Social Media Outrage/Cancel Culture

[tooblue]

Then I'll just say it was a *poor choice of words, because the very idea would seem to argue from a theoretical standpoint, which you are clearly not trying to do.

*I'm not trying to throw stones, because I'm the last person on Earth who should point out others' poor choice of words.

I appreciate that you are not trying to throw stones, but Pelado's original quip was: "How do you figure? I don't remember Madison reading a book on Marx." It is derisive in tone, aimed at mocking my words while ignoring the evident historical chronology of events; that Madison was born and governed before Marx was even born.

But I get that Pelado is part of the protected class here, while I am considered "intolerably cruel." So be it.

[Bo Diddley]

My statement is self-evident¹. It is not addressing hypotheticals; in other words the US Federal Government does, as a matter of function and fact, [to use your terms] enforce social policies. This is inarguable, and a confirmation of the self-evident nature of my statement.

1. My definition and sense for the use of the hyphenated term self-evident is: "clearly true and requiring no proof or explanation."

Then I'll just say it was a *poor choice of words, because the very idea would seem to argue from a theoretical standpoint, which you are clearly not trying to do.

*I'm not trying to throw stones, because I'm the last person on Earth who should point out others' poor choice of words.

[tooblue]

I thought Pelado's question was a fair question.



To your statement:



So if that's a fact, convince Pelado. Convince me. It was an interesting statement that made me think. But I'm not convinced.

Even if we were to agree that the next logical step from the formation of a federal government is the enforcement of social policies, that doesn't preclude a federal government from not taking on that role. Is that what the founders envisioned? If so, cite them. Your statement implies that only socialists would envision a federal government. That's too much of a leap for me.

But then perhaps I'm just a part of the mob, so feel free to disregard any of that.

My statement is self-evident¹. It is not addressing hypotheticals; in other words the US Federal Government does, as a matter of function and fact, [to use your terms] enforce social policies. This is inarguable, and a confirmation of the self-evident nature of my statement.

Further, it can be argued that the framers of the constitution believed in the type of Federal Government that operates in the US today, by virtue of the statements they made and the manner in which many of them governed. For example, per the link I have already shared in this thread, "Jefferson wrote to Madison that 'legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property.'” Which, inarguably is a socialist idea.

If you follow the link, you can also find links to the writings and read about mandated socialist policies enacted by the framers of the constitution. For example: "Washington gave tax incentives to New England cod fishers to rebuild their fleets after the Revolutionary War on the condition that the captains and the crew sign contracts ensuring broad-based profit sharing among all workers. He also favored grants of substantial land to veterans of the Revolutionary War to make them into self-sufficient property-owners."

Only a narrow (or non-nuanced) reading of my statement, again using your words, implies that only socialists would envision a federal government [that regularly enforces social policies]." Many framers of the constitution clearly embraced wealth distribution² ideas and policies which are socialist ideas.³

1. My definition and sense for the use of the hyphenated term self-evident is: "clearly true and requiring no proof or explanation."

2. My definition and sense for the use of the terms wealth distribution is in part informed by a source such as britannica.com where it is stated the distribution of wealth is: "the way in which the wealth and income of a nation are divided among its population, or the way in which the wealth and income of the world are divided among nations."

3. My definition and sense for the use of the terms socialist ideas is informed by the fact that Canada, the country of my current residence, and the United States, the country of my birth up until young adulthood are both social democracies. Social democracies can be defined as: "a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented economy."

Lastly, I argue an informed opinion on this message board as a means of individual expression. This message board was pragmatically chosen because I am a fan of BYU sports, and I share a common religious and cultural heritage with many of the other posters who also participate in discussions in its variety of forums.

My participation here represents an investment of time in what I consider to be a reasonably valued distraction of sorts. I am not interested in convincing anyone of anything. If my arguments are persuasive and convincing, then they are merely that. If not, then they are not.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't think there is a more jovial and kind person on the board than Pelado. tooblue, I think you seriously misunderstood his interests.

Jovial? Yeah, he is jovial.

[beefytee]

I don't think there is a more jovial and kind person on the board than Pelado. tooblue, I think you seriously misunderstood his interests.

[Bo Diddley]

and enters the mob ... What's the title of this thread again. Does CougarStadium suffer from it's own outrage culture?

I thought Pelado's question was a fair question.

How do you figure?

To your statement:

the very idea of a "federal government" is in fact a socialist idea

So if that's a fact, convince Pelado. Convince me. It was an interesting statement that made me think. But I'm not convinced.

Even if we were to agree that the next logical step from the formation of a federal government is the enforcement of social policies, that doesn't preclude a federal government from not taking on that role. Is that what the founders envisioned? If so, cite them. Your statement implies that only socialists would envision a federal government. That's too much of a leap for me.

But then perhaps I'm just a part of the mob, so feel free to disregard any of that.

[tooblue]

Funniest thing I have read on this board in a while. Thanks TB!

and enters the mob ... What's the title of this thread again. Does CougarStadium suffer from it's own *outrage culture?






*Sorry again, I forgot there is a need to be more precise. My sense for the use of the terms "outrage culture" is informed but what can also be referred to as "call-out culture: ... a form of public humiliation or shaming that aims to hold individuals and groups accountable for actions perceived to be offensive by other individuals or groups, who then call attention to this behaviour."

Note: I spelled the word behaviour using British english spelling rules and conventions, and not American spelling rules and conventions.

[CardiacCoug]

been on these message boards a long time. There is very little dialogue and charity is a novelty not a norm. I do not believe Pelado was interested a reasonable exchange of ideas.

Funniest thing I have read on this board in a while. Thanks TB!

[tooblue]

Yeah. That Pelado dude is super mean.

I don't know if he is super mean, but is he a member of the super secret forum? Mob* rules baby, mob rules!



*sorry, I had to come back and edit in the interest of "precision." I am using the term "mob" not in a mafia, or crime family sense, but specifically in a mob of persons who are impacted in their actions by the groupthink** inherent in being a member of a super secret club.

**I am using the term "groupthink" in terms of the phenomena "that occurs when a group of individuals reaches a consensus without critical reasoning or evaluation of the consequences or alternatives."

Lastly, should I now be providing citations ... what does the group think?

[Pelado]

Yeah. That Pelado dude is super mean.

He's the worst.

[Jeff Lebowski]

been on these message boards a long time. There is very little dialogue and charity is a novelty not a norm. I do not believe Pelado was interested a reasonable exchange of ideas.

Yeah. That Pelado dude is super mean.

[tooblue]

That's not fair. A bad actor is someone who intentionally is using a different definition knowing that the other parties would be unaware of that definition. I don't think that is going on here by anyone involved. I also found your phrasing somewhat awkward but I think I understood the intent.



That can be parsed quite a few ways, it's not very precise. Pelado asked for a clarification. People are chiming in to help as it's a public discussion.

I read it as any national government is going to have influence on the market. It's unavoidable. Influence does not necessarily mean complete control of. Influence (or regulation) can be considered a tenet of socialist ideas. In order for a free market to exist, something must be in place to uphold its freedom from bad actors both outside and inside that market. That something will influence the market. Intersecting circles in a Venn diagram.

It could also be read as the concept of "federal government" emerges from socialism. One circle fully enclosing the other in a Venn diagram.

Neither one of those may be what was originally intended. So we use dialog to clarify until we reach understanding (but not necessarily agreement).

We should all strive to read one another more charitably.

been on these message boards a long time. There is very little dialogue and charity is a novelty not a norm. I do not believe Pelado was interested a reasonable exchange of ideas.

[Pelado]

That's not fair. A bad actor is someone who intentionally is using a different definition knowing that the other parties would be unaware of that definition. I don't think that is going on here by anyone involved. I also found your phrasing somewhat awkward but I think I understood the intent.



That can be parsed quite a few ways, it's not very precise. Pelado asked for a clarification. People are chiming in to help as it's a public discussion.

I read it as any national government is going to have influence on the market. It's unavoidable. Influence does not necessarily mean complete control of. Influence (or regulation) can be considered a tenet of socialist ideas. In order for a free market to exist, something must be in place to uphold its freedom from bad actors both outside and inside that market. That something will influence the market. Intersecting circles in a Venn diagram.

It could also be read as the concept of "federal government" emerges from socialism. One circle fully enclosing the other in a Venn diagram.

Neither one of those may be what was originally intended. So we use dialog to clarify until we reach understanding (but not necessarily agreement).

We should all strive to read one another more charitably.

Agreed.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You spell "labor" the euro-weenie way now? It's a sign you've been abroad too long. Maybe it's time to just get it over with and renounce already...

I think tooblue is too far gone now to save. SAD!

[BigFatMeanie]

The powerful labour unions that we know today started due to the abhorrent working conditions steel workers faced at the outset of the US era of gilded age capitalism. That period of unfettered capitalism led to incredible social change, and forced an inherently socialist federal government to act to protect citizens. Capitalism unchecked leads to socialist policies and programs that can only be enforced by a federal mandate.

You spell "labor" the euro-weenie way now? It's a sign you've been abroad too long. Maybe it's time to just get it over with and renounce already...