Go Back   SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network > General Topics > The Lounge

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 13 February 2018, 09:03
doitforjonny doitforjonny is offline
pumpin gas and kickin ass
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: California
Posts: 709
Guy-

I would say that that was an example of the inefficiency of Affirmative Action and how it results in real world examples of extremely poor Realpolitick.

I get what you are referencing, but I think they are fruits from the same tree - the results of blind allegiance to a standard based on race/gender/special ethnic or socio-econamic status, and not common sense or merit.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 13 February 2018, 09:21
KidA's Avatar
KidA KidA is offline
Authorized Personnel
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: WbyGV
Posts: 18,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by doitforjonny View Post
I admit I am approaching this as a layman without a college degree.

Why does looking at definitions of words, and linking them together to follow to a conclusion not result in a 'proof' of sorts, like a geometry proof?
SMP is killing it in this thread, but if I were, say, to call you a "gay faggot" you would probably get mad that I was inferring you were homosexual, and not a happy-go-lucky bundle of sticks, right?

It sounds like you decided something was true, then went and sought to prove it was true using only the things that proved it was true to you - in other words, confirmation bias.

Words change, society changes, how we use language changes. Language is definitely not a hard science.

It's like those feminists a few years ago who thought they were super cute by writing "womyn" because they wanted to take the man out of the word - because, their confirmation bias told them, that wo- man was somehow a diminutive version of the word for males. Except back then mann meant human. Not male. It gradually transformed to meaning male and other words (wiffmann for example) became woman, meaning female. Wermann was male, wiffmann was female. So, by writing womyn instead of women or woman, what they did was take the human out of the word, not the male.

It shows how when someone assumes something they make it true in their heads, when it isn't at all.
__________________
Hey homo, its me -- Andy/SOTB
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 13 February 2018, 09:32
doitforjonny doitforjonny is offline
pumpin gas and kickin ass
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: California
Posts: 709
Look.DontTouch

Forcing a person to do something based on race seems anathema to a colorblind society.

I get the why of Affirmative Action, and don't necessarily disagree with the intent and spirit of it, but it is the legal mechanism for codifying racism into the body politic.

Nazism - the practice and policies of the National Socialist German Workers party.

Would it be a different conversation if I had titled the thread 'Affirmative Action similarities to National Socialist German Worker's party doctrine'?

And thank you to the social scientists for chiming in, I appreciate what you folks are saying, however it would appear that is addressing a root cause of conflict in our country today.

You have folks like me, who are accused of being a Fascist Nazi, going wait a second, I don't think I am, am I? I go look up on Google to check and see a one liner, and say that doesn't look right, as I recall from my high school history lessons, is there something missing?

I go and look in my old dictionary, and I find a can of worms, where the various different forms of government, and political ideologies are at the very broadest levels are tied together - IE at the end of an entry it says see:other similar word.

This gets a person to thinking about how we arrived at a situation where Socialism is now in vogue with a solid 30-40% of the country.

The dictionary definition of Socialism is that it is a transitory form of government between Capitalism and Communism, characterized by imperfect distribution of goods and services.

So in the context of the modern results of Affirmative Action, after about 20 years of implementation, you get large portions of the population advocating for this : http://www.dsausa.org/

The policy of Affirmative Action has morphed from a government program to address racial inequity (it's reverse racism) into a campus based political movement to advocate for Socialism and Communism, largely by setting the stage for disassociating personal consequence from personal performance and encouraging 'community' based solutions to everything.

There are clear similarities in what is going on right now in our country and what happened in Germany, with white supremacy being interchangeable with diversity supremacy.

Affirmative Action is the legal grandfather of this mess, in my opinion. We had laws on the books for Civil Rights. All we had to do was enforce them, we did not have to codify racism into our legal framework, and begin allocating government resources - the productivity of our people - into redistribution based on race.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 13 February 2018, 09:37
doitforjonny doitforjonny is offline
pumpin gas and kickin ass
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: California
Posts: 709
KidA -

With the speed at which language changes right now, and language is used to characterize things like political systems, and it is now being used as a weapon of censorship against half the country, ceding ground on the redefinition of the language seems to be a bad plan.

Allowing folks to redefine language into fantasy has resulted in xer, womyn etc and is specifically a result of the environment created by Affirmative Action.

I am now being censored in public if I do not use the politically correct 'party approved' speech patterns.

How is there not a connection here?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 13 February 2018, 09:45
billdawg's Avatar
billdawg billdawg is offline
Going cyclic!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Omaha,NE
Posts: 2,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by 37F5V View Post
Guy never posts in the wrong thread. The thread simply hasn't caught up to Guy yet...
lol, he's like the Chuck Norris of SOCNET posts.
__________________
Be nice, until it's time to not be nice!
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 13 February 2018, 10:48
Paul85 Paul85 is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Gdynia, Poland
Posts: 872
Problem with Affirmative Action, as with any ideology (or should I say - policy), is that it's prone to being misused.

Dictionary definitions are all fun but they often just brush on the surface of the problem at hand.

If we consider German Nazism of early 20th century, it was a movement that had its roots in Vlkisch nationalism, and Pangermanism. Long story short, it was a movement deeply rooted in German history, promoting German supremacy and need for Lebensraum. So they were just like many other nations that thought themselves to be ebtter than others. Add this to the deep feeling of Volksgemeinschaft and Spengler's ideas about West becoming decadent and weak and you can already see the mix that influenced the further turn for the worse. That turn being the entire idea of Aryan race.

How do you explain to the poor, seemingly broken by Versailles treaty nation that they fell so low? You need good reasons. Enter Jews and their supposed exploitation of the German people, the supreme warriors, the descendants of the finest of the finest master race. Plug in all the eary 20th century stories about races and Mendelian inheritance that formed the basis of eugenicism. Enter evil, primitive nations that occupy the supposedly German lands and defile their surface with their decadence. All set? good, now you just need to keep the populace's eye on the "evildoers" and ramp up propaganda while you jump-start the industry. People see the unemployment going down, get their heads up, see that maybe, if all is getting so good and the state starts to work, maybe the ideas behind it are good? Maybe they are righteous? Maybe it's the way it should be? And the definitions shift. Perception changes. Persons who were your neighbors become evil incarnate. Faraway nations become worthless scum owing you their eternal gratitude for turning them into slaves under your boot.

Why do I bring this up? because every movement, policy, action evolves. Nazism, at its roots, seemed like another souped-up nationalism. How it turned out we all know. So, I do believe that Affirmative Action could also go awry, twisting ideas behind it to suit an agenda or agendas.

If anything, the history has taught us that the ideas, movements and actions often might have seemingly innocent or only slightly egoistical roots only to turn into monsters. All depends on variables such as timeframe, socioeconomical climate, religious notions, political situation and a host of others.

So IMO yes, Affirmative Action could turn ugly. I don't like the "positive discrimination" idea. It's all good if we make the supposedly (or really) discriminated people keep up and get onto our level. The problem might be when we actively move ourselves down the ladder while artifically boosting these people up. This is not helping, it's IMO destabilizing and creating weird, artificial relationships within the society. Enter "[insert whoever's supposed to feel guilty] guilt" ideas.

Last edited by Paul85; 13 February 2018 at 10:59.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 13 February 2018, 11:23
EchoFiveMike's Avatar
EchoFiveMike EchoFiveMike is offline
Make a desert and call it peace.
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: back home, IVO chicago
Posts: 7,799
Yes, words change through time. BUT, most of the people trying to twist the meanings of words are swindling fucks who need to decorate lamp posts to discourage being that sort of swindling fuck.

Artificial complexity has no other purpose than deception. S/F....Ken M
__________________
"If you remember nothing else about what Im about to consider here, remember this: the one and only reason politicians, bureaucrats, and policemen want to take your weapons away from you is so that they can do things to you that they couldnt do if you still had your weapons." L. Neil Smith
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 13 February 2018, 12:13
doitforjonny doitforjonny is offline
pumpin gas and kickin ass
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: California
Posts: 709
E5M - a much more colorful descriptive narrative in the local vernacular :)

But, to your point, how is a lay person supposed to express their ideas in response to public commentary without resorting to a dictionary as the most basic unit of communication.

To say that digging through a dictionary is a simplistic and non-scientific approach to an intangible problem that can only be approached after studying the purchase of a $60 used textbook seems to artificially introduce a barrier between the real world and academia.

I fully appreciate that science has a method and a pedagogy, but it boggles my mind that we can ignore language and root meaning of words as a much simpler and effective way to characterize observations of the public discussion.

Its like, I can redefine the number 6 to actually represent four, so that your equation of 6+4=10 is now a completely unscientific assumption.

That clearly illustrates the disconnect between the lay person and the clergy of academia.

If I can't rely on a dictionary to describe what the words mean, and have to rely on a website from a company with clearly political agendas, and must form my opinions on them based on the context in which these new words are redefined by people I disagree with, I mean, geez, my brain hurts....

This is not to discount the scientific method, but at some point, it should be able to be translated out to the public, and the language and hard science used in academia should functionally translate to the definitions of the written word.

How the fuck can we read Plato, Aristotle, or any of the human works our country was founded on if we take the words as they were written when translated, reinvent modern definitions, and expect to arrive at common conclusions with our ancestors who built the country?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 13 February 2018, 16:02
sixgun's Avatar
sixgun sixgun is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The end of innocence
Posts: 2,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by doitforjonny View Post
How the fuck can we read Plato, Aristotle, or any of the human works our country was founded on if we take the words as they were written when translated, reinvent modern definitions, and expect to arrive at common conclusions with our ancestors who built the country?
Well, we look for the meaning of the words at the time they were written... That's called scholarship.

For example - "Well regulated..." :

In modern terms, that means "effectively controlled by rules, laws, etc."

In the vernacular of the 1700 - 1850's, that meant "well supplied." Regulators were suppliers, or the carriers of supplies, and, if you read the rules of passage thru the Northwest Territories during the gold rush in Alaska, parties were to be "inspected by the Mounties prior to departure to ensure they were sufficiently regulated" (supplied), or the notes from Powell's exploration of the Colorado River where he discusses starvation after boat swampings - "we are no longer regulated (supplied) sufficiently for the task, but must press onward as there is no retreat from the canyon available...", or the charter/rules/permit from the US government for his expedition into the Colorado River basin where he is to ensure that the party is "well regulated with sufficient quantity and type of victuals and such assorted materials as prudence and experience may dictate..."

Puts a whole different spin on the 2 A when you understand the meaning at the time...

Edit to add - I would call this thread asinine, but the meaning of that has morphed over the years as well. Suffice to say, IMHO, you don't need a college education to engage in "scholarship"... Google "How to interpret the meaning of old documents and the meaning of words when written" and go from there.
__________________
"Gravity is a cruel mistress!"
NSDQ-SGDM

Last edited by sixgun; 13 February 2018 at 16:31.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 13 February 2018, 17:51
sixgun's Avatar
sixgun sixgun is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The end of innocence
Posts: 2,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by sixgun View Post
For example - "Well regulated..." :
Further to this, as I've exceeded edit time limit:

From the old dictionary at grandma'a place

Regulate as a verb: to administer or dispense something needed, supply; to become or make something prepared; to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount or degree, etc.
__________________
"Gravity is a cruel mistress!"
NSDQ-SGDM
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 13 February 2018, 23:06
doitforjonny doitforjonny is offline
pumpin gas and kickin ass
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: California
Posts: 709
Sixgun -

That is kinda my point. As a layperson, my first resource is a dictionary. Right now the modern version is Google, but Google keeps changing shit to meet the current distortion of intent in the move towards Communism.

So I went to Grandma's dictionary, and I literally mean it is my Grandma's, the one thing I wanted out of her estate when she passed, because we had done this exercise of looking at definitions together (she and her husband were the godfather of the current Progressive movement, and were political mentors to Leon Panetta).

The context of those definitions would have been the 80's, when we were in the hey day of proving that capitalism was better than socialism or communism.

When we look at where we are today, precipitously close to permanent steps towards socialism, and reflect on how we got here, the most permanent government action that enabled the environment is clearly Affirmative Action.

While half the country was distracted by two wars for a decade and a half, power was consolidated and codified through the use of the legal mechanism of Affirmative Action to drag the country towards socialism.

In the last year, when the silent half of the country that said enough was enough, you saw the hand come out of the glove, and characteristics of Nazism emerge from the ideology that Affirmative Action built the groundwork for.

Now we can call it something other than Affirmative Action and we can refrain from using Nazism, because Google redefined the words to sanitize them from any reference of government sanctioned ethnic award of resources, but to a lay person relying on a dictionary and not a 20lb head in a lab coat, being told I can't rely on words to build up a basic argument because the meaning of them shifts with the context in which they were uttered, and we are in an environment where the people who are taking these actions are giving themselves cover from accountability of said actions by reinventing the definitions of the words we would use to characterize them as we go along.....

I agree 100% with you.

To the folks that have the academic understanding, how would you phrase a hypothesis to capture what I am admittedly doing a poor job trying to communicate, as I rely on the words as they are defined in the dictionary?

Edited to add: yes I could go buy the $60 dollar book on qualitative and quantitative analysis, read it, and still have an impractical understanding that would likely fail to pass muster, so I am asking here instead
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 14 February 2018, 02:13
wildman43 wildman43 is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: california
Posts: 1,351
Thumbs down

Just a question what have you ever read about Leon Panetta

P.S. I think you live in the Bay Area
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 14 February 2018, 06:21
Paul85 Paul85 is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Gdynia, Poland
Posts: 872
Quote:
I can't rely on words to build up a basic argument because the meaning of them shifts with the context in which they were uttered
I do think it's normal that the meaning is fluid within certain context. That fluidness is usually defined within dictionaries, but also evolves on its own and sometimes gets included in newer revisions of said dictionaries (I'm looking mainly at modern youth culture slang). I never faced any sort of problem with this during my academic or professional work because if I feared the meaning could be unclear I simply added an addendum, either oral or written, describing the intended meaning of the word and a source for it.

It didn't happen often, but sometimes a clarification was needed. Depended on the intended crowd, of course. And when it was normal, everyday talk or work, I always tried to use the most recognized meaning of the word to carry the message across. Since people are (usually) not brain dead and capable of filtering and putting words in proper context, they got it and all was well. They did not need advanced thesaurus or dictionary at hand to get and understand the words.

Words can get a hilarious meaning. Especially to young people. I remember how, on a very sunny day, I was in a bus with several young boys and girls sitting in front of me. An older woman entered the bus on the bus stop and moaned to no one in particular: "Gosh, I'm so weeet". This caused the youngsters in front of me to burst into laughter and juvenile remarks because, for them, the meaning was slightly different and they deliberately ignored the context to get the intended conclusion and have a laugh at it. That the woman meant that she was wet from perspiration did not mean crap to them, even though they knew the intended meaning.

Of course there are "swindling fucks" out there who will twist the words to their liking and you wouldn't be able to battle them with 1000 dictionaries because they could always say they found another definition and see another meaning, but for me these people are not worth my professional or personal time. Because they don't want to engage in discussion and exchange of ideas. They want to catch you off-guard. Modern media is especially prone to creating artificial intent to one's words.

Last edited by Paul85; 14 February 2018 at 06:34.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 14 February 2018, 09:34
KidA's Avatar
KidA KidA is offline
Authorized Personnel
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: WbyGV
Posts: 18,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by doitforjonny View Post
Sixgun -

That is kinda my point. As a layperson, my first resource is a dictionary. Right now the modern version is Google, but Google keeps changing shit to meet the current distortion of intent in the move towards Communism.
http://www.dictionary.com/

https://www.merriam-webster.com/

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/

https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us

Quote:
Lets start with definitions from the old 1986 dictionary and not the Google definitions which have been softened to remove any reference to government control when talking about Socialism.
Quote:
designating, of, or characteristic of the German fascist political party (National Socialist German Workers' Party), founded in 1919 and abolished in 1945: under Hitler it seized control of Germany in 1933, systematically eliminated opposition, and initiated a program of nationalism, rearmament, political aggression, and racism, esp. anti-Semitism
Quote:
Socialism: any economic or political system based on government ownership and control of important businesses and methods of production
que?
__________________
Hey homo, its me -- Andy/SOTB
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 14 February 2018, 11:20
smp52 smp52 is online now
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 1,522
doitforjonny,

Not saying you have to buy a book or have to be researcher; the book is just one example of many out there and I agree with Sixgun that scholarship is not the domain of any one group, academia, or practice (good research isn't just limited to academia). Plenty of self taught people out there, though almost all are exceptionally well read. Today there is more information available freely than ever before. However, self study also includes going down the rabbit hole and reading literature. If you're interested in social science research and have access to a library, you don't need to buy books :)

My personal turn towards a social science education was based upon an acknowledgement of my own weakness that is heavily biased towards the hard sciences. Numbers and physics don't tell a complete story of people, institutions, and societies. Those fundamentals in classical liberal arts, humanities, social studies, civics etc are important for education in a society. This is something I also learned and appreciated on SOCNET over the years. Frankly, the lack of a fundamentally sound liberal arts/humanities background in high school and college is a major issue. For example, good rhetoric https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric. I remember threads where we discussed these topics, including KidA talk about his University mentor. Or how well read James Mattis is on the classics. Stuff like that.

There was a time when some of these fundamentals were taught in schools. Hence, it isn't beyond the reach of the general public and the classics are pretty accessible.

Specifically to your statements:

In short, how you daisy chain your assumptions (adding them up), which you pass off as fact but are opinion is an issue. As a result it doesn't support your conclusions the way you want. Only proof is that definitions have indeed changed, beyond that the definition analysis by itself cannot extrapolate to bigger themes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by doitforjonny View Post
Right now the modern version is Google, but Google keeps changing shit to meet the current distortion of intent in the move towards Communism.
Assumption #1: The above is your opinion not fact. You are providing that its a given Google's (a) intention is communism (b) has an active program to keep changing definitions to support communism (c) is the only modern definition source, when multiple controlled dictionary sources exist (see KidA's post). I would not use Google definitions in any school paper.You can use Google scholar to pull up lots of papers written about these topics thouh.

Quote:
The context of those definitions would have been the 80's, when we were in the hey day of proving that capitalism was better than socialism or communism.
Assumption #2: The above is another opinion that is debatable. Joseph McCarthy's push against communism can be considered by many to be the hey day of proving capitalism was better than other socio-economic-political systems. Yes, Regan was a big mover against the USSR and communism. We were winning then. However, we had policy of fighting communism across Europe, Asia, and other places through the 50s, 60s & 70s. Considering the Vietnam War was a major commitment in "containment" on the domino theory, why is a 1980s definition the best? That needs to be substantiated through a review a multiple dictionary definitions over time.

Quote:
When we look at where we are today, precipitously close to permanent steps towards socialism, and reflect on how we got here, the most permanent government action that enabled the environment is clearly Affirmative Action.
Assumption #3: Again, your opinion is being projected as an unassailable fact. You're making a conclusion here that Affirmative Action was clearly the most important factor. What evidence supports this? What evidence disconfirms this?

Quote:
While half the country was distracted by two wars for a decade and a half, power was consolidated and codified through the use of the legal mechanism of Affirmative Action to drag the country towards socialism.
Assumption #4: Again, opinion not fact. Affirmative action policies go much farther back and one would say, potentially had more impact initially in the 60s /70s with less ROI as time goes; diminishing returns. Why not Technology being the biggest driver of communist or fascist tendencies? Its well discussed here that the ability to monitor everyone through technology is probably one of the biggest intrusions, towards "big brother". Not saying my opinion is fact, just showing there are other questions surrounding "why".

Quote:
In the last year, when the silent half of the country that said enough was enough, you saw the hand come out of the glove, and characteristics of Nazism emerge from the ideology that Affirmative Action built the groundwork for.
Assumption #5: This is again an opinion from your political read on the situation. Not sure why you're so intent on connecting Affirmative Action to Nazism. Socialism, Communism, Nazism? Sure. They're in the same ball park for a conversation.

Quote:
Now we can call it something other than Affirmative Action and we can refrain from using Nazism, because Google redefined the words to sanitize them from any reference of government sanctioned ethnic award of resources, but to a lay person relying on a dictionary and not a 20lb head in a lab coat,being told I can't rely on words to build up a basic argument
Assumption #6: I'm not a 20lb brain in a labcoat nor is that a prerequisite. You invited criticism of your proof by making some claims. Its being tested. Is Google the one that redefined the definition? Or who in the dictionary literature first redefined the term? Where is the timeline of definition changes across multiple sources and dates? See assumption #1 again.

Quote:
how would you phrase a hypothesis to capture what I am admittedly doing a poor job trying to communicate, as I rely on the words as they are defined in the dictionary?
I'm no authority figure; honestly I don't know how if you're trying to use dictionary data points to conclusively prove a grand theory. You may be seeing a difference between cause and effect. Dictionary terms may reflect society's perspective of the time. Chicken and the egg discussion. Affirmative action to Nazism is just a long long long stretch as one is a method (action), another is a complete system.

If you're concerned about the change in meaning over time due to political influences, yes that can be studied. One has to be careful in not packing a whole research agenda into one "proof". That typically never works and is spurious at best.

Some thoughts for the questions to ask, but it would require not being so attached to your own personal position. You seem intent on fitting data to your theories which will always run into confirmation bias:
1) What changes have occurred in political definitions of key terms in multiple sources from the 1950s through today on a timeline? Data for the assessment would require collection of observations from source dictionaries such as the Oxford, Webster, and legal terms as codified in law over time. In parallel, you'd have to collect data on internet definitions from other sources on a timeline too using cached data maybe? This is sort of what you did - the only conclusive proof that could be drawn is yes - definitions have changed. It does not prove Affirmative Action equals Nazism though. Did you take a look at when the term affirmative action was first used? Mechanisms that pre-date the use of the term, but do the same thing? Global use of similar methods in other places (quotas, reservations)? The method of has existed for a long time. Build a spreadsheet, walk down multiple definition inputs on one axis with a timeline on the other.

2) How have changes in terms affected perceptions? This would be typically be a survey, interviews, combination of set on a scale that can be repeated/tested. You can loosely try to correlate these through secondary data sources that are open survey sets (GSS, ANES)

3) Is there a relationship between change in terms and acceptance of political positions from right to left? Again, this would typically be some type of survey, data mining, political trends, interview, combination of. Again, you can loosely try to correlate these through secondary data sources that are open survey sets (GSS, ANES).

Each of the above can result in data that may/may not support each question, that may/may not prove any claims. And that is the essence of a fair study/hypothesis. Others may have better questions or explain it better. All you have proven so far is definitions have changes. Connecting it to broader and bigger themes, conclusively, requires more work and aligning apples to apples.

Not sure I can offer much more.
__________________
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.

― Winston S. Churchill

Last edited by smp52; 14 February 2018 at 11:30.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 14 February 2018, 11:37
Longrifle's Avatar
Longrifle Longrifle is offline
Sound off for equipment check!
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Pergo per caligo...
Posts: 5,517
Hmmmm...
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidA
Quote:
Socialism: any economic or political system based on government ownership and control of important businesses and methods of production
My online dictionary defines Socialism as:
Quote:
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole
Changing the definition from government-controlled to community-controlled is neither subtle nor honest, but it is new and improved.
__________________
The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests. ~Patrick Henry

"Sēlre bi ghwm t hē his frēond wrece, onne hē fela murne." ~Bēowulf, bearn Ecgēowes
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 14 February 2018, 11:44
KidA's Avatar
KidA KidA is offline
Authorized Personnel
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: WbyGV
Posts: 18,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Longrifle View Post
Hmmmm...

My online dictionary defines Socialism as:
I used the Cambridge referenced in my post. It clearly states government control.

There are many dictionaries out there - speaking to Johnny's post - some will be more liberal, some will be more authoritarian. There is not one singular dictionary/definition source, nor has there ever been. The miriam-webster is similar to the Cambridge. The others do soften the definition, but perhaps that's because the definition has changed - such as many word definitions have changed....
__________________
Hey homo, its me -- Andy/SOTB
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 14 February 2018, 11:54
Steve83 Steve83 is offline
**** Cancer
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,425
I think what's more concerning is the term racism.

This word to most people and in most definitions means to "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior". Or simply to dislike someone based solely on the color of their skin.

Unfortunately, there are people out there whom believe that this is inadequate and want to change the word to incorporate historical positions of power. Redefining the word would allow some to say "Insert nonwhite people can't be racist." This type of thinking is very destructive to social cohesion.
__________________
"Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!"

~ Frdric Bastiat
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 14 February 2018, 12:27
Longrifle's Avatar
Longrifle Longrifle is offline
Sound off for equipment check!
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Pergo per caligo...
Posts: 5,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidA View Post
I used the Cambridge referenced in my post. It clearly states government control.
Your first reference listed was Dictionarydotcom. Thats the source of my quote.

Not arguing with you, but pointing out the legitimacy of claims about definitions being changed to accommodate political ends.

A spoonful of sugar, so to speak...
__________________
The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests. ~Patrick Henry

"Sēlre bi ghwm t hē his frēond wrece, onne hē fela murne." ~Bēowulf, bearn Ecgēowes
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 14 February 2018, 17:01
Azatty Azatty is offline
Spice Weasel
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,014
All political systems and ideologies exist on a Moebius strip rather than a linear continuum. Therefore, it should not be surprising that while there are twists and turns and perceived distance, the beginning of one system is eventually the end of another, and vice versa.
__________________
"Bureaucracy always runs out of control and creates abuses...but without some regulations, people are just going to shit in your meat." --MakoZeroSix

"Never saw a shark swimming down my street, although that would be kinda cool." --Purple36
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Our new posting rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:56.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Socnet.com All Rights Reserved
SOCNET