Frenemies of TalkRational:
Nontheist Nexus |  Rants'n'Raves |  Secular Cafe |  Council of Ex-Muslims |  The Skeptical Zone |  rationalia |  Rational Skepticism |  Atheists Today | 
TalkRational  

FAQ Rules Staff List Calendar RSS
Go Back   TalkRational > Discussion > Politics and Current Affairs

Politics and Current Affairs For political discussions and mudwrestling

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-05-2011, 10:40 AM   #1366549  /  #251
daft punk
has left the building
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,421
daft punk
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fleet-footed Urban Youth View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by el guapo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by fleet-footed Urban Youth View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preno View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by kombucha View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by daft punk View Post
Well being unemployed or underemployed is one of the main causes of destitution. And jobs in a socialist economy wouldn't be exploitative.
You know, this is one point that I've never actually seen explicated in any real way. How do jobs in a socialist economy differ substantively from jobs in a capitalist economy, and how do those differences make jobs in a socialist economy non-exploitative?
In a capitalist economy (or even a "market socialist" economy), the owner which provides the means of production gets a share of the profits by virtue of this ownership. In a socialist economy, the means of production are owned by the state, and the margin between the profits and your wages is used to pay for healthcare, public transport, additional means of production etc. The capitalist has a financial motivation to push the wages as low as he can, the state, not being a person who can profit from this, does not. There needn't be any drastic difference in the content of the job. Iow what ST said minus the irony.
if we're not going for state socialism but some kind of syndicalist/workplace democracy system, the firm is owned equally and jointly by its workers, who have an equal say in its administration, and it's hard to see how workers equally splitting profits after democratically decided costs and wages at democratically set hours and conditions are exploiting themselves
if the workers are sharing the profits then dp's idea of electing the people above them might work.
this isn't "DP's idea" nor is it some startling revelation, the whole point of syndicalist socialism or workplace democracy is the workers own and run firms. DP is pretty dumb but i don't think he is dumb enough to think workplace democracy can be unhitched from employee ownership. or if he is, he's really goddamn ignorant about his own ideology.
No I am not a syndicalist I am a Marxist and in socialism workers would not own their companies. Show me how that makes me ignorant of my own 'ideology'.
daft punk is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 04-05-2011, 10:41 AM   #1366550  /  #252
daft punk
has left the building
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,421
daft punk
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by el guapo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by fleet-footed Urban Youth View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksen View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by daft punk View Post
I'm not quite sure how attempting the free market when the climbed off the ship in the freezing winter would have helped. They built buildings, one at a time. Together.
Uh huh, they tried your way and died. Alone.
i am not sure this is a very well thought out historical analysis.
yeah i think ksen thinks we're debating socialism per se, when this discussion is really more about daft punk's conception of it
The pilgrims were not socialists
daft punk is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 04-05-2011, 10:43 AM   #1366551  /  #253
daft punk
has left the building
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,421
daft punk
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fleet-footed Urban Youth View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by el guapo View Post
see my previous post. if at these companies, workers share in the profits, then i believe it. if not, i'll need to see examples to believe it.
already replied, i guess it just never crossed my mind that anyone could conceive of workplace democracy without employee ownership, especially not someone who espouses a philosophy of workers owning the means of production
They own it as a whole, they do not own their individual companies! When did any Marxist say that?
daft punk is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 04-05-2011, 10:45 AM   #1366552  /  #254
daft punk
has left the building
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,421
daft punk
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fleet-footed Urban Youth View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by el guapo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by fleet-footed Urban Youth View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksen View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by daft punk View Post
I'm not quite sure how attempting the free market when the climbed off the ship in the freezing winter would have helped. They built buildings, one at a time. Together.
Uh huh, they tried your way and died. Alone.
i am not sure this is a very well thought out historical analysis.
yeah i think ksen thinks we're debating socialism per se, when this discussion is really more about daft punk's conception of it
that's not even it. it's bad historical analysis because it picks out one instance of a larger process (european colonialism in the new world) with many complex factors involved (adaptation to new climate and working conditions, inherent difficulties of starting a small settlement from basically a handful of peeps in the wilderness, interactions with indigenous peoples, level of support from the metropole, etc.) and uses this one example exempt from this complex context to construct a monocausal explanation (puritan colony failed because of socialism!) in anachronistic terms (what exactly was "puritan socialism" and how does it compare to "socialism" in the context of this discussion?) without considering points of comparison (how many other attempts at colonization failed and why?) or counterexamples (the inka empire, although upholding them as a model for "socialism" is dumb by my own rules but fuck it, ksen has already kicked reason to the curb, eat my fully operational pre-industrial theocratic centrally planned regime bitch!)
more or less agree with that
daft punk is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 04-05-2011, 10:46 AM   #1366553  /  #255
daft punk
has left the building
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,421
daft punk
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ravenscape View Post
I still don't get why it's a bad thing for people to cook for themselves when and if they want to.
It's not. If they want to, they can cook. But the shops wont have so much processed shit for people who arent into cooking.
daft punk is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 04-05-2011, 10:49 AM   #1366557  /  #256
daft punk
has left the building
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,421
daft punk
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by madmardigan View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by fleet-footed Urban Youth View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ravenscape View Post
I still don't get why it's a bad thing for people to cook for themselves when and if they want to.
there's a lot of dumb posting in this thread all around, i think a lot of it slipped by because it was overshadowed by daft's towering monument to narrow-minded robotic dogmatism, but probably the worst was madmargiden or w/e going on about how "socialism means i have to do unpleasant work? fuck it " without considering the question of who has to do unpleasant work now, and why it's right that this person should have to while madmergishian does not, and what this says about who socialism appeals to and why this is important.
WTF I was just trying to figure out how daft punk plans to get rid of all the shit jobs so that everyone is happy in Daftopia
Its not something you can draw up a blueprint for, ie it is not a utopia. You work it out as you go along by trial and error, theory is only proven correct by practice.
daft punk is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 04-05-2011, 10:50 AM   #1366560  /  #257
daft punk
has left the building
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,421
daft punk
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ravenscape View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by fleet-footed Urban Youth View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ravenscape View Post
I still don't get why it's a bad thing for people to cook for themselves when and if they want to.
there's a lot of dumb posting in this thread all around, i think a lot of it slipped by because it was overshadowed by daft's towering monument to narrow-minded robotic dogmatism, but probably the worst was madmargiden or w/e going on about how "socialism means i have to do unpleasant work? fuck it " without considering the question of who has to do unpleasant work now, and why it's right that this person should have to while madmergishian does not, and what this says about who socialism appeals to and why this is important.
that's why I said something about Walden 2 upthread. I thought he was going in this direction: units of community service (or whatever you want to call it) would = hours labor x unpleasantness/heavy lifting/smelly factors. If you pick sanitation, then you reach your community service units with far fewer hours than if you pick flower-gardening. and the rest of your time is yours to use on your own interests.
Thats not a bad idea at all!
daft punk is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 04-05-2011, 10:59 AM   #1366563  /  #258
daft punk
has left the building
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,421
daft punk
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by el guapo View Post
dp, why do you hate seagulls?
I dont, I like them. I used to go to a small fishing village every summer for my hols.

In the UK we produce 30 million tons of household waste each year of which 6 million tons is packaging and 6.7 million tons is food. In total about 10 million tons of packaging waste is produced each year. I guess for America you multiply by 5.
daft punk is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 04-05-2011, 11:00 AM   #1366564  /  #259
daft punk
has left the building
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,421
daft punk
Default

jeeez, lotta posts on the trot, pardon the pun, good discussion
daft punk is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 04-05-2011, 11:05 AM   #1366565  /  #260
Preno
TRIGGER WARNING
Resident Overlord
 
Preno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 10,956
Preno
Default

hey guys I have a really crazy idea, but how about we reward shitty work with like these little slips of paper that you can later exchange for like food or tickets or stuff? It sounds crazy but it just might work.
Preno is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 04-05-2011, 11:06 AM   #1366567  /  #261
daft punk
has left the building
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,421
daft punk
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Preno View Post
hey guys I have a really crazy idea, but how about we reward shitty work with like these little slips of paper that you can later exchange for like food or tickets or stuff? It sounds crazy but it just might work.
Who would work for that?
daft punk is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 04-05-2011, 11:39 AM   #1366588  /  #262
fleet-footed Urban Youth
CHO-CO-LAY-TOH
RnR/TR Official Historian
 
fleet-footed Urban Youth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 38,796
fleet-footed Urban Youth
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by daft punk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ravenscape View Post
why the hell are we eliminating cooking at home?
not eliminating, just making it optional. It isnt the most efficient use of resources. It depends what you are cooking. If you get the raw ingredients and make something, that is one thing, but going to a supermarket for processed stuff in packages is another.
how is putting food in one place for people to travel to, pick up, and take home to cook less sustainable than putting food in one place where it is cooked and people travel to it to eat?

neither one serves sustainability better than the other. what would serve sustainability is transportation backed by renewable or at least abundant energy that doesn't pollute, local agriculture where shipping and rail transport isn't viable, and farming methods that don't degrade the topsoil so it becomes a dead sponge for synthetic fertilizers. we do this and we can have supermarkets and restaurants without issue.
__________________
SEE YOU IN THE MOSH'SH PIT
fleet-footed Urban Youth is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 04-05-2011, 11:48 AM   #1366592  /  #263
fleet-footed Urban Youth
CHO-CO-LAY-TOH
RnR/TR Official Historian
 
fleet-footed Urban Youth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 38,796
fleet-footed Urban Youth
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by daft punk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by fleet-footed Urban Youth View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by daft punk View Post

Well being unemployed or underemployed is one of the main causes of destitution.
sure. in a capitalist economy. which is why the appeal to "create jobs" is only a leftist selling point if you have made your peace with capitalism, accepted it as a necessary evil. or maybe you're being very pragmatic, that as we currently list under capitalism, we must make do with it... but then, why talk about what socialism will do in capitalist terms?
I dont understand your point. Socialism would provide everyone with a job.
if your concerns are oriented towards "getting people jobs" and you're a leftist, it's because you are concerned about peoples' needs under capitalism. under socialism people certainly might all have jobs, but that isn't really the point; the point is that under socialism, everyone's' basic needs should be met and evenly distributed capital minimizes the amount of needed work. "you will have a job!" is not really a big deal in this list of goals, it's really a side-effect or means to a much more important end. only under capitalism is making sure as many people as possible are employed an important policy goal, because only under capitalism should "having a job" as we currently understand it (i.e., typically as a subordinate employee of a private firm, with little agency, making someone else rich) be necessary for survival. under socialism, "minimal work evenly distributed using the productivity gains of automation with democratic organization" is the goal, the important progressive element that makes it superior to capitalism. what people are doing as "jobs" in this system is not the "selling point," so to speak.

tl;dr "everyone can have a job" is only an important selling point for policies in a system where "having a job" is how you survive economically, and ideally, socialism should not be such a system.
__________________
SEE YOU IN THE MOSH'SH PIT
fleet-footed Urban Youth is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 04-05-2011, 11:51 AM   #1366593  /  #264
fleet-footed Urban Youth
CHO-CO-LAY-TOH
RnR/TR Official Historian
 
fleet-footed Urban Youth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 38,796
fleet-footed Urban Youth
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by daft punk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by fleet-footed Urban Youth View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by el guapo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by fleet-footed Urban Youth View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preno View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by kombucha View Post
You know, this is one point that I've never actually seen explicated in any real way. How do jobs in a socialist economy differ substantively from jobs in a capitalist economy, and how do those differences make jobs in a socialist economy non-exploitative?
In a capitalist economy (or even a "market socialist" economy), the owner which provides the means of production gets a share of the profits by virtue of this ownership. In a socialist economy, the means of production are owned by the state, and the margin between the profits and your wages is used to pay for healthcare, public transport, additional means of production etc. The capitalist has a financial motivation to push the wages as low as he can, the state, not being a person who can profit from this, does not. There needn't be any drastic difference in the content of the job. Iow what ST said minus the irony.
if we're not going for state socialism but some kind of syndicalist/workplace democracy system, the firm is owned equally and jointly by its workers, who have an equal say in its administration, and it's hard to see how workers equally splitting profits after democratically decided costs and wages at democratically set hours and conditions are exploiting themselves
if the workers are sharing the profits then dp's idea of electing the people above them might work.
this isn't "DP's idea" nor is it some startling revelation, the whole point of syndicalist socialism or workplace democracy is the workers own and run firms. DP is pretty dumb but i don't think he is dumb enough to think workplace democracy can be unhitched from employee ownership. or if he is, he's really goddamn ignorant about his own ideology.
No I am not a syndicalist I am a Marxist and in socialism workers would not own their companies. Show me how that makes me ignorant of my own 'ideology'.
if you're pitching any kind of socialism, you're pitching an idea founded upon democratic workers' control of the means of production. in "capitalist terms" this resolves to "employee-owned firms." you were talking earlier about workers electing managers and voting on organizational policy; in what socialist organizational scheme would this activity be divorced from the means of production being owned and operated by those workers?

eta: also, i did say that it "wasn't your idea," and however you conceive of "democratic workplaces," i am sure you do not see this as divorced from workers owning productive capital in common and sharing its fruits according to democratic decision making.
__________________
SEE YOU IN THE MOSH'SH PIT

Last edited by fleet-footed Urban Youth; 04-05-2011 at 12:48 PM.
fleet-footed Urban Youth is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 04-05-2011, 11:58 AM   #1366595  /  #265
fleet-footed Urban Youth
CHO-CO-LAY-TOH
RnR/TR Official Historian
 
fleet-footed Urban Youth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 38,796
fleet-footed Urban Youth
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by daft punk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by fleet-footed Urban Youth View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by el guapo View Post
see my previous post. if at these companies, workers share in the profits, then i believe it. if not, i'll need to see examples to believe it.
already replied, i guess it just never crossed my mind that anyone could conceive of workplace democracy without employee ownership, especially not someone who espouses a philosophy of workers owning the means of production
They own it as a whole, they do not own their individual companies! When did any Marxist say that?
what were you talking about when you were going on about "electing managers" etc? i understand that employee ownership of firms is a syndicalist and not a marxist idea, and i was being imprecise when i associated your ideas with syndicalism. i know you aren't a syndicalist, but i was addressing the concept that el guapo seemed to have in mind. the point remains sound overall. both syndicalist socialism and marxism should share, in common, the idea that workers are voting on what to do with things that they own, whether this is as a worker-owned "firm" or collectively administered by a democratic central government. i am pretty sure you understood that overall concept, even if you did not have the same model in mind that guapo seemed to have been thinking of.
__________________
SEE YOU IN THE MOSH'SH PIT
fleet-footed Urban Youth is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 04-05-2011, 12:40 PM   #1366616  /  #266
SkepticTank
legitimately terrible
Amazon Race Champion, Deuces Solitaire Champion, Mahjong - Valley in the mountains Champion, Darts 501 Champion, Harbor Fishing Champion, Glop:Melee Champion, Bloons Tower Defense Champion, Mario & Friends Tower Defense Champion, Donkey Kong Ice Adventure Champion, Flying Gonzo Champion Mod: C&T, TIH
 
SkepticTank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 19,043
SkepticTank
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by daft punk View Post
When have socialists gone to war?
Let me guess. China and the Soviet Union were never "true" socialists?
__________________
Singlehandedly outed the seer
SkepticTank is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 04-05-2011, 12:48 PM   #1366619  /  #267
SkepticTank
legitimately terrible
Amazon Race Champion, Deuces Solitaire Champion, Mahjong - Valley in the mountains Champion, Darts 501 Champion, Harbor Fishing Champion, Glop:Melee Champion, Bloons Tower Defense Champion, Mario & Friends Tower Defense Champion, Donkey Kong Ice Adventure Champion, Flying Gonzo Champion Mod: C&T, TIH
 
SkepticTank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 19,043
SkepticTank
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by daft punk View Post
No recession, no wars, once the capitalists had given up fighting back.
Good luck with that.

What do you do about the greedy fuckers like me who bust their ass at their state job and in return receive the same as the lazy fuckers who don't do anything and completely leech off society? In your system, that class of people will be the new oppressed worker. And we'll rise up and revolt against our statist masters who are unfairly redistributing the frutis of our labors unjustly.
__________________
Singlehandedly outed the seer
SkepticTank is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 04-05-2011, 12:50 PM   #1366620  /  #268
fleet-footed Urban Youth
CHO-CO-LAY-TOH
RnR/TR Official Historian
 
fleet-footed Urban Youth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 38,796
fleet-footed Urban Youth
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkepticTank View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by daft punk View Post
No recession, no wars, once the capitalists had given up fighting back.
Good luck with that.
wondering if republican france is still under constant threat of reactionary aristocratic counter-revolution.
__________________
SEE YOU IN THE MOSH'SH PIT
fleet-footed Urban Youth is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 04-05-2011, 03:02 PM   #1366776  /  #269
I_pity_the_fool
Urine is sterile too!
 
I_pity_the_fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,896
I_pity_the_fool
Default

Quote:
if you're pitching any kind of socialism, you're pitching an idea founded upon democratic workers' control of the means of production. in "capitalist terms" this resolves to "employee-owned firms."
dp seems to be big on central planning. How do you reconcile that with workers deciding themselves what ingredients there biscuits will contain?
I_pity_the_fool is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 04-05-2011, 03:17 PM   #1366792  /  #270
fleet-footed Urban Youth
CHO-CO-LAY-TOH
RnR/TR Official Historian
 
fleet-footed Urban Youth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 38,796
fleet-footed Urban Youth
Default

the same way you reconcile citizens deciding what laws should be made
__________________
SEE YOU IN THE MOSH'SH PIT
fleet-footed Urban Youth is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 04-05-2011, 03:28 PM   #1366800  /  #271
Rathpig
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 21,625
Rathpig
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkepticTank View Post
And we'll rise up and revolt
Doubtful, the first thing the new boss does is outlaw dissent.
All -isms depend on tyranny to a greater or lesser extent. Socialism couldn't exist without the strongest form of tyranny because it proposes the most radical form of restructure.

Welcome to the Gulag, Mr. Enemy of the Revolution.
Rathpig is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 04-05-2011, 03:31 PM   #1366802  /  #272
SkepticTank
legitimately terrible
Amazon Race Champion, Deuces Solitaire Champion, Mahjong - Valley in the mountains Champion, Darts 501 Champion, Harbor Fishing Champion, Glop:Melee Champion, Bloons Tower Defense Champion, Mario & Friends Tower Defense Champion, Donkey Kong Ice Adventure Champion, Flying Gonzo Champion Mod: C&T, TIH
 
SkepticTank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 19,043
SkepticTank
Default

Yeah, there have been a few posts referencing re-education camps. I haven't seen daft address that little nicety.
__________________
Singlehandedly outed the seer
SkepticTank is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 04-05-2011, 03:34 PM   #1366810  /  #273
fleet-footed Urban Youth
CHO-CO-LAY-TOH
RnR/TR Official Historian
 
fleet-footed Urban Youth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 38,796
fleet-footed Urban Youth
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathpig View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkepticTank View Post
And we'll rise up and revolt
Doubtful, the first thing the new boss does is outlaw dissent.
All -isms depend on tyranny to a greater or lesser extent. Socialism couldn't exist without the strongest form of tyranny because it proposes the most radical form of restructure.

Welcome to the Gulag, Mr. Enemy of the Revolution.
not really sure how any marxist could deny this, it's kinda built into the ideology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Engels in "On Authority"
Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?
__________________
SEE YOU IN THE MOSH'SH PIT
fleet-footed Urban Youth is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 04-05-2011, 03:34 PM   #1366811  /  #274
Rathpig
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 21,625
Rathpig
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkepticTank View Post
I haven't seen daft address that little nicety.
I've seen him deny it.
Despite that denial being the exact opposite of all known human history.

Power is not shared. And dissent is not ignored.
Rathpig is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 04-05-2011, 03:37 PM   #1366812  /  #275
Rathpig
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 21,625
Rathpig
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fleet-footed Urban Youth View Post
not really sure how any marxist could deny this, it's kinda built into the ideology
In the case of internet Marxists, "the ideology" is whatever makes them feel good about their pseudo sticking it to the man pose. They skip over the icky parts.
Rathpig is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Reply

  TalkRational > Discussion > Politics and Current Affairs

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2008 - 2014, TalkRational.org