn't one of them.

 

Anyway that was Rome, not analogous to a modern Capitalist society except for those few points. 

[injurai]

now you mixing feudal system versus democracy into mix...

 

I honestly think America is more or less a feudal system. Especially the way healthcare and benefits are largely due to being associated with a company. Honestly it looks remarkably similar to japan in the late Nanboku-chō period. So basically pre-feudal. The only real distinction being the rise of the samurai class, which would be our police force more or less. #SamuraiLivesMatter amiright? Yeah... see what I mean? Totally pre-feudal, more so than any of the claims that we are an oligarchy.