What's new
Frozen In Carbonite

Welcome to FIC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Tangent, Derail, and Argument Thread

t-dugong

Beach bum, Esq.
On the Satanic verses, most orthodox scholars would say that it was either an outright fabrication(these are the most, well, hard of the hardliners you could say), others would argue that the chain of narrators and transmitters was weak and thus dismissible and then we get to the other end of the spectrum, that the incident explains what 'maksum' means.

Not infallible, but protected from making mistakes. Muhammad revealed what was whispered to him by Satan and he got promptly rebuked and corrected by God.

Mind you, the topic is divisive as hell and I'm not an actual scholar of tafsir myself, so take it with a grain of salt. Lots of grains of salt, even.
 

Morphile

Well-known member
In your previous posts you've conflated Marxism, Socialism, Anarchism together, using those terms interchangably and considering them interchangeable since you want to murder anyone who is them.
You have not been able to demonstrate that you know the difference between Anarchism and Socialism and that they're different but related things, you have been unable to distinguish between Communism and other kinds of Socialism, Marxism from other kinds of Communism, Marxist-Leninism from other forms of Marxism, or Stalinism and Maoism from other forms of Marxism-Leninism
For these two lines, it's not that I don't recognize them as different. It's that my objection to them is identical: They all constantly fail, or are so far behind Capitalism they might as well have failed. Every time they're tried, they fail or fall severely behind. China doesn't operate under Maoism, it only grew to be a significant economic power when it shifted to what I like to call "Capitalism with government veto"; very little regulation, very few restrictions, but the government has full ability to demand anything from any company at any time and gets it to the best of the company's ability to provide or the company stops legally existing.

On the matter of Chile vs Venezuella you have yet to demonstrate that Marxist or Socialist Chile would have been under the same resource constraints and have the same resources available as Venezuela.
My point has been that it's failed in a huge number of areas, over and over again, for rather consistent reasons of incompetence and corruption, and nobody's wanting to go outside the same script that's failed dozens of times. What keeps being traced as the cause of failure is government bureaucrats not knowing how to manage abruptly nationalized businesses, and this was very much in progress in Chile.

And finally, you use a failure of liberal capitalism, it's hostility to competing systems of economics or organization, to attack Socialism. Like you are literally victim blaming
It's more a matter of realistic outcomes. Again, less bad. In the best case scenario, the fact that Chile decided to go Socialist in the Americas during the Cold War, when the developed world was about two steps away from genocidal extermination of the ideology in all forms, would still lead to a military intervention to remove the Socialists from power.

It's like trying to become Socialist at the start of an industrial revolution, instead of well after it. The theory does not work, because the surrounding circumstances aren't permitting of it. The collapse could still be ultimately blamed on them for knowingly adopting a system that would bring war upon them at that point in time, regardless of how they implemented it. This is not your standard victim blaming, this is taking an action with official policies of interventions at that point in time. This is akin to telling a black man who's formed an actual family to stay away from the gangs, then blaming them for the damage done to their kids when they end up locked up in jail as a drug patsy. They did an action they knew, or ought to have known, would have caused extensive harm to those they were responsible for, which is a wrong regardless of why it occurred. It can be considered unjust that it occurred, but there's a known, accurate causal link: Become Socialist, get invaded by Capitalists. If it's just the words, then spin away to get good PR. If it's the policy, then keep the alarms from being raised by focusing on the periphrial and do it gradually to good success before that point so that you at least give a precedent for Socialism not always failing or being replaced with Capitalism.

since you have shown that you do not accept proof even when it was shown to you, such as the graph of Chile's GDP during the Pinochet years and after his rule.
In case you still don't understand my argument, it's that Pinochet was less damaging. He clearly set the stage for economic growth, the extended period after his rule began in the last year of it, and the economy didn't severely degrade under his rule past the first two years. Again, less bad, not good. Best thing he did was leave office peacefully. My support of him comes solely from overthrowing in-power Socialists.

Here's another source for Socialism's failures, this time from Lumen Learning, with its own sources for a number of its claims. Socialism doesn't work. It never has, and has collapsed into squalor and dictatorship for nearly identical reasons every time, and the forces driving those reasons were very much present in Chile.
 

Q99

Well-known member
For these two lines, it's not that I don't recognize them as different. It's that my objection to them is identical: They all constantly fail, or are so far behind Capitalism they might as well have failed. Every time they're tried, they fail or fall severely behind. China doesn't operate under Maoism, it only grew to be a significant economic power when it shifted to what I like to call "Capitalism with government veto"; very little regulation, very few restrictions, but the government has full ability to demand anything from any company at any time and gets it to the best of the company's ability to provide or the company stops legally existing.
Scandinavian socialism produced some of the highest standards of living anywhere, ever, for decades, without failing.


Socialized medicine outperforms non-socialized medicine in terms of cost-benefit ratio to an absurd degree while still providing better coverage and outcomes- the US paid more out of taxes to support their old system *in addition* to people paying bills than other countries paid in taxes *without* people paying bills. And again, while both covering more and having better results on average.

A lot of socialist policy obviously works really, really well, and the kneejerk anti-socialism looks increasingly a relic every passing year.
 
Last edited:

Rodyle

Socialist Slut
Banned
I don't want a derail so won't be responding further, and I'd ask you do the same, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that if the only exposure people have to Morphile is his defence of Pinochet (which people keep derailing into) then we'll never move past it.

Morphile has other opinions and many of those I'm sure we can all agree on. If we talked about those then he'd just be another poster among many.
Literally Hitler has some positive character traits too, it doesn't make him or anyone who peddles in similar modes of thought or ideologies like Morphile does any less of a monster. Like Morphile literally wants to kill some of us, you're not going to get us to agree with him and anyone point we do we're going to immediately examine his underlying motivations. You're trying to tell the people he wants to murder to get along with him. Sure we might be able to agree on the sky being blue, but demanding we focus on that and ignore say his defense of rapedogs is questionable.
So you cowardly begged off on the excuse of derails, so let's go to your precious derail thread:
Why is it that you seem to treat more files open and unrepentant fascism as a quirky personality traits we should just get over?
 

FriendlySignpainter

Devils Avocado
Scandinavian socialism produced some of the highest standards of living anywhere, ever, for decades, without failing.


Socialized medicine outperforms non-socialized medicine in terms of cost-benefit ratio to an absurd degree while still providing better coverage and outcomes- the US paid more out of taxes to support their old system *in addition* to people paying bills than other countries paid in taxes *without* people paying bills. And again, while both covering more and having better results on average.

A lot of socialist policy obviously works really, really well, and the kneejerk anti-socialism looks increasingly a relic every passing year.
We (Scandinavians) aren't socialists.
 

Morphile

Well-known member
When I think of who defines socialism it sure is the Federalist
Well, you now have some data on very relevant figures. Given that data, can you use it to back the claim of Scandinavia being Socialist?

So you cowardly begged off on the excuse of derails, so let's go to your precious derail thread:
Why is it that you seem to treat more files open and unrepentant fascism as a quirky personality traits we should just get over?
Because I haven't advocated for Fascism. I've defended Pinochet as less bad than the Socialists would most likely have been, and said familial punishments are one of the most viable ways to deal with insurrection, but I've not advocated for violent purity-purging nationalism, I haven't argued in favor of government control over the economy, I haven't stated a preference for any Fascistic policy beyond having a nation that represents its population. Almost exclusively under the pretext of it being the centerpiece of the legitimacy of representative government, so it's still not Fascistic due to being expressly against authoritarian rule.

You have two positions of mine that indicate authoritarianism, both expressly matters of being less bad than alternatives rather than me finding them good ideas under peaceful and stable conditions.
 

Rodyle

Socialist Slut
Banned
We (Scandinavians) aren't socialists.
Social Democracy remains capitalistic, it's true

To claim it has nothing to do with socialism is, however, moronic. It's literally as far left as you can go without being socialist and its entire reason for being is threading the needle.

It's also basically Maoism relative to anything you and your creepy right wing friends support so
 

Chessia

Tranarcha-Feminist Antifa Supersoldier Catgirl
On my phone so a more comprehensive post will be forthcoming tomorrow, but you’re lying. You explicitly argued it was justified, that’s not “less bad” that’s saying it was okay, with no evidence those brutalities were necessary to stop socialism even if we were to hypothetically grant that you’re right and a military coup was necessary. Which you would never be able to prove.
 

Lord Inquisitor Adornable

The Community Outreach Mod
Moderator
So you cowardly begged off on the excuse of derails,
No cowardlyness nessissery, as a moderator I need to strive to exemplify the behavior I want to encourage. I'm a role model (unfortunately) and disengaged to discourage a derail.

so let's go to your precious derail thread
Also by leaving the conversation I can encourage others who want to continue it to come here. People need to get in the habit of using this thread for it to be effective.

Why is it that you seem to treat more files
Cant figure out this typo.

and unrepentant fascism as a quirky personality traits we should just get over?
Morphile doesnt do a good job of communicating his thoughts and I think many people just skim his posts and come to conclusions that lack the nuance he has in his beliefs. Morphile isn't a facist, he may believe facism is preferable to anarchy or the economic collapse brought on by Socialism, and those beliefs may be incorrect, but it doesn't make him a facist to not put it at the absolute bottom of the totem pole.

But to make a larger point I'd like mention that Morphile doesn't hate you, doesn't want you dead, and is willing to have open dialogue with you, and if you're willing to offer the same, realations can improve.

And really, isn't that goal when you interact with poeple? To get along?
 

t-dugong

Beach bum, Esq.
Morphile doesnt do a good job of communicating his thoughts and I think many people just skim his posts and come to conclusions that lack the nuance he has in his beliefs. Morphile isn't a facist, he may believe facism is preferable to anarchy or the economic collapse brought on by Socialism, and those beliefs may be incorrect, but it doesn't make him a facist to not put it at the absolute bottom of the totem pole.
Not to dogpile on you or anything, but in matters of what Morphile wants out of Islam, he have said that he wants Islam to go through something like what American Protestantism have gone through, with the intention that Islam will be separated into smaller sects that will be rendered ineffective because they will argue all the time over doctrine. When I asked him to actually go and read about Islam the religion itself from reputable sources he straight up said he does not want to 'waste his time reading up on thousands of pages of information and debate'. That seems to me like he wants to impose his ideas based on his perceptions on subjects he knew nothing or only with the shallowest of knowledge about it.

I'm not saying he's an Islamophobic, I'm saying that he wants to debate on a subject without any knowledge on that subject, only impressions and popular opinions about it. That's as ridiculous as me going against Rufus in physics or Arius in law if all I know is from watching tv shows about law and physics and not willing to learn more.

Apply that behaviour to other topics and well, it does not paint a good picture of Morphile. Sorry man, I don't want you to be harsh on him just because we said so but I'd like it if he didn't get away with saying disturbing stuff, on and on without working knowledge about it.
 

Chessia

Tranarcha-Feminist Antifa Supersoldier Catgirl
Not to dogpile on you or anything, but in matters of what Morphile wants out of Islam, he have said that he wants Islam to go through something like what American Protestantism have gone through, with the intention that Islam will be separated into smaller sects that will be rendered ineffective because they will argue all the time over doctrine. When I asked him to actually go and read about Islam the religion itself from reputable sources he straight up said he does not want to 'waste his time reading up on thousands of pages of information and debate'. That seems to me like he wants to impose his ideas based on his perceptions on subjects he knew nothing or only with the shallowest of knowledge about it.

I'm not saying he's an Islamophobic, I'm saying that he wants to debate on a subject without any knowledge on that subject, only impressions and popular opinions about it. That's as ridiculous as me going against Rufus in physics or Arius in law if all I know is from watching tv shows about law and physics and not willing to learn more.

Apply that behaviour to other topics and well, it does not paint a good picture of Morphile. Sorry man, I don't want you to be harsh on him just because we said so but I'd like it if he didn't get away with saying disturbing stuff, on and on without working knowledge about it.
You left out the part of "so they can be easily crushed".
 

Chessia

Tranarcha-Feminist Antifa Supersoldier Catgirl
For these two lines, it's not that I don't recognize them as different. It's that my objection to them is identical: They all constantly fail, or are so far behind Capitalism they might as well have failed. Every time they're tried, they fail or fall severely behind. China doesn't operate under Maoism, it only grew to be a significant economic power when it shifted to what I like to call "Capitalism with government veto"; very little regulation, very few restrictions, but the government has full ability to demand anything from any company at any time and gets it to the best of the company's ability to provide or the company stops legally existing.
And that was only possible because the Communists made a conscientious effort to educate the masses and furthermore, "Capitalism with government veto" is literally what the transitionary state controlled by the vanguard party is supposed to do in Marxism-Leninism theory. The idea is is the vanguard party is supposed to conduct the state through to late stage capitalism in a form of state capitalism at which point the conditions to move to a Socialist system will be possible at which point the state will naturally whither away. Maoism adds that the vanguard party can lead it from serfdom through industrialization to Socialism. Like you don't know shit about the theories you're talking about because if you did you'd know that state capitalism is exactly what we'd expect when the material conditions have not yet been met in a vanguard party-led state.

Secondly it's not that they fail, it's that in most cases they're knocked over by the CIA or the KGB before they have an opportunity to even try.


My point has been that it's failed in a huge number of areas, over and over again, for rather consistent reasons of incompetence and corruption, and nobody's wanting to go outside the same script that's failed dozens of times. What keeps being traced as the cause of failure is government bureaucrats not knowing how to manage abruptly nationalized businesses, and this was very much in progress in Chile.
This is an argument you're making without evidence and can be dismissed as such.

It's more a matter of realistic outcomes. Again, less bad. In the best case scenario, the fact that Chile decided to go Socialist in the Americas during the Cold War, when the developed world was about two steps away from genocidal extermination of the ideology in all forms, would still lead to a military intervention to remove the Socialists from power.

It's like trying to become Socialist at the start of an industrial revolution, instead of well after it. The theory does not work, because the surrounding circumstances aren't permitting of it. The collapse could still be ultimately blamed on them for knowingly adopting a system that would bring war upon them at that point in time, regardless of how they implemented it. This is not your standard victim blaming, this is taking an action with official policies of interventions at that point in time. This is akin to telling a black man who's formed an actual family to stay away from the gangs, then blaming them for the damage done to their kids when they end up locked up in jail as a drug patsy. They did an action they knew, or ought to have known, would have caused extensive harm to those they were responsible for, which is a wrong regardless of why it occurred. It can be considered unjust that it occurred, but there's a known, accurate causal link: Become Socialist, get invaded by Capitalists. If it's just the words, then spin away to get good PR. If it's the policy, then keep the alarms from being raised by focusing on the periphrial and do it gradually to good success before that point so that you at least give a precedent for Socialism not always failing or being replaced with Capitalism.
"It's your fault I hit you! If you just wouldn't have burnt the sandwhich I wouldn't have, right? You know I love you?"


In case you still don't understand my argument, it's that Pinochet was less damaging.
This is literally an argument for which negative proof exists, you lying Fash.
 

Chessia

Tranarcha-Feminist Antifa Supersoldier Catgirl
Morphile doesnt do a good job of communicating his thoughts and I think many people just skim his posts and come to conclusions that lack the nuance he has in his beliefs. Morphile isn't a facist, he may believe facism is preferable to anarchy or the economic collapse brought on by Socialism, and those beliefs may be incorrect, but it doesn't make him a facist to not put it at the absolute bottom of the totem pole.
His argument was that the crimes were justified and necessary, not that they were less bad, this is literally a retcon of what was said and he has no way of proving those claims true. Like this was literally what the Nazis did to attain power. For fucks sake this was literally the logic James Fields used in his motivation to kill Heather Heyer! He's a Fascist, he's a bad person.

But to make a larger point I'd like mention that Morphile doesn't hate you, doesn't want you dead, and is willing to have open dialogue with you, and if you're willing to offer the same, realations can improve.
Morphile regularly makes homophobic and transphobic comments while supporting Fascists who do want us dead. He has no interest in an open dialogue because he's a known concern troll, his participation is wholly in bad faith.

And really, isn't that goal when you interact with poeple? To get along?
No, there's a variety of objectives to achieve when chosing to interact with someone.

Like holy fuck lets look at what he says is necessary to stop Socialist
https://www.frozenincarbonite.org/threads/is-capitalism-on-its-way-out.613/page-5#post-24668

Familial punishment, bare minimum. He's not saying just Socialists, he's literally saying it's okay to target their families for atrocities. At this point, the only reasonable explanation for you to say he's not a Fascist, is because you're one too. On that note: I'm out. When your community outreach moderator is trying gaslight people by saying a dude who argued it was necessary to train dogs to rape people, implant rats into their genitalia, and force them to have sex with their family members all for the crime of being related to a Socialist is not a Fascist, you have lost your god damned minds.
 
Last edited:

t-dugong

Beach bum, Esq.
You left out the part of "so they can be easily crushed".
Like I said before, he never outright stated that. Once or twice may be coincidence but to have such consistent opinions makes it seem like he's thinking it, he just wouldn't say it so he doesn't cop a ban. It's fucking irritating.
 

FriendlySignpainter

Devils Avocado
Social Democracy remains capitalistic, it's true

To claim it has nothing to do with socialism is, however, moronic. It's literally as far left as you can go without being socialist and its entire reason for being is threading the needle.

It's also basically Maoism relative to anything you and your creepy right wing friends support so
Wew, projecting quite a bit there aren't we?

One, I never claimed scandinavia didn't have socialistic policies, just that we aren't socialists.
Two, I'm generally center-left leaning when it comes to politics.
Three, Most of my friends are lefties. Try again.
 

Horton

Administrator
Administrator
@Horton why is this guy your community outreach representative?
Because he's helped out in the community greatly here? I don't see why having a naive view that Morphile is harmless means he shouldn't be mod. I mean I don't think Morphile is harmless, I don't like him at all.

I'm quite surprised you don't like him myself, LIA was one of Bernie Sanders' delegates in 2016.
 

Rodyle

Socialist Slut
Banned
Because he's helped out in the community greatly here? I don't see why having a naive view that Morphile is harmless means he shouldn't be mod. I mean I don't think Morphile is harmless, I don't like him at all.

I'm quite surprised you don't like him myself, LIA was one of Bernie Sanders' delegates in 2016.
I tend not to like people who try to gaslight me and stand up for Nazis. Activities which I am curious as to how you consider helpful for the community
 

Heresy

Well-known member
lol While everyone is here complaining about how Morph is staning for dictators and destroying the muslim faith I still remember how he defended Harvey Weinstein. Man that was amazing.

But seriously y’all just do yourselves a favor and do what I did.
29D450B4-9366-4E5C-B580-9088E73E7DDE.jpeg

Like seriously just block him and save data and time, I can read a thread twice as fast without his rambling nonsense stuffing my screen.

I’m being serious like what are you going to get out of giving him attention? Every single time someone speaks to him about anything he’ll manage to dig himself a hole deeper than the marina trench in ways I couldn’t have pictures before. Like how the fuck did he go from “socialism bad” to “Kim Il Sung was right, generational punishment is the fucking shit.”
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top