You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: AOC is self destructing

in #politics6 years ago

Okay @cyberdemon531, you appear interested in having our “conversation” continue. While I will make no pretense to having the enthusiasm for it you appear to have, I am willing to go forward. For now …

Rules of Engagement:

  1. Civil and respectful at all times. You’ve already “danced on the line” in what you’ve written to me prior to this. Anything remotely close to how you’ve chosen to express yourself elsewhere on this post and this “conversation” will be over.
  2. Setting expectations on time commitment, I am very unlikely to match the time you appear to have to “engage.” Meaning there will likely be delays at times, in hearing back from me. I will always follow through, however, and my commitment is you will always know what to expect. Specifically, I will let you know, if I decide I am no longer willing to “engage” … And the reasons for my decision … Otherwise, I will be getting back to you …

Simple. Straightforward. At least to me. I will assume so for you as well, unless I hear otherwise.

While I may in the future chose to come back and comment more specifically on any of these many topics you’ve raised, that is not where I want to begin myself. You elected to let pass my reference to your presumed “moral superiority” in expressing yourself the way that you have thus far. You’ve not challenged this, so either you missed it or you accept it as true. Until you indicate otherwise, I will assume the latter to be true, since it is unmistakably clear (to me) from your manner of communicating.

Questions:

  1. My position is what we think is based upon the foundation of what we believe, i.e. our system of belief. Do you agree? If so, how would you describe your system of belief?
  2. What is the experience base from which you have learned / derived all that you have chosen to say thus far?
  3. Your Steem profile references being an “anarchist communist” … In your view, how accurately does this associated Wikipedia article describe your political philosophy?

That’s it for now. Some of our extended family is getting together this afternoon, so it is unlikely I will have time to write more today. If I do, it will be later tonight ...

Sort:  
In response to your rules:
  1. I am civil until the person I talk to proves themselves to be irrational. I was civil with @meno until he started defending concentration camps and even going as far as promoting and upvoting nazi eugenics posts. If you dont do that (which it seems like you arent) then we are good to go. Same with the other guy whose name I can't remember because he's irrelevant.
  2. Time is not a concern for me, take as long as you like.

I 100% believe I am morally superior to people who advocate for concentration camps, eugenics, and libel. If you want to see human suffering and you strategically position yourself to enable it, you are garbage. I don't believe that applies to you, just the others.

Answers to your Questions:

  1. My foundation of belief is that all human life is precious and that human suffering shouldn't exist. It doesn't need to from a scarcity standpoint, and thus my actions fight for redistribution of stolen wealth by the elite class. Furthermore, I am a staunch anti-racist and believe all people regardless of who or what they are should be treated based on their actions, as stated prior.Actions speak louder than words, I don't much care about what people claim to belive, I care about how their actions compare to those beliefs. Like, for example, @meno claimed to be a peace-loving liberal. However, he published lies about someone who is promoting what he claims to want. He then upvoted someone who posted nazi-style eugenics. I consider beliefs without congruent actions to be "virtue signalling" and useless.
  2. My experience base is community organizing, local political meetings, national discourse, research, historical studies, and running a livestream where I discuss it for several hours a day. I am very involved on all scenes, or at least as many as I can.
  3. I am not going to read the entire article, but rather outline what I belief more directly. We need an egalitarian society as soon as possible, we need to usurp the levers of power in the united states and across the world to use those levers for justice and for good, and slowly dissolve the need for federal government over the course of a 100 Year Plan by encouraging direct democracy in our economy via worker-collectives and others. The rise of automation and the drastic reduction in required labor is a core requirement.

Reflecting on what to cover in my next comment @cyberdemon531, I’ve settled on one of the single most important lessons learned during my long professional career. The essential, yet remarkably difficult to establish, characteristic of a good, healthy business – trust. Number one behavior needed to establish trust in a well run organization? Talking straight … Which at times led, in communicating with the teams over which I had responsibility, to my reference to “the good, the bad, and the ugly” (yes, I am a Clint Eastwood fan). So, getting to it, I will “talk straight” …

The “Good” (Easy to “hear”)

Up to this point, I can commend you for the passion and enthusiasm you “bring to the table” in addressing some of the topics discussed so far. In one way or another, I have managed teams of people since 1984. In my experience, these are characteristics I would place in the “intangibles” category. They were always present in the best hires I made over the years.

You also communicate well, if the “basics” matter anymore - good grammar, proper punctuation, and accurate spelling. Effective communication is a great skill to have and continuously develop, so … Good job!

That is largely the end of the “good” news …

The “Bad” (Not easy to “hear”)

While there is certainly more that I could learn about you as a person and the details of your political philosophy, I already know there is very little on which you and I are going to find consensus agreement. The best we might do (as I believe we already have to a small degree) is find some level of agreement on the “big picture” problems we face as a nation. But … We will almost certainly not agree from there as to the route to take in working towards a long-term solution.

You have “talked straight” above, about your political philosophy. In returning the favor, who am I? First and foremost, a devout Christian man. While not enthusiastic about the label (I would quibble over some of the details, if we went into any depth), my political philosophy is based upon what is commonly referred to as a “Judeo-Christian” worldview. I am not a fan of labels and have steadfastly resisted them over the years, although I understand well enough their value in what I consider “Easy Button” communications.

So … You identify yourself as an “anarchist communist.” For the purposes of our “conversation,” what am I? I can honestly say I don’t know what label fits best, so I’ll just describe myself instead. Sort of like you did … Having spent years studying what (even in my “formative” years in the 1960s …) is no longer effectively taught in our education system (I believe it is intentional, rather than an oversight …), I believe in and am committed to what our so-called “Founding Fathers” established in the 1700s. Based upon what they wrote down in two of the most wisdom-based and insightful documents ever produced by man – the Declaration of Independence and the U. S. Constitution – they created a form of governance that was “a beacon of light” to the world for generations.

The form of governance? A republic. A representative republic. Where “we the people,” united by the spirit of the famous phrase “E Pluribus Unum” are not ruled over by an arrogant and elitist, permanently entrenched “ruling class,” perpetually self-focused on the next election and preserving their hold on power. Instead, by “citizen statesmen” who reluctantly leave their homes and businesses to sacrificially serve as our representatives focused on the next generation, i.e. their legacy and the country which will be the future home of their children and grandchildren. Relieved when, having honorably fulfilled their responsibilities with integrity, they can come back home … [Note: If you have even the slightest interest in what I am saying here, there is a lot which has been written about the famous quote of Benjamin Franklin - when asked what sort of government the constitutional convention had created, he said, “A republic, if you can keep it.” What did he mean?]

The “bad” then? Should I choose to ever become politically “active” again (relatively speaking …), you and I would not in any sense of the word be allies. We would be adversaries. Politically speaking. This distinction is critically important to me, although I suspect considerably less so to you, given your demonstrated style of communicating. Specifically, I do not see myself as any better than you. Nor any different from you. Not in the ways which ultimately matter …

The “Ugly” (Difficult (very?) to “hear”)

Over the years, I have learned there are good reasons for deleting something, once I “get it out” in writing. I have just done that on what I originally wrote in this section. Not entirely, but largely based upon a powerful “word picture” I heard in a brilliant presentation many years ago. The gentleman (long since forgotten the name and context …) spoke about the “canyon” which exists between us all. And the “bridge” across this canyon over which we attempt to communicate with each other.

The “load” the bridge can support is completely dependent upon the trust established between us. Far too often, a huge mistake made in human communication is attempting to get more “weight” across this bridge than it is ready to support.

For now anyway, I decided that was the case with what I had written down …

________________________

So … Where do we go from here? From my side, if there is no relatively constructive, productive purpose to continuing on, then I will respectfully wish you well and we’ll be on our way … I know “talking straight” can (and always should, but intent is everything …) lead to “closing the gap” between two people who have differences of opinion. While they may still finish up disagreeing, at least they more clearly “see,” through the eyes of another, aspects of a topic they would likely have never uncovered on their own. Requires honesty (“brutal” honesty, at times …) and strict adherence to a rational / logical thought process …

Over the years, I have had many such conversations “face to face” in the “real world.” In here, in this “virtual world?” I have my doubts, but remain open to “listening” carefully to what you have to say in response …

Until “next time,” I hope you and yours are having a good day.

I will respond on discord like you wanted.

You certainly appear to keep up a remarkably consistent and quick response rate. And ... You have responded well ...

"Credit where credit is due" @cyberdemon531. This is just a quick note to let you know that means something to me.

I will be back ...

Posted using Partiko Android