The Deep Thinks of Hong Wu - Page 9 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
#14877840
Hong Wu wrote:great post as usual.


Thank you sir.

Hong Wu wrote: then maybe Ivanka runs for President.


Please no.

Hong Wu wrote: that white fertility staged a comeback in 2017.


Woot woot. I knew we had it in us....literally.... ;)

Hong Wu wrote:it almost seems like the left wants a bad economy.


Correct, how else could they make welfare slaves? Oh thats right.....infant vaccination....oh shit, did I say that out loud? Fuck.

Hong Wu wrote:Regarding China, let me tell you something about their regulations. It's not just that there aren't any. I once ranted that California was requiring almonds to be pasteurized because of salmonella (almonds can't support salmonella bacteria, so pasteurizing them is questionably effective therein). If you're against pasteurizing them then by Commiefornia logic you want people to die. I personally think the state is just overrun by narcissists who enjoy posing as the hero while hurting people but I digress. Meanwhile in China, any grandma can grow almonds in her backyard and sell them but if your product kills someone, there is a chance you won't just be fined but executed. Although this hasn't solved China's food quality issues, the price of food can be dirt cheap if that's what people need and I think the difference in philosophy is interesting; the economic effects of the two different approaches are also easy to consider.


This is actually very interesting, a big part of China's non-typical social customs and even economic customs is that it was highly patriarchal before it became communist and certain values are hard to shake, like personal responsibility. Indeed, their one child policy just led to a fucking up of the sex ratio because after all, who would care for the family shrine if not a man?

Its amusing really. China and Russia were like the worst possible places imaginable to implement communism, and thats where they happened.... ROTFL.
Last edited by Victoribus Spolia on 09 Jan 2018 19:38, edited 1 time in total.
#14877852
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Thank you sir.



Please no.



Woot woot. I knew we had it in us....literally.... ;)



Correct, how else could they make welfare slaves? Oh thats right.....infact vaccination....oh shit, did I say that out loud? Fuck.



This is actually very interesting, a big part of China's non-typical social customs and even economic customs is that it was highly patriarchal before it became communist and certain values are hard to shake, like personal responsibility. Indeed, their one child policy just led to a fucking up of the sex ratio because after all, who would care for the family shrine if not a man?

Its amusing really. China and Russia were like the worst possible places imaginable to implement communism, and thats where they happened.... ROTFL.

One theory I have re: communism is that it's a branch of the "work ethic" philosophy. In the west we had protestantism (from which the term Protestant work ethic was derived) and the Japanese also had a strong work ethic from the Samurai class. These places didn't accept communism. Meanwhile, Catholic, Orthodox Christian and Chinese (Buddhist/Taoist/Confucian) countries did not have the work ethic as prominently in their philosophies and it was in these places that communism had its day. Italy being an anomaly of course.

Work is good for most people most of the time I think but like most things it can't answer all of life's questions or dilemmas. It is the "best horse we've got" though at this time and that's why the work ethic philosophy has done so well is my impression.
#14878029
Hong Wu wrote:One theory I have re: communism is that it's a branch of the "work ethic" philosophy. In the west we had protestantism (from which the term Protestant work ethic was derived) and the Japanese also had a strong work ethic from the Samurai class. These places didn't accept communism. Meanwhile, Catholic, Orthodox Christian and Chinese (Buddhist/Taoist/Confucian) countries did not have the work ethic as prominently in their philosophies and it was in these places that communism had its day. Italy being an anomaly of course.


This is an interesting theory that may have some value, the idea of death before dishonor universalized to all stations of life would fuel contentment over the ressentiment and class-consciousness that Marxism requires to take root and similarly the Anglo-Sphere protestant work ethic; wherein, the Calvinist doctrine of vocational calling (which has a slighter weaker version in Lutheranism) teaches that God's choosing one unto salvation is verified by the means of one's station is life. Thus, if one is truly saved (According to calvinism) this hidden eternal reality is partly and essentially assumed to be valid based on one's work ethic. This is why in America, even today (especially in the rust belt where I am from), a man's self-worth is intimately related to his having gainful employment and his ability to perform well.

Though I cannot say whether the universalization of Bushido in Japan has kept it from going into communism, there is definitely a sense where Americans have resisted communism due to their own pride which invariably stems from this older theological tradition.

As John Steinback once said:

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."


So, I would say that I do agree with you on this theory.
#14878295
Hong Wu wrote:Full on communists on PoFo refuse to own things that mainstream SJWs in governments do.


This epitomizes the problem the right seems to have with including the communists in any kind of analysis. Perhaps it’s simply a problem of youth with no substantial memory of the Cold War, when Democrats and Republicans competed to exterminate us.

But why would a communist, on POFO or otherwise, side with a mainstream capitalist government in any form?

And then to back this up with various conspiracy theories as to how the communists are actually somehow involved with these governments is simply delusional.

They spent a century and a half shooting us, breaking apart our organizations, and we’re (organizationally) a battered corpse with no power that is back to 0 so far as political influence. To then ask why we “refuse to own” the cocksuckers that murdered our comrades is astonishing. From this alone, the premise proposed is poisoned and worthy only of an eye roll.

Structurally, of course, it’s laughably ignorant to imply that the communists and the capitalists would have had any common ground ideologically. Since nothing else has seemed to sway a rightwinger from the elaborate conspiracy on this forum, I’ll submit Carr for consideration:

https://archive.org/stream/sovietimpact ... p_djvu.txt

Though problematic in a lot of ways, it’s readable and meant for a mass audience so far as how a communist conceives of democracy versus a capitalist.

But I suspect it will be easier to rant and rave with no credibility in anyway whatsoever than to actually attempt to begin to understand the issue at all.
#14878507
The Immortal Goon wrote:This epitomizes the problem the right seems to have with including the communists in any kind of analysis. Perhaps it’s simply a problem of youth with no substantial memory of the Cold War, when Democrats and Republicans competed to exterminate us.

But why would a communist, on POFO or otherwise, side with a mainstream capitalist government in any form?

And then to back this up with various conspiracy theories as to how the communists are actually somehow involved with these governments is simply delusional.

They spent a century and a half shooting us, breaking apart our organizations, and we’re (organizationally) a battered corpse with no power that is back to 0 so far as political influence. To then ask why we “refuse to own” the cocksuckers that murdered our comrades is astonishing. From this alone, the premise proposed is poisoned and worthy only of an eye roll.

Structurally, of course, it’s laughably ignorant to imply that the communists and the capitalists would have had any common ground ideologically. Since nothing else has seemed to sway a rightwinger from the elaborate conspiracy on this forum, I’ll submit Carr for consideration:

https://archive.org/stream/sovietimpact ... p_djvu.txt

Though problematic in a lot of ways, it’s readable and meant for a mass audience so far as how a communist conceives of democracy versus a capitalist.

But I suspect it will be easier to rant and rave with no credibility in anyway whatsoever than to actually attempt to begin to understand the issue at all.

I think this is mostly fair, the part where it gets confusing is that you side with social liberals on social issues while at the same time expect to not share any responsibility for bad socially liberal policies. It makes things easy I guess is one effect. But a truly fair approach would be to not support them if you're also not going to tie yourself to them.

For example, I have no actual relationship to Trump but I defend him, could be put into apologetics or in theory might even stop supporting him depending on what he does. Despite lacking any tangible connection to Trump this is still normal behavior for a "Trump supporter." You don't seem to do this. You support a side and then if something goes wrong, you're completely hands off and claim no form of responsibility whatsoever. It's honestly a little bit abnormal and it describes half a dozen people on this forum (at least).

To be clear, I'm not under any illusions that I have a tangible relationship with Trump but I tie myself to him anyway because that's the side I've chosen, maybe it's an honor thing, I just don't expect to have my cake and eat it too beyond a certain point.
#14878657
Hong Wu wrote:I think this is mostly fair, the part where it gets confusing is that you side with social liberals on social issues while at the same time expect to not share any responsibility for bad socially liberal policies. It makes things easy I guess is one effect. But a truly fair approach would be to not support them if you're also not going to tie yourself to them.


This presumes that "social liberals," whatever that is, and communists are "on the same side." The communists are for the liberation of the proletariat. There are times when the Venn diagram matches. For instance:

Kollontai wrote:The feminists declare themselves to be on the side of social reform, and some of them even say they are in favour of socialism – in the far distant future, of course – but they are not intending to struggle in the ranks of the working class for the realisation of these aims. The best of them believe, with a naive sincerity, that once the deputies’ seats are within their reach they will be able to cure the social sores which have in their view developed because men, with their inherent egoism, have been masters of the situation. However good the intentions of individual groups of feminists towards the proletariat, whenever the question of class struggle has been posed they have left the battlefield in a fright. They find that they do not wish to interfere in alien causes, and prefer to retire to their bourgeois liberalism which is so comfortably familiar.

No, however much the bourgeois feminists try to repress the true aim of their political desires, however much they assure their younger sisters that involvement in political life promises immeasurable benefits for the women of the working class, the bourgeois spirit that pervades the whole feminist movement gives a class colouring even to the demand for equal political rights with men, which would seem to be a general women’s demand. Different aims and understandings of how political rights are to be used create an unbridgeable gulf between bourgeois and proletarian women. This does not contradict the fact that the immediate tasks of the two groups of women coincide to a certain degree, for the representatives of all classes which have received access to political power strive above all to achieve a review of the civil code, which in every country, to a greater or lesser extent, discriminates against women. Women press for legal changes that create more favourable conditions of labour for themselves; they stand together against the regulations legalising prostitution etc. However, the coincidence of these immediate tasks is of a purely formal nature. For class interest determines that the attitude of the two groups to these reforms is sharply contradictory. ...

Class instinct – whatever the feminists say – always shows itself to be more powerful than the noble enthusiasms of “above-class” politics. So long as the bourgeois women and their “younger sisters” are equal in their inequality, the former can, with complete sincerity, make great efforts to defend the general interests of women. But once the barrier is down and the bourgeois women have received access to political activity, the recent defenders of the “rights of all women” become enthusiastic defenders of the privileges of their class, content to leave the younger sisters with no rights at all. Thus, when the feminists talk to working women about the need for a common struggle to realise some “general women’s” principle, women of the working class are naturally distrustful.


In the above example (from a century ago) there are obvious differences now. Women can, in most countries, vote and sit in parliament. And, just as predicted, this did nothing to change the class dynamic so far as Marxists are concerned. Women are part of the proletariat and we are interested in the liberation of that segment of the proletariat. There was much made, a few years ago, about the book Lean In, encouraging women to basically join the capitalist class as much as possible. Then there was a backlash about how this can be more difficult for women as it was more difficult for her to get nanny, cook, baby nurse, and maid.

Instead of worrying about how the modern woman would get this kind of help for cheaper, we would advocate the nanny, cook, nurse, and maid to develop a class consciousness, get the other servants organized, and murder their oppressors and leave the class dynamic behind.

You seem to think that our advocating the guillotining of Sheryl Sandburg and her class as somehow taking her side. In reality, I'm just against thinking that someone with internal genitals is either immune or extra-complicit in class dynamics.

Hong Wu wrote:For example, I have no actual relationship to Trump but I defend him, could be put into apologetics or in theory might even stop supporting him depending on what he does. Despite lacking any tangible connection to Trump this is still normal behavior for a "Trump supporter." You don't seem to do this. You support a side and then if something goes wrong, you're completely hands off and claim no form of responsibility whatsoever. It's honestly a little bit abnormal and it describes half a dozen people on this forum (at least).


I'm not sure what you mean by I "support a side." The side I choose is the advancement of the proletariat as a class. I suspect you think that opposing Trump makes one a Democrat. There is no defense of the Democrats or the Republicans that can seriously made. They are both bourgeois parties that should be liquidated.

[quote="Hong Wu"To be clear, I'm not under any illusions that I have a tangible relationship with Trump but I tie myself to him anyway because that's the side I've chosen, maybe it's an honor thing, I just don't expect to have my cake and eat it too beyond a certain point.[/quote]

I don't really understand why you'd tie yourself to some bourgeois personality to begin with. You can't seem to conceive of how someone couldn't.
#14878726
Promoting the proletariat against the working class, always siding with Democrats electorally but you're not a Democrat :eek:

The funny thing is that I'm not a bourgeoisie Republican in the strictest sense but I can accept being a Republican anyway because that's just keeping it real. There aren't a lot of neo-reactionaries out there. I guess what I'm saying here is that in any tangible sense, you're a Democrat and I'm a Republican and people might appreciate the loyalty. If I give someone an impression that I'm going to support them I try to follow through on that.

To put this another way so that I don't feel compelled to write it again, if you support them in one of the only ways it actually matters, they might get the impression that you're one of them to some extent. I guess I just think it's a sleazy thing to betray that expectation.
#14878734
Hong Wu wrote:Promoting the proletariat against the working class, always siding with Democrats electorally but you're not a Democrat


Perhaps you could cite an example?

I’m certainly not “always siding with Democrats” to my mind. I’ve only voted Democrat once, and that was (as I’ve written here) in hopes that a Democrat victory would show how they were fundamentally identical to the Republicans. Not that my single vote counted, but it’s difficult to say whether that worked or not.

And the proletariat is, generally, the working class. But I’m for their liberation, not necessarily every pet cause.

The funny thing is that I'm not a bourgeoisie Republican in the strictest sense but I can accept being a Republican anyway because that's just keeping it real. There aren't a lot of neo-reactionaries out there. I guess what I'm saying here is that in any tangible sense, you're a Democrat and I'm a Republican and people might appreciate the loyalty. If I give someone an impression that I'm going to support them I try to follow through on that.


I, in no way, want anyone to ever have the impression that I’m a Democrat or vote Democrat. Nor do I do either thing.

To put this another way so that I don't feel compelled to write it again, if you support them in one of the only ways it actually matters, they might get the impression that you're one of them to some extent. I guess I just think it's a sleazy thing to betray that expectation.


I don’t support the Democrats in any way, certainly not in one that matters; nor do I want them to have the impression that I do; nor the expectation.

To the broader point then, you seem to have a certain preconceived notion that there is a difference between the Democrats and Republicans, and that all sides of any political debate have to fall into one side of the other.

But this isn’t the case. You can be free from this absurd blaney.
#14878737
I guess I just assumed that you support them since you manage to attack conservatives, Republicans and Trump at every opportunity but if that doesn't extend to helping the other side I would be wrong here.
#14878738
Don't bother reasoning with a willful idiot, TIG. For guy who portray himself intelligent and most likely was never born in america; he has the same mental intelligence as any republican.
#14878747
He is no different than any other idiot who thinks the democrats are on the left. Communists wants the Democrats put up against the same wall as the republicans.
#14878755
Hong Wu wrote:I guess I just assumed that you support them since you manage to attack conservatives, Republicans and Trump at every opportunity but if that doesn't extend to helping the other side I would be wrong here.


Sure. They’re in power. Why would I stand up and scream about some political non-entities? I hate the Know-Nothings and Whigs too, but there’s no reason to rant and rave about them. And quite frankly, the Republicans are more competent than the Democrats so they’re more interesting to talk about. But that in no way means I like their master’s other party.
#14878926
Politics is the instinctive art of hallucinating tribal identity and conflict.

Here are some examples/samples/Amps I found inside the technological extension of human consciousness
Hong Wu wrote:Promoting the proletariat against the working class, always siding with Democrats electorally but you're not a Democrat
Wait, so 'promoting energy/sensor nodes against the workflow, always siding with ceremonially masks collectively but you're not a domino,' oh boy, can I role-play too?

The funny thing is that I'm not a bourgeoisie Republican in the strictest sense but I can accept being a Republican anyway because that's just keeping it real.
I know right! I'm not a lvl 27 high Elf wizard in the strictest sense but I can accept being a Elf anyway because that's just how the dice roll.

There aren't a lot of neo-reactionaries out there.
Are you sure, if you go on youtube you can find a plethora of reaction vidz.

Why would I stand up and scream about some political non-entities?

Because you're a static non-entity?

And quite frankly, the Republicans Orcs are more competent than the Democrats Halflings so they’re more interesting to talk about. But that in no way means I like the Dungeon master’s party.

I guess what I'm saying here is that in any tangible sense, you're a Democrat and I'm a Republican and people might appreciate the loyalty. If I give someone an impression that I'm going to support them I try to follow through on that.
I guess what I'm saying here is that 'All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances, And one man in his time plays many parts,' we're consciousness having a human experience. When I play Life & Death or Prisons & Banks and become an intellectual cognitive image/myth, I try to role-play through the Platonic cave as a pen name (nom de plume). As a man thinketh so is he. Look, I'm building gip pens for myself. Here is an illustration depicting social constructionism!
Image
I'm a gypsy gypster! A filthy myth!

Self-replicating logic constructs
To put this another way so that I don't feel compelled to write it again, if you support them in one of the only ways it actually matters, they might get the impression that you're one of them to some extent.

Dialectics is a classical state of consciousness and programmable thought pattern used for cognitive binary conflict. Dialectics is the result of intellectual abstraction caused by observation (qauntum decoherence). Observation occurs when information touches the human sensorium and passes through biochemical systems. Abstracted impressions/observations become thoughts in the noösphere, and thoughts become operating systems for mental-physical-emotional interplay.

1+1=2, is a classical program/expression or language relative to quantitative analysis. In reality, 1+1=0, because 1 and 1 come out from the SOURCE code (every-thing all at once). 1 cannot exist without 0. In dialectics, AvsB=C, and C is a classical program/expression relative to the qualitative analysis & argument of AvsB. In reality, AvsB came out of the SOURCE code. A cannot exist without B. 123, ABC are human myths abstracted by human thought programs for human thought programs.

You know...Being present (relativity) forms an information bias (electromagnetism/electrodynamics), and opinions (electromotive forces) are limited by what you can perceive (conduct) and think you know. We're expressions of THE Great Enigma. Beyond chasing (y)our tale, I'm not sure what you're doing here.


-One Thought, One Love, Peace to Earthly Peeps
#14881549
I think if the problem with the world is taken as fundamental, it basically requires constant upkeep to "fix" it. Once the burden of this upkeep gets passed onto someone else, someone who may be fine with the world the way it is, the good guy has probably become the bad guy. What I like about this articulation is that it's not really politics specific -- it could be said about communists, or some conservatives or so-on.
#14881575
Hong Wu wrote:I think if the problem with the world is taken as fundamental, it basically requires constant upkeep to "fix" it.

Are you trying to claim that the world as it currently exists isn't fucked up? If not, then why do you constantly whine about everything? :eh:

Once the burden of this upkeep gets passed onto someone else, someone who may be fine with the world the way it is, the good guy has probably become the bad guy.

'Good' from whose perspective? 'Bad' from whose perspective? :eh:

What I like about this articulation is that it's not really politics specific -- it could be said about communists, or some conservatives or so-on.

Uh-huh.
#14881584
Potemkin wrote:Are you trying to claim that the world as it currently exists isn't fucked up? If not, then why do you constantly whine about everything? :eh:


'Good' from whose perspective? 'Bad' from whose perspective? :eh:


Uh-huh.

Didn't realize I was whining about everything until you wrote this! I thought I was just making jokes, shooting down the dumber anti-Trump memes and posting my thoughts.

But yes, I'm suggesting that the world isn't fundamentally ducked up. That's what I wrote, right?
#14881599
Didn't realize I was whining about everything until you wrote this! I thought I was just making jokes, shooting down the dumber anti-Trump memes and posting my thoughts.

Uh-huh.

But yes, I'm suggesting that the world isn't fundamentally ducked up. That's what I wrote, right?

I see. That's fair enough, but I would suggest that you might consider paying more attention to the world in future. I believe that the world's present condition is clearly sub-optimal, though you are of course free to disagree with me.
#14881600
My next deep think is that I used to suspect that all of this salt from the left was related to the bad economy but now I see that most of them will take literally any rationalization, no matter how far fetched, to justify their bad attitudes.
#14881615
My next deep think is that I used to suspect that all of this salt from the left was related to the bad economy but now I see that most of them will take literally any rationalization, no matter how far fetched, to justify their bad attitudes.

I humbly apologise for daring to criticise you in any way whatsoever, Hong Wu. I... I don't know what came over me. Can...can you ever forgive me...? :*(

Oh wait, you were just whining again. My bad. :|
#14881666
Phonies on the phone. Let's throw Divide & Conquer on a loop. Thanks guys, thanks for posting garbage. ^ Are you going to go back and forth now posting more garbage so you can debate garbage and recycle garbage and talk about garbage and debate garbage and recycle garbage and post garbage and debate garbage and recycle garbage. "Deep thinks," My ass. Do you get up in the morning and put on some aged garb, greet other garbage with fashionable garbage? "The left and the right" and this poster said "the right and the left" and then a poster said the "left-right-left-right-left" and posters marching to the sound of bullshit because they carry tunes and like dumpster diving. Yep, time for a big bowel of steamy garbage. I got a few one liners here of garbage. Let's talk about my poop Pofo. I read a garbage manifesto and it taught me how to act like garbage. Why are you whining about garbage? Hold on, let me tell you about my experience with a landfill. Let me compact some of this entangled garbage.

Meaningless0thoughts0Meaningless0thoughts0Meaningless0thoughts0Meaningless thoughts
RUMP! Capitalism! Communism! Turn Left! Turn Right! Quote (ME)eme YOU Agree Disagree Feelings
RUMP! Capitalism! Communism! Turn Left! Turn Right! Quote (ME)eme YOU Agree Disagree Feelings
RUMP! Capitalism! Communism! Turn Left! Turn Right! Quote (ME)eme YOU Agree Disagree Feelings
RUMP! Capitalism! Communism! Turn Left! Turn Right! Quote (ME)eme YOU Agree Disagree Feelings
RUMP! Capitalism! Communism! Turn Left! Turn Right! Quote (ME)eme YOU Agree Disagree Feelings
RUMP! Capitalism! Communism! Turn Left! Turn Right! Quote (ME)eme YOU Agree Disagree Feelings
RUMP! Capitalism! Communism! Turn Left! Turn Right! Quote (ME)eme YOU Agree Disagree Feelings
RUMP! Capitalism! Communism! Turn Left! Turn Right! Quote (ME)eme YOU Agree Disagree Feelings
RUMP! Capitalism! Communism! Turn Left! Turn Right! Quote (ME)eme YOU Agree Disagree Feelings
Meaningful1thoughts1Meaningful1thoughts1Meaningful1thoughts1Meaningful1thoughts


CAN YOu SAY BRAINWASHING!?

Ultraviolet Violation, panic at the landfill! If I word my garbage correctly, folks will recycle my garbage. I'll be the king of this landfill! :moron:

You're the noise and interference.
Quantum-to-classical transition is decoherence, Political division= quantum decoherence, What suggests that decoherence may be relevant to the issue of the classical appearance of the everyday world is that at the level of components of the wave function the quantum description of decoherence phenomena can display tantalisingly classical aspects. Like RightvsLeft, 1010101010101010, based on observation.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11

Ok that's good. Then couldn't we say that value t[…]

Is a corporation a person?

What??? You agree that a corporation and a person[…]

EU-BREXIT

NONSENSE- What you fail to understand is that the[…]

Turkey

@blackjack21 Yay! Trump did absolutely nothing[…]