You are mistaking a support system and community charity for collectivism.
And It is about on par with the ridiculous nature of the "rules for radicals" crowd that people who are not willing to say that their children are "collective property" are decried as hard hearted Luddites, who stand in the way of more perfect communities.
The fact that she used the word is more significant than most of what she says.
50 years ago, in this country, the word collectivism carried a connotation of loss of liberty, and ceding sovereignty to a centralized power. Of course the collectivization of soviet Russia was still fresh in the minds of our country, and it would be ridiculous to even dream that "collectivization" would ever reach American shores.
I know this video seems like a real happy message to tel people that we need to come together as communities to help each other with the problems that we face. Spend more on investing in our youth etc.
I do not see it that way. Rev. Sharpton and Ed Schultz like to talk about racist "dog whistles", where rhetoric is thinly veiled racism.
This is akin to a Communist "dog Whistle" or a thinly veiled piece of communist propaganda.
Why am I not shocked that this post reads almost verbatim with the Ted Kaczynski manifesto.
0
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:
You are mistaking a support system and community charity for collectivism.
And It is about on par with the ridiculous nature of the "rules for radicals" crowd that people who are not willing to say that their children are "collective property" are decried as hard hearted Luddites, who stand in the way of more perfect communities.
The fact that she used the word is more significant than most of what she says.
50 years ago, in this country, the word collectivism carried a connotation of loss of liberty, and ceding sovereignty to a centralized power. Of course the collectivization of soviet Russia was still fresh in the minds of our country, and it would be ridiculous to even dream that "collectivization" would ever reach American shores.
I know this video seems like a real happy message to tel people that we need to come together as communities to help each other with the problems that we face. Spend more on investing in our youth etc.
I do not see it that way. Rev. Sharpton and Ed Schultz like to talk about racist "dog whistles", where rhetoric is thinly veiled racism.
This is akin to a Communist "dog Whistle" or a thinly veiled piece of communist propaganda.
Why am I not shocked that this post reads almost verbatim with the Ted Kaczynski manifesto.
You are mistaking a support system and community charity for collectivism.
And It is about on par with the ridiculous nature of the "rules for radicals" crowd that people who are not willing to say that their children are "collective property" are decried as hard hearted Luddites, who stand in the way of more perfect communities.
The fact that she used the word is more significant than most of what she says.
50 years ago, in this country, the word collectivism carried a connotation of loss of liberty, and ceding sovereignty to a centralized power. Of course the collectivization of soviet Russia was still fresh in the minds of our country, and it would be ridiculous to even dream that "collectivization" would ever reach American shores.
I know this video seems like a real happy message to tel people that we need to come together as communities to help each other with the problems that we face. Spend more on investing in our youth etc.
I do not see it that way. Rev. Sharpton and Ed Schultz like to talk about racist "dog whistles", where rhetoric is thinly veiled racism.
This is akin to a Communist "dog Whistle" or a thinly veiled piece of communist propaganda.
So i think we are talking semantics... If you take the definition as being akin to communism I am with you in the outrage...
and while I dont necessary agree with the video you posted, I dont think that this is what the woman is talking about or her intention...
So would you call China as being a place that has collectivism as you define it?
Technically I view the church I was talking about as being a collective not charity...
I learned about this once when the woman was in a bind and a guy came to help her out... I asked if that was her husband or significant other and she said no, he was pastor dan...
So charity to me is when pastor dan gives money to a homeless shelter... and technically the government sees it that way as he can write off the donation to "charity"...
pastor dan also doesnt come down to help just anyone... but because the congregation/collective views all members as a part of the family/collective, he views her situation and helping her kids/family as simply a part of being part of the collective... and this is not a support system because the fact of the matter is that the woman lacks a true support system and the collective know this so the collective helps her when possible because the congregation views her situation as a part of the collective...
now if the church goes down as a group to the homeless shelter I would call that charity... but the way the church views and treats her kids as a part of the collective, and then come together to help each other with the problems they face... I think of it as collectivism...
not in the political sense... but different than charity as I have explained...
and to clarify, I am not saying this is what the woman is referring to either, but I do think it probably falls somewhere between the collectivism at the church and the pure racist/communist definition... and I think youre admitting that her using the word is more significant than then what say actually says and means seems like you agree with me
0
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:
You are mistaking a support system and community charity for collectivism.
And It is about on par with the ridiculous nature of the "rules for radicals" crowd that people who are not willing to say that their children are "collective property" are decried as hard hearted Luddites, who stand in the way of more perfect communities.
The fact that she used the word is more significant than most of what she says.
50 years ago, in this country, the word collectivism carried a connotation of loss of liberty, and ceding sovereignty to a centralized power. Of course the collectivization of soviet Russia was still fresh in the minds of our country, and it would be ridiculous to even dream that "collectivization" would ever reach American shores.
I know this video seems like a real happy message to tel people that we need to come together as communities to help each other with the problems that we face. Spend more on investing in our youth etc.
I do not see it that way. Rev. Sharpton and Ed Schultz like to talk about racist "dog whistles", where rhetoric is thinly veiled racism.
This is akin to a Communist "dog Whistle" or a thinly veiled piece of communist propaganda.
So i think we are talking semantics... If you take the definition as being akin to communism I am with you in the outrage...
and while I dont necessary agree with the video you posted, I dont think that this is what the woman is talking about or her intention...
So would you call China as being a place that has collectivism as you define it?
Technically I view the church I was talking about as being a collective not charity...
I learned about this once when the woman was in a bind and a guy came to help her out... I asked if that was her husband or significant other and she said no, he was pastor dan...
So charity to me is when pastor dan gives money to a homeless shelter... and technically the government sees it that way as he can write off the donation to "charity"...
pastor dan also doesnt come down to help just anyone... but because the congregation/collective views all members as a part of the family/collective, he views her situation and helping her kids/family as simply a part of being part of the collective... and this is not a support system because the fact of the matter is that the woman lacks a true support system and the collective know this so the collective helps her when possible because the congregation views her situation as a part of the collective...
now if the church goes down as a group to the homeless shelter I would call that charity... but the way the church views and treats her kids as a part of the collective, and then come together to help each other with the problems they face... I think of it as collectivism...
not in the political sense... but different than charity as I have explained...
and to clarify, I am not saying this is what the woman is referring to either, but I do think it probably falls somewhere between the collectivism at the church and the pure racist/communist definition... and I think youre admitting that her using the word is more significant than then what say actually says and means seems like you agree with me
Rick thank you for responding to me in a discussion where we dont 100%... and doing so without fabricating a bunch of Lies to argue against or engaging in childish games, insults and name calling...
its really refreshing...
I agree that church is not pure collectivism... but do you agree with me that he basic spirit of how they function in seeing the woman's family as their own helping her children as part of the collective rather then independent strangers is a akin to what the woman in the video is talking about?
once again I dont agree with the woman... but I do see how the basic premise in the right context like this congregation how it actually works...
and while I know for a fact that the congregation has given her money, you dont see the woman in the video saying that she wants money... but she is asking that people change their thinking and perception to be more inclusive in helping others, probably specifically children... and while I dont like the collective word either or even bringing up the property thing, I dont necessarily vehemently disagree with her basic premise...
0
Rick thank you for responding to me in a discussion where we dont 100%... and doing so without fabricating a bunch of Lies to argue against or engaging in childish games, insults and name calling...
its really refreshing...
I agree that church is not pure collectivism... but do you agree with me that he basic spirit of how they function in seeing the woman's family as their own helping her children as part of the collective rather then independent strangers is a akin to what the woman in the video is talking about?
once again I dont agree with the woman... but I do see how the basic premise in the right context like this congregation how it actually works...
and while I know for a fact that the congregation has given her money, you dont see the woman in the video saying that she wants money... but she is asking that people change their thinking and perception to be more inclusive in helping others, probably specifically children... and while I dont like the collective word either or even bringing up the property thing, I dont necessarily vehemently disagree with her basic premise...
Careful Rick they'll can this thread if you start making too much sense.
I am actually a huge supporter of individual responsibility, especially when it comes to raising children...
but I dont think that in the church/collective I have talked about that because just because the congregation/collective looks to help each other in a collective manner that it means that they dont believe in individual responsibility in their parenting...
Dont you think there is room for both? especially in my church/congregation example?
0
Quote Originally Posted by OnlyGod:
Careful Rick they'll can this thread if you start making too much sense.
I am actually a huge supporter of individual responsibility, especially when it comes to raising children...
but I dont think that in the church/collective I have talked about that because just because the congregation/collective looks to help each other in a collective manner that it means that they dont believe in individual responsibility in their parenting...
Dont you think there is room for both? especially in my church/congregation example?
I am actually a huge supporter of individual responsibility, especially when it comes to raising children...
but I dont think that in the church/collective I have talked about that because just because the congregation/collective looks to help each other in a collective manner that it means that they dont believe in individual responsibility in their parenting...
Dont you think there is room for both? especially in my church/congregation example?
In the sense that we actually have to live together there is no reason we all shouldn't be able to help each other eat work play. We certainly weren't meant to sit around alone all day. Of course fella some people abuse it though the product is pretty bad probably depends on where you live you got crazy fuggers running around in the usa. What if Abraham Lincoln had more influence we would all be sitting around with top hats and pipes all respecting each others lives and women all classy like.
0
Quote Originally Posted by dl36:
I am actually a huge supporter of individual responsibility, especially when it comes to raising children...
but I dont think that in the church/collective I have talked about that because just because the congregation/collective looks to help each other in a collective manner that it means that they dont believe in individual responsibility in their parenting...
Dont you think there is room for both? especially in my church/congregation example?
In the sense that we actually have to live together there is no reason we all shouldn't be able to help each other eat work play. We certainly weren't meant to sit around alone all day. Of course fella some people abuse it though the product is pretty bad probably depends on where you live you got crazy fuggers running around in the usa. What if Abraham Lincoln had more influence we would all be sitting around with top hats and pipes all respecting each others lives and women all classy like.
At no point has the woman ceded sovereignty over her children to the collective.
I guess when we talk about a "basic premise"
You are focusing on the help of the community
While I am focusing on the sovereignty issue of the helper.
I am in no way against any community helping out, and try to pitch in, in any way I can with my own community .
we agree on the sovereignty issue...
sounds like we agree on the premise of looking to help others...
but I am also talking about thinking a collective manner that does not require government... and there are many levels and contexts to do that...
growing up we lived on a dead end lane with about 10 houses... all families... and although we did not share our income or were binded to share all of our food in a collective, it was not uncommon that if someone harvested something or had some meat from hunting that people would look to share with each other...
everyone was a family with kids of differing ages... and it was common to enter another family's garage to grab a basketball to shoot on the hoop that was on their property...
we hung out at each other's houses, car pooled to school together, did extracurricular activites together, went to the same places of worship,
now where I live there are plenty of families... but the kids are constant ringing my door because a ball went into my yard... I keep telling the kids that they are my neighbors and they are welcome to come over and get their balls when they go over the fence...
and the children tell me that their parents tell them that they must ring the doorbell every time and get permission every time they step foot on my property... so you can imagine that some weekends they are ringing my door bell half a dozen times a day...
I asked the parents about that and they said two things...
1. there was an incident where someone called the cops and got the law involved when a child went to get a ball on someone's property
2. there is fear that with the current culture that someone will open fire on a child or teen because they are trespassing and in their view the child/teen was doing something that was worth letting a few rounds off to protect themselves on their own property...
I think both of the reason are complete crap... but this is how the children are raised now in the current culture... and to me the woman in the video is talking about moving backward to how things used to me when I grew up... which is ironic if you watch the video all the way through...
0
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:
At no point has the woman ceded sovereignty over her children to the collective.
I guess when we talk about a "basic premise"
You are focusing on the help of the community
While I am focusing on the sovereignty issue of the helper.
I am in no way against any community helping out, and try to pitch in, in any way I can with my own community .
we agree on the sovereignty issue...
sounds like we agree on the premise of looking to help others...
but I am also talking about thinking a collective manner that does not require government... and there are many levels and contexts to do that...
growing up we lived on a dead end lane with about 10 houses... all families... and although we did not share our income or were binded to share all of our food in a collective, it was not uncommon that if someone harvested something or had some meat from hunting that people would look to share with each other...
everyone was a family with kids of differing ages... and it was common to enter another family's garage to grab a basketball to shoot on the hoop that was on their property...
we hung out at each other's houses, car pooled to school together, did extracurricular activites together, went to the same places of worship,
now where I live there are plenty of families... but the kids are constant ringing my door because a ball went into my yard... I keep telling the kids that they are my neighbors and they are welcome to come over and get their balls when they go over the fence...
and the children tell me that their parents tell them that they must ring the doorbell every time and get permission every time they step foot on my property... so you can imagine that some weekends they are ringing my door bell half a dozen times a day...
I asked the parents about that and they said two things...
1. there was an incident where someone called the cops and got the law involved when a child went to get a ball on someone's property
2. there is fear that with the current culture that someone will open fire on a child or teen because they are trespassing and in their view the child/teen was doing something that was worth letting a few rounds off to protect themselves on their own property...
I think both of the reason are complete crap... but this is how the children are raised now in the current culture... and to me the woman in the video is talking about moving backward to how things used to me when I grew up... which is ironic if you watch the video all the way through...
yeah rick is a quality poster... just because the partisan lemmings sometimes run behind him when his personal views might be similar to their prescribed talking points, doesnt mean he is a part of the "circle jerk crew"
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
This post actually made me smile.
Good work.
yeah rick is a quality poster... just because the partisan lemmings sometimes run behind him when his personal views might be similar to their prescribed talking points, doesnt mean he is a part of the "circle jerk crew"
Dl. I like where you are coming from. If that is what collectivism was I would run toward it.
The mutual respect (and at the same time) free sharing of property does not come from some sort of egalitarian central plan. It comes from like minded individuals who find value in the idea of community. It is organic Where. Find most of the "collectivism" in our society very senthetic. I think the schools are a battleground for this ideal.
0
Dl. I like where you are coming from. If that is what collectivism was I would run toward it.
The mutual respect (and at the same time) free sharing of property does not come from some sort of egalitarian central plan. It comes from like minded individuals who find value in the idea of community. It is organic Where. Find most of the "collectivism" in our society very senthetic. I think the schools are a battleground for this ideal.
well collectivism in terms of the generic definition as an adjective...
and I believe it exists organically...
My father raised me with the values and ideals of this and he was a rightwinger... he said the success can be your degrees, job/business, pay check, how wealth you accumulate etc... but as you do this, see if you can help someone in an intentional manner in the process rather than hurt someone knowingly...
This has guided my career and life choices... call me a collectivist... call my family and the lane I grew up collectivist...
but because I do so much to help people, I am not big on charity in terms of monetary donation or being taxed... I give where I want with a sliding scale for people of low income or poverty... I also give automatic discounts to military and people in professions of helping people (case managers, other therapists, teachers, nurses)
My collectivist belief is that I can do greater good helping people that go out and help others than trying to do that much good myself...
So I personally hate synthetic collectivism because I feel it is taking away my personal right and free to give I as see fit... but this evil only exists in reaction to the crap that happens in real life... I am insulted that I would need to have it imposed on me...
so I dont actually disagree with the video's message of people thinking more as community...
I actually think that this might a part of hillary 2016 campaign... saying lets talk about the next step after obama...
its takes a village
thats kinda what this sounds like to me... and perhaps this will be something the GOP will try to mock and use against her that might backfire and blow up in their face again like pulling the 47% classwarfare...
it seems to me that the best strategy would be to be outraged and not react emotionally looking like a lunatic... but eventually the talking heads will get to this and it will become a staple talking point as hillary readies for a run at president... but the question I think is will it backfire to play the greed vs good card?
0
well collectivism in terms of the generic definition as an adjective...
and I believe it exists organically...
My father raised me with the values and ideals of this and he was a rightwinger... he said the success can be your degrees, job/business, pay check, how wealth you accumulate etc... but as you do this, see if you can help someone in an intentional manner in the process rather than hurt someone knowingly...
This has guided my career and life choices... call me a collectivist... call my family and the lane I grew up collectivist...
but because I do so much to help people, I am not big on charity in terms of monetary donation or being taxed... I give where I want with a sliding scale for people of low income or poverty... I also give automatic discounts to military and people in professions of helping people (case managers, other therapists, teachers, nurses)
My collectivist belief is that I can do greater good helping people that go out and help others than trying to do that much good myself...
So I personally hate synthetic collectivism because I feel it is taking away my personal right and free to give I as see fit... but this evil only exists in reaction to the crap that happens in real life... I am insulted that I would need to have it imposed on me...
so I dont actually disagree with the video's message of people thinking more as community...
I actually think that this might a part of hillary 2016 campaign... saying lets talk about the next step after obama...
its takes a village
thats kinda what this sounds like to me... and perhaps this will be something the GOP will try to mock and use against her that might backfire and blow up in their face again like pulling the 47% classwarfare...
it seems to me that the best strategy would be to be outraged and not react emotionally looking like a lunatic... but eventually the talking heads will get to this and it will become a staple talking point as hillary readies for a run at president... but the question I think is will it backfire to play the greed vs good card?
Lets cut to the crap shall we? I see some bright posters in here seemingly missing the core of her message.
There is a reason her message didn't sound anything like post #10. Know what that this? That's because she wasn't trying to say that. At all. And yes, post #10 is a good one.
The words "collective" and "private" are stressed in her little spiel. One is said with a positive connotation, the other isn't. Why is that? The logic in post #10 isn't found in rocket science books. So why didn't' she just say that instead?
Which leads us to the core of the modern day liberal agenda. Equality. Know what the greatest source of inequality in America is today? Parents.
Yep, parents are one of society's most enduring sources of inequality. If you have two parents who stay married and are invested in your upbringing, you've hit life's lottery. That the family is so essential to the well-being of children has to be a constant source of frustration to an egalitarian freak show like Melissa Harris-Perry.
If the left wants to equalize investments in children that matter the most, it should promote intact families and engaged parents. Even if it means embracing old fashioned private child rearing. You know those awful nasty things called "family values."
Excellent point, TILT...
0
Quote Originally Posted by TILTOLOGIC:
Lets cut to the crap shall we? I see some bright posters in here seemingly missing the core of her message.
There is a reason her message didn't sound anything like post #10. Know what that this? That's because she wasn't trying to say that. At all. And yes, post #10 is a good one.
The words "collective" and "private" are stressed in her little spiel. One is said with a positive connotation, the other isn't. Why is that? The logic in post #10 isn't found in rocket science books. So why didn't' she just say that instead?
Which leads us to the core of the modern day liberal agenda. Equality. Know what the greatest source of inequality in America is today? Parents.
Yep, parents are one of society's most enduring sources of inequality. If you have two parents who stay married and are invested in your upbringing, you've hit life's lottery. That the family is so essential to the well-being of children has to be a constant source of frustration to an egalitarian freak show like Melissa Harris-Perry.
If the left wants to equalize investments in children that matter the most, it should promote intact families and engaged parents. Even if it means embracing old fashioned private child rearing. You know those awful nasty things called "family values."
In the sense that we actually have to live together there is no reason we all shouldn't be able to help each other eat work play. We certainly weren't meant to sit around alone all day. Of course fella some people abuse it though the product is pretty bad probably depends on where you live you got crazy fuggers running around in the usa. What if Abraham Lincoln had more influence we would all be sitting around with top hats and pipes all respecting each others lives and women all classy like.
nah lincoln was too busy hunting vampires...
0
Quote Originally Posted by OnlyGod:
In the sense that we actually have to live together there is no reason we all shouldn't be able to help each other eat work play. We certainly weren't meant to sit around alone all day. Of course fella some people abuse it though the product is pretty bad probably depends on where you live you got crazy fuggers running around in the usa. What if Abraham Lincoln had more influence we would all be sitting around with top hats and pipes all respecting each others lives and women all classy like.
Lets cut to the crap shall we? I see some bright posters in here seemingly missing the core of her message.
There is a reason her message didn't sound anything like post #10. Know what that this? That's because she wasn't trying to say that. At all. And yes, post #10 is a good one.
The words "collective" and "private" are stressed in her little spiel. One is said with a positive connotation, the other isn't. Why is that? The logic in post #10 isn't found in rocket science books. So why didn't' she just say that instead?
Which leads us to the core of the modern day liberal agenda. Equality. Know what the greatest source of inequality in America is today? Parents.
Yep, parents are one of society's most enduring sources of inequality. If you have two parents who stay married and are invested in your upbringing, you've hit life's lottery. That the family is so essential to the well-being of children has to be a constant source of frustration to an egalitarian freak show like Melissa Harris-Perry.
If the left wants to equalize investments in children that matter the most, it should promote intact families and engaged parents. Even if it means embracing old fashioned private child rearing. You know those awful nasty things called "family values."
The left would never do that because they will be out of business.
The left needs people to be dependent on government.
Look at the charter school debate. Does the left want to give young people the opportunity to get out of failing school systems? No. They want to keep them in those same failing school systems and just throw more taxpayer money at the problem.
0
Quote Originally Posted by TILTOLOGIC:
Lets cut to the crap shall we? I see some bright posters in here seemingly missing the core of her message.
There is a reason her message didn't sound anything like post #10. Know what that this? That's because she wasn't trying to say that. At all. And yes, post #10 is a good one.
The words "collective" and "private" are stressed in her little spiel. One is said with a positive connotation, the other isn't. Why is that? The logic in post #10 isn't found in rocket science books. So why didn't' she just say that instead?
Which leads us to the core of the modern day liberal agenda. Equality. Know what the greatest source of inequality in America is today? Parents.
Yep, parents are one of society's most enduring sources of inequality. If you have two parents who stay married and are invested in your upbringing, you've hit life's lottery. That the family is so essential to the well-being of children has to be a constant source of frustration to an egalitarian freak show like Melissa Harris-Perry.
If the left wants to equalize investments in children that matter the most, it should promote intact families and engaged parents. Even if it means embracing old fashioned private child rearing. You know those awful nasty things called "family values."
The left would never do that because they will be out of business.
The left needs people to be dependent on government.
Look at the charter school debate. Does the left want to give young people the opportunity to get out of failing school systems? No. They want to keep them in those same failing school systems and just throw more taxpayer money at the problem.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
