Mikhail and Hodj's Political Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
Dumar_sl said:
I really think people are stupid enough to fall for my intellectual loophole exploitation that allows me to calm the cognitive dissonance I experience when someone points out that 150 million people died as a direct result of attempts to implement my ideology
Click to expand...
We really aren't. But you are for some reason.

Anyway, ftfy.
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Log Wizard
<Gold Donor>
85,096
172,320
hodj_sl said:
Again, I never said that Mao's writings defined every communist in history. I said it showed that Mao himself is and was a Communist, and that it is flat out fallacious for Mikhail and Dumar to sit here and proclaim that literally every. major. communist figure in history wasn't really communist, in fact were capitalist.

To illustrate the point again, if they were making that argument about Adolf Hitler, no one would take them seriously. That Hitler wasn't really a fascist, he was really a communist. You know, the argument that certain people who have a fascination with H2O2 has made multiple times over and been laughed off the forms for? Yeah.
Click to expand...
Do Mao's writings define communism?
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
Of course, Araysar, if you do believe I said such a thing, then by all means, I encourage you to quote it. It should be completely uneditable here in the shaw, after all.
 
D

Dumar_sl

shitlord
3,712
4
hodj_sl said:
Remember Khalid's post from earlier about non falsifiability?

Why don't you break out a metronome and meditate on it for awhile.
Click to expand...
That's not a loophole. It's right in the literature. If you're using Marx as the foundation for communistic philosophy, then Maoist policy is not based in communism. If you believe communism to be this fluid, nebulous idea that can be defined by anyone who labels himself a communist, then it can be communistic.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
Dumar_sl said:
That's not a loophole. It's right in the literature.
Click to expand...
Lol its not a loophole because its written in a book huh?

I'm trying to think of which way I should approach this, by mocking you for basically religious thinking again, or asking you why you, as a supposed "social scientist" or fan of the social sciences, are sitting here cheering on your ideology literally writing down in its book a "get out of all failed attempts free" card.

Maybe a combination of both.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
Oh hey Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that Jews were the root of all evil in the world, so you know, its not a loophole when we say killing all the Jews was justified by Hitler's statements in Mein Kampf!

I mean its literally sad Dumar, how bad an argument you make for this shit.

Oh and of course, Muhammed said killing for Islam is justified, so its morally acceptable too. If its written in a book somewhere, it must be alright.

Bible says I can beat my slave so long as he gets up in a day or two, as well. This totally rocks.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
One can judge from experiment, or one can blindly accept authority. To the scientific mind, experimental proof is all important and theory is merely a convenience in description, to be junked when it no longer fits. To the academic mind, authority is everything and facts are junked when they do not fit theory laid down by authority.
Click to expand...
Robert A Heinlein.

A far better philosopher and author than Marx ever was. Also a better scientist too.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
I can't think of being asked to blindly accept authority any more intensely than when Mikhail and Dumar claim that we should ignore the history of Communism's failures and just TRUST THEM and ONLY THEM as to what the course of human history should be.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
Hey guys, I know we just killed 150 million people, but we promise that next time, it'll work better! Just trust us!

Pinky Swear!"

Reminds me of Saddam Hussein in South Park "I can change I can change, I'll no longer be a dirty little bastard!"



Are modern Marxists suffering from the world's most prolific, long ranging and intense version of beaten wife syndrome?

I think so.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
If they want to believe their silly theory, fine. I just don't get how you can pretend it is scientific in any way. I mean, we have Dumar specifically laying out why it is unfalsifiable. That completely takes it out of the realm of science. He essentially admits it is his religion.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
Araysar_sl said:
Modern Marxists certainly seem no more delusional than modern Kentuckians
Click to expand...
lold

khalid_sl said:
If they want to believe their silly theory, fine. I just don't get how you can pretend it is scientific in any way. I mean, we have Dumar specifically laying out why it is unfalsifiable. That completely takes it out of the realm of science. He essentially admits it is his religion.
Click to expand...
Ding ding ding.
 
D

Dumar_sl

shitlord
3,712
4
khalid_sl said:
If they want to believe their silly theory, fine. I just don't get how you can pretend it is scientific in any way. I mean, we have Dumar specifically laying out why it is unfalsifiable. That completely takes it out of the realm of science. He essentially admits it is his religion.
Click to expand...
Because it's not that simple. As I said to you in the other thread, you can't always just apply the positivistic, observational, deductionist model to everything.

Critical theory, like I said was the school of thought I approached this from, and much of social science argues that this model of looking at social relations is very flawed: the supposed 'scientist' or researcher has in his mind already certain concepts of social relations based on a historical point and time, and his observations, led into his theories, are born of that existing mental framework. The scientistic mode of thought is not only not applicable to everything, it's dangerous to make conclusions thinking that it is. And you can see it's on display here: you dismiss certain social theories as 'wrong' because they've been 'proven wrong', regardless of the fact that I've shown the very requirements of that social theory were not met to begin with.

There's asmall wikion this subject. I'm only privy to the thoughts of Weber on this, because his is mostly a criticism of positivism relating to the social sciences directly. This isn't some fringe radical, but a founder of the discipline of sociology if you're unaware.

That's what I've been trying to tell you. Hodj has been framing my words as some radicalist bent, but in social theory, I'm pretty damned mainstream. Marx is enormously influential, probably more than any other author in history in this field, and to discount that is ridiculous.

And to further say that Maoist policy is Marxist just because he said it was, even more so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.