• Scott Brown Tries Balancing Act as Tea Party Favorite in a Blue State
    295 replies, posted
i mean really, rules for radicals is really plain, unobjectionable stuff. It's nothing but techniques for passing out fliers and learning how to handle defeat
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;21337307]Rules for Radicals never suggests smear tactics. It's usually a good idea to know about things before you talk about them.[/QUOTE] Really? Have you read rules for radicals? I in fact happen to be in possession of a copy, but since I know you don't, you can look it up on wikipedia. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals[/url]
[QUOTE=Lambeth;21336393]Burden of proof is on you Glaber[/QUOTE] Okay, first, lets define Brainwashing. [quote=wikipedia]The term mind control (also known as brainwashing, coercive persuasion, thought control, or thought reform) refers to a process in which a group or individual "systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated".[1] The term has been applied[by whom?] to any tactic, psychological or otherwise, which can be seen as subverting an individual's sense of control over their own thinking, behavior, emotions or decision making. Theories of brainwashing and of mind control were originally developed to explain how totalitarian regimes appeared to succeed in systematically indoctrinating prisoners of war through propaganda and torture techniques. These theories were later expanded and modified, by psychologists including Margaret Singer, to explain a wider range of phenomena, especially conversions to new religious movements (NRMs). A third-generation theory proposed by Ben Zablocki focused on the utilization of mind control to retain members of NRMs and cults. The suggestion that NRMs use mind control techniques has resulted in scientific and legal controversy. Neither the American Psychological Association nor the American Sociological Association have found any scientific merit in such theories.[2][/quote] Now let me compare my experience. Some propaganda I remember was from around the WW2 Era and was seen in history class. (No effect as it was out of date) Some of the propaganda from today I see are usually pro Obama or pro Democrat. (No effect) My only torture comes from my Homework. I never liked homework. (No political effect) While growing up I only considered Talk Radio boring and wanted to listen to music like oldies 104.3 or Radio Disney. It wasn't until the 2008 election that I even though of paying attention to Talk radio or Fox News at all. If it wasn't for Obama, I wouldn't even be posting these topics here. [QUOTE=Not Tishler;21336409]He's not, and that grammatically doesn't make sense. are you implying the job market for federal workers is rising? So what? it raises [b]unemployment[/b], shit gets done, and the benefits happen to be damn good. Glenn literally makes shit up[/QUOTE] Did you really mean unemployment? [QUOTE=PrismatexV8;21337338]This kid is either a Glaber sockpuppet or the most unintentionally ironic name of the milllenium.[/QUOTE] *Jaw Drops* Sigma-Lambda, A sockpuppet for me? That's the most unbelievable thing I ever read. And I post Fox news articles! Currently taking notes on a non wiki source for Marxism.
[QUOTE=Glaber;21337456]Okay, first, lets define Brainwashing.[/QUOTE] i am still waiting for your definition of marxism. I want you to prove to me that you know what marxism is, because I'm pretty sure you don't [QUOTE=CriticalThought;21337436]Really? Have you read rules for radicals? I in fact happen to be in possession of a copy, but since I know you don't, you can look it up on wikipedia. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals[/URL][/QUOTE] show me where it advocates smear tactics
holy fucking shit glaber are you actually retarded
lolz radio disney [editline]06:13PM[/editline] my 17 year old autistic brother listens to radio disney
I'm scared because 104.3 is my favourite rock stations frequency
[QUOTE=Glaber;21337456] [QUOTE=PrismatexV8;21337338]This kid is either a Glaber sockpuppet or the most unintentionally ironic name of the milllenium.[/QUOTE] *Jaw Drops* Sigma-Lambda, A sockpuppet for me? That's the most unbelievable thing I ever read. And I post Fox news articles![/QUOTE] He meant CriticalThought
i'm still waiting for answers to my two questions. get on the ball you guys
First off, the book goes on to state that any means are justified to get to an end deemed important, and ethics only matter when dealing with trivialities. It also states that more important than knowing what you're actually talking about is to be good at persuading people to join your side, and better than ACTUALLY ENGAGING IN OPEN DEBATE is to cause confusion in your opponent by going off topic. Another tactic that it even says on wikipedia for you to read since you don't have the book is that you should ridicule your opponent and cause him to be confused and angry so he does something that damages his favour. Basically if you can't actually get people on your side using your own arguments, just make your opponent look dumb and it doesn't matter if he is actually right because the uninformed masses will flock to you anyway. This is the very definition of a smear campaign. Anyway, rather than going off topic, how about we discuss the actual point that I made about crashtheteaparty
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;21338211]First off, the book goes on to state that any means are jusitified to get to an end deemed important, and ethics only matter when dealing with trivialities.[/QUOTE] Nope, he says the exact opposite. He says that the ends and means must be judged on an individual basis. [QUOTE=CriticalThought;21338211] It also states that more important than knowing what you're actually talking about is to be good at persauding people to join your side, and better than ACTUALLY ENGAGING IN OPEN DEBATE is to cause confusion in your opponent by going off topic. [/QUOTE] No. He doesn't characterize persuasion as more important than facts, he just characterizes persuasion as important. It doesn't matter if you have all the facts in the world, if you have no charisma you're not going to get anywhere. [QUOTE=CriticalThought;21338211] Another tactic that it even says on wikipedia for you to read since you don't have the book is that you should ridicule your opponent and cause him to be confused and angry so he does something that damages his favour. Basically if you can't actually get people on your side using your own arguments, just make your opponent look dumb and it doesn't matter if he is actually right because the uninformed masses will flock to you anyway. [/QUOTE] That's only your loaded interpretation of it. He never suggests ridiculing your opponent. It's pretty clear he means ridicule of their positions. He never suggests ad hominem. [QUOTE=CriticalThought;21338211] This is the very definition of a smear campaign.[/QUOTE] No, a smear campaign is where you spread misinformation about your opponent. Even in your misrepresentation of the work, you cannot characterize his tactics as that.
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;21338164]i'm still waiting for answers to my two questions. get on the ball you guys[/QUOTE] I'm working on your Marxism question. I'm typing it up in Open Office Writer as I post.
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;21338211] Anyway, rather than going off topic, how about we discuss the actual point that I made about crashtheteaparty[/QUOTE] They don't represent the opposition to the tea parties as a whole. What they're doing is dumb, but it doesn't mean that everyone who opposes the tea parties is wrong. They're just a small little sect.
[QUOTE=Glaber;21338417]I'm working on your Marxism question. I'm typing it up in Open Office Writer as I post.[/QUOTE] I admire your dedication.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;21338772]I admire your dedication.[/QUOTE] lol his answer is going to be so bad
[QUOTE=JDK721;21338914]lol his answer is going to be so bad[/QUOTE] ill work through it tomorrow, goin to bed
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;21338956]ill work through it tomorrow, goin to bed[/QUOTE] goodnight sweet prince
god damn glaber just quit [editline]10:28PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Glaber;21338417]I'm working on your Marxism question. I'm typing it up in Open Office Writer as I post.[/QUOTE] It shouldn't take that long god damn
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;21339051]god damn glaber just quit [editline]10:28PM[/editline] It shouldn't take that long god damn[/QUOTE] He's trying [i]really[/i] hard not to seem like an idiot.
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;21338392]Nope, he says the exact opposite. He says that the ends and means must be judged on an individual basis.[/QUOTE] Well actually, it states that in war the end always justifies any means, so I'm guessing he would condone rape and genocide if it helped contribute to winning a war (which it does, so essentially he is condoning it and anything else you can name). Also if you look at the sixth rule: "[i]The sixth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that the less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.[/i]" So pretty much exactly what I said. The seventh rule: "[i]The seventh rule of the ethics of means and ends is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.[/i]" Basically if you fail your ethics can be called bad because previous supporters will distance themselves from you anyway, but if you win it doesn't matter what ethics you used because you won so FUCKIN' IN YO FACE BITCHES! The eighth rule is very similar to the seventh and it just reaffirms that if you do some dastardly deed to save yourself from defeat then ethics don't matter and you should be commended on it. The tenth rule: "[i] The tenth rule of ethics of means and ends is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.[/i]" He goes on to say that it doesn't matter what you do as long as you can make enough people support you. The eleventh rule is basically the same in saying no matter what you do if you make it sound appealing and like it is within good ethics you should do it. [QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;21338392]No. He doesn't characterize persuasion as more important than facts, he just characterizes persuasion as important. It doesn't matter if you have all the facts in the world, if you have no charisma you're not going to get anywhere.[/QUOTE] He actually put the most important aspect as being able to appeal to people's personal experience because that will make them like you and commit to your side. [QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;21338392]That's only your loaded interpretation of it. He never suggests ridiculing your opponent. It's pretty clear he means ridicule of their positions. He never suggests ad hominem.[/QUOTE] "[i]Ridicule is a man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.[/i]" It states that this rule is part of the fourth rule which is: "[i]Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.[/i]" This doesn't mean the person's position, in fact it's not clear at all about that as for these rules are some of the few where there are but 4 or 5 lines devoted to them and he doesn't run off on some anecdotal rant. What IS clear here is that what is being condoned is ridiculing opponents based on their own standards and ideals, so when it is actually the Tea Party that stands up for libertarian rights these idiots at crashtheteaparty berate them for racism and homophobia due to a small minority despite it actually having the opposite to do with the ideology of the group. [QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;21338392]No, a smear campaign is where you spread misinformation about your opponent. Even in your misrepresentation of the work, you cannot characterize his tactics as that.[/QUOTE] Smear campaigning is actually doing anything that has a sole negative impact on the opposition. It's usually a good idea to know about things before you talk about them. [QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;21338392]They don't represent the opposition to the tea parties as a whole. What they're doing is dumb, but it doesn't mean that everyone who opposes the tea parties is wrong. They're just a small little sect.[/QUOTE] This is exactly what I said, not anything about them representing the opposition as a whole.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;21339051]god damn glaber just quit [editline]10:28PM[/editline] It shouldn't take that long god damn[/QUOTE] Sorry, went into School paper mode for a moment there. If I went into full School paper mode this would had taken longer and have APA citations. [quote= Glaber's answer]Marxism is a Social and economic system from Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Summed up it is a theory that states that class struggle is a central element of social change in Western Societies. According to allaboutphilosophy.org “Marxism is the system of socialism of which the dominant feature is public ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.” Marxism is the antithesis of capitalism. What this means is that according to Marx, in capitalism, all you own is your ability to work and the people are only given minimum wage. According to allaboutphilosophy.org “A proletariat or socialist revolution must occur, according to Marx, where the state (the means by which the ruling class forcibly maintains rule over the other classes) is a dictatorship of the proletariat. Communism evolves from socialism out of this progression: the socialist slogan is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” The communist slogan varies thusly: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”” The ruling class being a new socialist government. According to marxist.com, Marxism is also called ”Scientific Socialism” . This website also states “The theories of Marxism provide the thinking worker with such an understanding--a thread which is capable of leading him through the confused labyrinth of events, of the complex processes of society, of economics, of the struggle of classes, of politics. Armed with this sword the worker can cut the Gordian knot which binds him to the mightiest obstacle in the way of the advancement of himself and his class--ignorance. “ In High School, I've been lead to believe otherwise. We even had to watch an animated adaption of Animal farm. Marxism also blames recessions on Capitalism. While this may be true, Capitalism also provides the tools to get out of a recession. wiki.answers.com states that “the Manifesto goes on to explain that the government would be run by the proletariat (the people) for the proletariat and everyone would be paid equally, given equal chances at schools etc. The government would have one ultimate leader and have all of their businesses owned by the government, so that no one business could become too powerful and push out small businesses painfully creating much economic strain on the owners and turning them out to the streets with little chance of survival.” The same site also states that “Marxism caused the death of Fredrich Engels and forced Karl Marx to flee Germany in efforts to escape from angry mobs, he later died in England. “ This would lead me to believe that Marxism does not work. Now How do I believe this applies to the Obama administration and Obama today? First, Tax the Rich. By making the Rich a target you are making class divisions by money. This can happen by making the people think that all rich people didn't earn the money they have. In doing so you can then make the people who are not rich angry at the rich and support any tax you want to do “Against the Rich”. Second. If Marxism is the system of socialism of which the dominant feature is public ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, then The US government's taking over of GM, Chrysler, the Student loan industry, and attempted take over of health care should qualify it for the Marxist title. Third, with the government take over of Student loans, it appears that the government is attempting equal chances at schools. But a problem with that is that it does not guarantee the schools' quality. Just take a look at Detroit area schools. Sources: [url]http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_marxism[/url] [url]http://www.marxist.com/what-is-marxism-economics-materialism.htm[/url] [url]http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/what-is-marxism-faq.htm[/url] [/quote] EDIT: TLDR line removed. See below for why.
that is not a long read furthermore obama's link to socialism(according to you) are flimsy at best.
Just a couple of observations, though I liked the effort you put in [i]In High School, I've been lead to believe otherwise. We even had to watch an animated adaption of Animal farm.[/i] Isn't that a movie adaptation that basically fucks with the books message to push the anti-Soviet, Cold War, American Agenda? [i]Marxism also blames recessions on Capitalism. While this may be true, Capitalism also provides the tools to get out of a recession.[/i] Sounds to me like Capitalism is a cycle of relative prosperity couples with crushing market crashes [i]“Marxism caused the death of Fredrich Engels and forced Karl Marx to flee Germany in efforts to escape from angry mobs, he later died in England. “ [/i] This was the 1800s. This shit was pretty radical back then, as was a lot of things. Plus Marx renounced his Prussian citizenship and moved around trying to educate factory workers who had next to zero rights, because the Industrial Revolution was kinda like that [editline]12:16AM[/editline] I'm dog-tired btw so whatever
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;21337353]i mean really, rules for radicals is really plain, unobjectionable stuff. It's nothing but techniques for passing out fliers and learning how to handle defeat[/QUOTE] Ole' Glenn told my aunt to buy Rules for Radicals, she gave it to me in hopes that it would change my mind about our present government and how it operates. So having read it I totally agree with you, all pretty unobjectionable stuff, it's not the communist manifesto, there is no real creed, it's just a book.
[QUOTE=Triumph Forks;21339912] [i]In High School, I've been lead to believe otherwise. We even had to watch an animated adaption of Animal farm.[/i] Isn't that a movie adaptation that basically fucks with the books message to push the anti-Soviet, Cold War, American Agenda?[/QUOTE] No, I don't think so, but I can check. Just need to check out the Animated movie from the Library and compare it to the book. Oddly enough, the copy of the book I have was not suppose to be sold here in the US according to unmarked pages 121-126 and the back cover.
So it was a censored version you were supposed to have been given? That's pretty, uh, =\
[QUOTE=Glaber;21340017][QUOTE=Triumph Forks;21339912] [i]In High School, I've been lead to believe otherwise. We even had to watch an animated adaption of Animal farm.[/i] Isn't that a movie adaptation that basically fucks with the books message to push the anti-Soviet, Cold War, American Agenda?[/QUOTE] No, I don't think so, but I can check. Just need to check out the Animated movie from the Library and compare it to the book. Oddly enough, the copy of the book I have was not suppose to be sold here in the US according to unmarked pages 121-126 and the back cover.[/QUOTE] The Kelsey Grammer version is the best anyway
[QUOTE=Glaber;21336207]Ask Glen Beck. (I should have payed better attention) Editing EDIT: Redistributing the wealth, the major job markets growing are in government. Glen should have better examples. But chances are you wouldn't even give him the time of day.[/QUOTE] You have to be a troll
Speaking of Glenn Beck: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-faCh8BUEts[/media]
[QUOTE=Glaber;21339454]Sorry, went into School paper mode for a moment there. If I went into full School paper mode this would had taken longer and have APA citations. EDIT: TLDR line removed. See below for why.[/QUOTE] marxism is not a system of socialism
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.