I find it extremely ironic that you worry about scaring people off with practical details, but see no conflict in promoting a party which liberally uses poisoned leftist language. McCarthyism happened, the Cold War happened. Accurate terminology has been turned into boogeyman words.
The average American hears “socialism”, and they think of gulags and breadlines and authoritarianism. I’m not saying that’s an accurate conception, I’m just saying that’s the consequence of a century of anti-left propaganda.
If you’re worried about alienating people, start with your messaging. I fully believe that a socialist party will be substantially more successful if they embrace patriotic, market based, Christian language.
It’s not socialism in the workplace, it’s making every worker a stakeholder. It’s not UBI, it’s an investment in Americans. We’re not sissy bleeding heart libcucks obsessed with handouts, we’re spreading Jesus’ message of feeding the hungry, healing the sick, and embracing immigrants as we were immigrants in Egypt.
If you care about the persuasive content of the message, then care about it. Don’t clutch your pearls when people want their plans to be actual plans because that might scare people off, then push a party using poisoned language.
I don’t oppose the stated goals of the PSL, but you have to realize that, in America at least, socialist vocabulary is more divisive and alienating than sober, pragmatic tactics.
I find it extremely ironic that someone who seems to have such strong opinions on communication is so bad at. You bring up not awful and not unheard of points about using conservative language to draw people to the left. That could’ve been a much more productive discussion.
The biggest reason I never told you what my plan was is because you never asked for it. The initial point I was making was about how money is bad and we don’t need it. Then you attacked my phrasing. You could’ve even briefly corrected my phrasing and then gone on to talk or ask about what the path to get there is. Instead you ranted about what tense I was using and how other economic systems don’t work.
The way you’ve communicated with me makes it seem like your goal is alienating people.
I didn’t know how many more ways I can say the same thing
Even the PSL website outlines solutions which still involve money.
Don’t say things that may lead to swaths of people jumping off metaphorical roofs. Take responsibility for your message, and refine it when problematic. Be precise.
And above all jump down the throat of anyone who doesn’t enunciate a point perfectly, it should be our goal to discourage engagement as much as possible /s
That’s a big stretch for a fucking tense. And when correcting is necessary, it should be done in such a way that actually strengthens the foundation of the point, assuming you agree with the goal. Otherwise what you’re trying to build will never come to fruition.
correcting is necessary, it should be done in such a way that actually strengthens the foundation of the point
Which is what I did when I suggested replacing “ability” with “potential”.
And frankly, I don’t think that point needs to be strengthened right now. I don’t think abandoning money is a valuable goal at this point in time. Once again, money is not the problem, greed and corruption are the problem. Getting rid of money doesn’t solve the problem, it just shuffles and transforms it.
Abandoning money is a goal for the road from socialism to communism, not the road from fascism to socialism. Flooding the dialogue with ill-timed calls to action is more dilutive to building change than critical analysis.
Your verbose tear down of my use of “ability” seemed like an attack on the concept itself, especially when you combined it with attacking the concept itself. That’s also not where you started.
I do think money is the problem. Maybe love of money is more pressing at this time, but if we don’t keep the goal of eliminating money in mind, I don’t think we’ll get anywhere substantially different from where we’re at. But I’m willing to agree to disagree on that point for the time being.
I did not flood the dialog, I made no call to action, and I would’ve preferred critical analysis of the problems of money over talking about tense. If you want to have debates instead of arguments, I suggest examining your approach.
I find it extremely ironic that you worry about scaring people off with practical details, but see no conflict in promoting a party which liberally uses poisoned leftist language. McCarthyism happened, the Cold War happened. Accurate terminology has been turned into boogeyman words.
The average American hears “socialism”, and they think of gulags and breadlines and authoritarianism. I’m not saying that’s an accurate conception, I’m just saying that’s the consequence of a century of anti-left propaganda.
If you’re worried about alienating people, start with your messaging. I fully believe that a socialist party will be substantially more successful if they embrace patriotic, market based, Christian language.
It’s not socialism in the workplace, it’s making every worker a stakeholder. It’s not UBI, it’s an investment in Americans. We’re not sissy bleeding heart libcucks obsessed with handouts, we’re spreading Jesus’ message of feeding the hungry, healing the sick, and embracing immigrants as we were immigrants in Egypt.
If you care about the persuasive content of the message, then care about it. Don’t clutch your pearls when people want their plans to be actual plans because that might scare people off, then push a party using poisoned language.
I don’t oppose the stated goals of the PSL, but you have to realize that, in America at least, socialist vocabulary is more divisive and alienating than sober, pragmatic tactics.
I find it extremely ironic that someone who seems to have such strong opinions on communication is so bad at. You bring up not awful and not unheard of points about using conservative language to draw people to the left. That could’ve been a much more productive discussion.
The biggest reason I never told you what my plan was is because you never asked for it. The initial point I was making was about how money is bad and we don’t need it. Then you attacked my phrasing. You could’ve even briefly corrected my phrasing and then gone on to talk or ask about what the path to get there is. Instead you ranted about what tense I was using and how other economic systems don’t work.
The way you’ve communicated with me makes it seem like your goal is alienating people.
I didn’t know how many more ways I can say the same thing Even the PSL website outlines solutions which still involve money.
Don’t say things that may lead to swaths of people jumping off metaphorical roofs. Take responsibility for your message, and refine it when problematic. Be precise.
And above all jump down the throat of anyone who doesn’t enunciate a point perfectly, it should be our goal to discourage engagement as much as possible /s
More like correct those who enunciate point so imperfectly that it becomes a different, harmful point.
That’s a big stretch for a fucking tense. And when correcting is necessary, it should be done in such a way that actually strengthens the foundation of the point, assuming you agree with the goal. Otherwise what you’re trying to build will never come to fruition.
Which is what I did when I suggested replacing “ability” with “potential”.
And frankly, I don’t think that point needs to be strengthened right now. I don’t think abandoning money is a valuable goal at this point in time. Once again, money is not the problem, greed and corruption are the problem. Getting rid of money doesn’t solve the problem, it just shuffles and transforms it.
Abandoning money is a goal for the road from socialism to communism, not the road from fascism to socialism. Flooding the dialogue with ill-timed calls to action is more dilutive to building change than critical analysis.
Your verbose tear down of my use of “ability” seemed like an attack on the concept itself, especially when you combined it with attacking the concept itself. That’s also not where you started.
I do think money is the problem. Maybe love of money is more pressing at this time, but if we don’t keep the goal of eliminating money in mind, I don’t think we’ll get anywhere substantially different from where we’re at. But I’m willing to agree to disagree on that point for the time being.
I did not flood the dialog, I made no call to action, and I would’ve preferred critical analysis of the problems of money over talking about tense. If you want to have debates instead of arguments, I suggest examining your approach.