That and the first paragraph show how too many people publish their BS on the internet.Forget photos. This title “speaks” a thousand words.
What’s incorrect about the first paragraph?That and the first paragraph show how too many people publish their BS on the internet.
You don’t use any adjectives that the reader is supposed to (or rather: will automatically) combine with “goddamn” or similar to describe someone if you’re not in the BS business. Calling someone a (goddamn) socialist is just an equivalent of calling someone a capitalist (swine). Neither is a mark of an article or opinion piece that is rooted in facts.What’s incorrect about the first paragraph?
Is he or is he not a socialist? If he is, what's the problem since they didn't throw up those qualifying adjectives that you just brought up?You don’t use any adjectives that the reader is supposed to (or rather: will automatically) combine with “goddamn” or similar to describe someone if you’re not in the BS business. Calling someone a (goddamn) socialist is just an equivalent of calling someone a capitalist (swine). Neither is a mark of an article or opinion piece that is rooted in facts.
It's been a while since I've paid attention to Sanders, but he sounded like a Social Democrat to me, not like a Socialist. I consider that distinction important, others don't, and that's part of the issue. Every democratic country and its political system suffers when its economy becomes unbalanced and social democracy has proven to be a very effective countermeasure. Which is why neoliberals and die-hard socialists both fight it tooth and nail.Is he or is he not a socialist? If he is, what's the problem since they didn't throw up those qualifying adjectives that you just brought up?
That's no excuse for adding oil to the fire. There's already far more than enough divisive content on the internet.The Daily Wire is an openly conservative site (and therefore do not look kindly upon socialism). They also do not purport to be a traditional news service, either. They're an extension of EIC Ben Shapiro's own political values.
Where did you get that from? If you meant it, it says more about yourself than about me.so...shut up and do as you want?
Define social democracy, please. I have never seen or heard a definition that makes any kind of sense.It's been a while since I've paid attention to Sanders, but he sounded like a Social Democrat to me, not like a Socialist. I consider that distinction important, others don't, and that's part of the issue. Every democratic country and its political system suffers when its economy becomes unbalanced and social democracy has proven to be a very effective countermeasure.
If Bernie Sanders is a socialist (and by all accounts according to the American political spectrum, it is undeniable), then labelling him as such isn’t slanderous. There’s nothing negative about the label itself, unless it’s inaccurate. Those are his positions. What you’re doing is tantamount to thought policing the writer, who simply labelled it, by inferring that his label meant something morAnyway, my issue here is with the framing. By adding adjectives with a negative connotation (which "socialist" is in this context), they aim to confirm and entrench their readers' attitude, presumed or otherwise, towards Sanders. It's like saying "Sanders, who, as we all know, wants to turn our country into the American SSR" instead of "Sanders, whom we all know, and here's what's happened".
Calling a socialist a socialist isn’t adding fuel to anything. Calling a socialist a (as you put it) “goddamn socialist” would be.That's no excuse for adding oil to the fire. There's already far more than enough divisive content on the internet.
Solid democratic political system + capitalist economic system + strong social security networks. That's the extremely short version. Basically, a system where A) money doesn't buy all the power and B) everyone gets a chance to participate freely in the capitalist market without having to fear that they're going to be totally screwed for life if something goes wrong.Define social democracy, please. I have never seen or heard a definition that makes any kind of sense.
That's the point: in "openly conservative" (as you put it) American circles, "socialist" is a slur. It represents the Soviet (or Chinese or whatever) bogeyman who supposedly threatens the hard-working underdogs by making their superiors a little bit less wealthy.If Bernie Sanders is a socialist (and by all accounts according to the American political spectrum, it is undeniable), then labelling him as such isn’t slanderous. There’s nothing negative about the label itself, unless it’s inaccurate. Those are his positions. What you’re doing is tantamount to thought policing the writer, who simply labelled it, by inferring that his label meant something more insidious.
Again, the negative connotation is strong enough to make a qualifying adjective unnecessary. If someone is angered by the term itself, that already serves the purpose.Calling a socialist a socialist isn’t adding fuel to anything. Calling a socialist a (as you put it) “goddamn socialist” would be.
Someone somewhere will always be angry with what is written, no matter how carefully crafted. It is not the writer’s responsibility to worry about how the reader interprets their work, only how it is actually written.That's the point: in "openly conservative" (as you put it) American circles, "socialist" is a slur. It represents the Soviet (or Chinese or whatever) bogeyman who supposedly threatens the hard-working underdogs by making their superiors a little bit less wealthy.
You may have a better understanding of what the term actually means, but frankly, you don't exactly come across as a die-hard American-style "conservative" who would be part of a pundit's target audience.
Again, the negative connotation is strong enough to make a qualifying adjective unnecessary. If someone is angered by the term itself, that already serves the purpose.
Thanks for ad hominem...I guess. Jim just wrote a much better reply though.Where did you get that from? If you meant it, it says more about yourself than about me.
What do you expect if you ask me whether I'm telling people to "shut up and do as I want" while I'm arguing against political manipulation? Your first and only idea was to accuse me of being an authoritarian and that had to come from somewhere.Thanks for ad hominem...I guess.
If you publish your writings, you are responsible for them. If the content is manipulative, you are responsible for that. I don't know how you can argue with that.Someone somewhere will always be angry with what is written, no matter how carefully crafted. It is not the writer’s responsibility to worry about how the reader interprets their work, only how it is actually written.
You are responsible for what you wrote, not for what someone infers from it. I don’t know how you can argue with that.If you publish your writings, you are responsible for it. If the content is manipulative, you are responsible for that. I don't know how you can argue with that.
That’s just a capitalist democracy...Solid democratic political system + capitalist economic system + strong social security networks. That's the extremely short version. Basically, a system where A) money doesn't buy all the power and B) everyone gets a chance to participate freely in the capitalist market without having to fear that they're going to be totally screwed for life if something goes wrong.