Jump to content
270soft Forum
servo75

Errors and Bias in Official 2020 Campaign

Recommended Posts

In previous versions of the game, I was pleased that the official game campaign scenarios were pretty balanced. Recently I remember seeing in the blog that parts of the official game campaign have been outsourced to other people. As a result, I'm noticing several instances of inaccuracies and left-wing bias forcing me to immediately edit after every official release. I would suggest to @admin_270 that he try to get some ideological balance on the team designing these scenarios.

A few examples:
Issue Supreme Court Nominations: Why is the far right scenario calling for "conservative activist" judges? Do you realize that this is literally an oxymoron? The whole point of conservative judges is to avoid judicial activism.
Why is "Trump Support" an issue? Obviously his opponents will not support him, it just seems rather silly.
Why is Trump's student loan issue "far right"? He's said little if anything on the subject, and nothing to suggest that he favors pro-insurance company (btw what do insurance companies have to do with student loans?) "Support insurance agents in their desire to increase interest rates for profit" just doesn't make sense and smacks of a Bernie-esque "profits are evil" approach.
The "Russian Interference" issue: Okay, I can understand a general issue of election security, but this just seems like one of those "issues" designed around a specific candidate, it just shouldn't be in there.

LGBT Rights issue: Where do I even start? President Trump is probably the most left-wing Republican ever on LGBT issues. Even the center-left view, "Push to globally decriminalize homosexuality" is rather laughable. It's not up to the United States President to "globally" decriminalize anything. On top of that, the left-wing position seems to be to cozy up to Islam, which makes this a rather ironic position.

Let's now turn to endorsements: A lot of organizations that might normally endorse a center-right Republican candidate like Trump, like "Right Wing Talk Radio" and "Freedomworks" are unavailable because they're only accepting "right" and "far right" candidates. I think some of these would accept center-right, but yet the issue positions place him as right to far-right yet overall he comes out center-right while the organizations normally endorsing him will only take "right or "far right." This makes no sense. Also, why do you have Hollywood stars and political has-beens making endorsements? Dennis Kucinich? Robert Redford and Lady Gaga?? Are you freaking kidding me?

Whether you agree with me on any, all, or none of these issues, it's become clear to me that at best the official scenario looks like it was written by someone who is either biased to the left or not very politically aware, just not thought through, and too full of inaccuracies and biases so that game will be unplayable "out of the box," and I will be releasing my own version of the 2020 scenario that at least attempts to be non-partisan.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, servo75 said:

Issue Supreme Court Nominations: Why is the far right scenario calling for "conservative activist" judges? Do you realize that this is literally an oxymoron? The whole point of conservative judges is to avoid judicial activism.

Not in my opinion. It's pretty self-righteous, self-deluded, disingenuous, hypocritical, and down-right biased yourself to declare "conservative" judges are all for proper preservation of the Constitution and have no bias, and that ALL distortion of the Constitution or any bias by a judge AT ALL must be "liberal" or "left-wing" judge. Can't you read your own flawed and ideologically blinded rhetoric sometimes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for this feedback - it's very useful.

"Why is the far right scenario calling for "conservative activist" judges? Do you realize that this is literally an oxymoron?"

This has been discussed elsewhere, and there is a to-do to replace it with 'strict constitutionalists'.

"Why is "Trump Support" an issue?"

Because Trump is unlike almost any politician to precede him. He himself is a major issue.

"Why is Trump's student loan issue "far right"? He's said little if anything on the subject, and nothing to suggest that he favors pro-insurance company (btw what do insurance companies have to do with student loans?) "Support insurance agents in their desire to increase interest rates for profit" just doesn't make sense and smacks of a Bernie-esque "profits are evil" approach."

Thanks for this - noted.

"The "Russian Interference" issue"

This issue will be reworked since the SC has concluded. We'll see where the House goes with this - I believe Mueller is scheduled to appear in July. However, it has been and is a major issue - to not include it would seem strange to me.

"LGBT Rights issue: Where do I even start? President Trump is probably the most left-wing Republican ever on LGBT issues. Even the center-left view, "Push to globally decriminalize homosexuality" is rather laughable. It's not up to the United States President to "globally" decriminalize anything. On top of that, the left-wing position seems to be to cozy up to Islam, which makes this a rather ironic position."

Noted. Trump's administration itself has articulated the 'push to globally decriminalize' view.

"A lot of organizations that might normally endorse a center-right Republican candidate like Trump, like "Right Wing Talk Radio" and "Freedomworks" are unavailable because they're only accepting "right" and "far right" candidates"

Noted.

"the official scenario looks like it was written by someone who is either biased to the left or not very politically aware"

Everyone has biases - the goal from my perspective is to balance out any omissions or errors with feedback like this, so keep it coming!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Patine said:

Not in my opinion. It's pretty self-righteous, self-deluded, disingenuous, hypocritical, and down-right biased yourself to declare "conservative" judges are all for proper preservation of the Constitution and have no bias, and that ALL distortion of the Constitution or any bias by a judge AT ALL must be "liberal" or "left-wing" judge. Can't you read your own flawed and ideologically blinded rhetoric sometimes?

The definition of a liberal judge is one who believes in a "living" Constitution, while a Conservative judge by definition is one who sticks to the law and the Constitution. An "activist judge" acts like a legislator in a robe, for example saying that a President cannot make an executive order undoing an executive order made by the previous President. Enacting DACA was constitutional, according to these judges (they're wrong, it's a decision made by personal bias), one district judge has the power to tell the next President he can't undo the same order? That's judicial activism if I've ever seen it. I never said that conservative judges have no bias. Even within the conservative side of the Supreme Court there are very varied opinions about Constitutional meaning. We could see by the latest session that Kavanaugh voted with the liberal wing many times. That's not to say he's a liberal judge, only that even among originalists there are varied opinions. That's neither bias nor activism.  I'm not even claiming to pick a side here, I think it's objectively true that activist and conservative are opposite ends of the spectrum, and I stand by my statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Thanks for this feedback - it's very useful.

"Why is the far right scenario calling for "conservative activist" judges? Do you realize that this is literally an oxymoron?"

This has been discussed elsewhere, and there is a to-do to replace it with 'strict constitutionalists'.

"Why is "Trump Support" an issue?"

Because Trump is unlike almost any politician to precede him. He himself is a major issue.

"Why is Trump's student loan issue "far right"? He's said little if anything on the subject, and nothing to suggest that he favors pro-insurance company (btw what do insurance companies have to do with student loans?) "Support insurance agents in their desire to increase interest rates for profit" just doesn't make sense and smacks of a Bernie-esque "profits are evil" approach."

Thanks for this - noted.

"The "Russian Interference" issue"

This issue will be reworked since the SC has concluded. We'll see where the House goes with this - I believe Mueller is scheduled to appear in July. However, it has been and is a major issue - to not include it would seem strange to me.

"LGBT Rights issue: Where do I even start? President Trump is probably the most left-wing Republican ever on LGBT issues. Even the center-left view, "Push to globally decriminalize homosexuality" is rather laughable. It's not up to the United States President to "globally" decriminalize anything. On top of that, the left-wing position seems to be to cozy up to Islam, which makes this a rather ironic position."

Noted. Trump's administration itself has articulated the 'push to globally decriminalize' view.

"A lot of organizations that might normally endorse a center-right Republican candidate like Trump, like "Right Wing Talk Radio" and "Freedomworks" are unavailable because they're only accepting "right" and "far right" candidates"

Noted.

"the official scenario looks like it was written by someone who is either biased to the left or not very politically aware"

Everyone has biases - the goal from my perspective is to balance out any omissions or errors with feedback like this, so keep it coming!

 

Thank you for your reply @admin_270. Trump sure is unlike any previous President, but not sure why that merits a "Trump Support" issue. Seems kind of moot, since the entire election is Trump support. I've heard of single-issue candidates, but single-candidate issues? :) 

I actually have no issue with the "Russian Interference" issue being included, just that it seems to conflate two separate issues: "Did Russia try to interfere in the election (duh, they've been doing it for 100 years and we've probably interfered in theirs) and what should be our response?" and "Did Trump's campaign actively collude with them?" What I'm doing in my version is keep "Russian Interference" but limit it to the general concept of securing elections. I do keep the Trump part of that but break it out into a separate issue, "The Mueller Report." The left-side positions would be "Barr is a Trump lackey and we must keep investigating, etc." and the right-side would be, "It's over, Mueller's spoken, get on with it..."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parentheticaly, I do think in general there are too many "issues" in the game, most of which are "Low" or "Medium" importance and never get used. I find that when campaigning, "Experience" and "Leadership" come up as useful issues all the time (i.e. + rating and high importance), and almost all of the other ones have no impact at all. Thus the game doesn't do much to differentiate candidates. If you have for example a Jay Inslee who is just about the climate change (the upside to him getting nominated is that we at least get him out of our state for a few months), or a Ron Paul whose main issue is budget and taxes, that should come through, yet if I play as one of those candidates, the game still wants to choose "Experience" as the most important. 

I do notice in the built-in scenarios, I could be wrong, but it seems that each state has roughly the same importance for each issue. For example, on almost all issues in the Regions editor, they are set to "inherit." Well, where are they inheriting from? There's only one parent region and that's the United States. I would think Immigration would be "Very High" in Texas, and Medium to Low in Nebraska. Whereas "Drug Policy" would be particularly in states like West Virginia that have the opioid crisis. "Energy Policy" would be much stronger in coal producing states like Pennsylvania and oil states like Texas and Alaska, than in, say, New England.

The sum of those two points would be, just for example's sake, there was an independent candidate "Joe Smith" who was a single issue candidate, wanting to make cats the official pets of America. Such a candidate would receive almost no national support, but if there were a swing state with a lot of cat lovers, that would reflect in that state's importance level on that issue, and he may pick up enough votes in that state to cause an electoral deadlock. A whimsical example, but you get my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, servo75 said:

The definition of a liberal judge is one who believes in a "living" Constitution, while a Conservative judge by definition is one who sticks to the law and the Constitution. 

This is a very biased response. A liberal judge also believes they are sticking to the law and Constitution as much as Conservative judges do. I think the only reason you see a strong bias in the scenario is that you are extremely biased. Read your own reactions to the scenario, and your reactions to people in this forum from the past, and you will see.  You also quote Breitbart, which sort of ruins your credibility as an unbiased observer of just about anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, servo75 said:

What I'm doing in my version is keep "Russian Interference" but limit it to the general concept of securing elections.

Yes, with the Mueller report, it seems the question of active collusion is now a smaller part of the general issue, and rather obstruction of investigation into Russian interference has become a larger part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, servo75 said:

do keep the Trump part of that but break it out into a separate issue, "The Mueller Report." The left-side positions would be "Barr is a Trump lackey and we must keep investigating, etc." and the right-side would be, "It's over, Mueller's spoken, get on with it..."

Ya, it might merit a separate issue. I want to keep the issues manageable, which is the major reason I would have against that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, servo75 said:

I do notice in the built-in scenarios, I could be wrong, but it seems that each state has roughly the same importance for each issue

Yes, originally, profiles could only be set to the same for all regions in the Infinity engine. This is an option in the Editor which can be used for the official 2020 in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, servo75 said:

I find that when campaigning, "Experience" and "Leadership" come up as useful issues all the time

This is because, in my opinion, Experience and Leadership are the most important issues voters look at when deciding on candidates. Relatively few voters are one-issue voters, rather they're looking at the candidates' personal attributes once applying a platform threshold test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, vcczar said:

This is a very biased response. A liberal judge also believes they are sticking to the law and Constitution as much as Conservative judges do. I think the only reason you see a strong bias in the scenario is that you are extremely biased. Read your own reactions to the scenario, and your reactions to people in this forum from the past, and you will see.  You also quote Breitbart, which sort of ruins your credibility as an unbiased observer of just about anything. 

I've stated my case and will not debate this further, except to state that no one is completely unbiased. I have my biases, you have yours. I'm a right-leaning libertarian with a hint of Ayn Randian objectivism. I've never hidden that. Are you saying that for someone to be truly unbiased they must not hold any political opinions? Are you saying that my particular quote from Andrew Breitbart (who is not, by the way, Steven Bannon, many former disciples of Andrew Breitbart like Ben Shapiro QUIT the network when Bannon took over so don't equate the two) is so out of the mainstream that it makes me incapable of objectivity?! The only thing I've done is provide dictionary definitions. According to Wikipedia (I hope you find them unbiased): " Activism consists of efforts to promote, impede, direct, or intervene in social, political, economic, or environmental reform with the desire to make changes in society." Make changes as opposed to conserving. Seems pretty black-and-white to me. Left wing protesters even refer to THEMSELVES as activists. It's a well-accepted dichotomy in the judiciary that activist means wanting change which is the opposite of conserving Constitutional values, regardless of your personal opinion. I brought up Kavanaugh because he makes some decisions that might anger conservatives but he's simply following the law where it leads. As an example, he had a pre-Supreme Court case where he decided a case in favor of a suspected 911 terrorist, not because he agreed with the terrorist's actions, but because the law was on his side. He put aside personal beliefs to make the correct ruling according to the law and judicial precedent.

If you can point out one conservative justice in recent history who meets that above definition, I'll shut up. Until then, I have stated my case and will say no more on the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

This is because, in my opinion, Experience and Leadership are the most important issues voters look at when deciding on candidates. Relatively few voters are one-issue voters, rather they're looking at the candidates' personal attributes once applying a platform threshold test.

I agree with that, but then why have so many issues if they're not going to get used? And I think the voters for a particular state could consider Experience and, say, Tax Rates, both as high importance, I don't think it makes them single issue voters. Perhaps when voting blocs comes out you may have groups that are particularly passionate about one issue and you might have, say, voters who normally vote Republican but if a Republican candidate is left on the Abortion issue, they may vote against him. A more realistic example is Trump in 2016, there are many evangelical voters who were on the fence until he came out against abortion, who may not have turned out otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, servo75 said:

Perhaps when voting blocs comes out you may have groups that are particularly passionate about one issue

Yes, exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, servo75 said:

I agree with that, but then why have so many issues if they're not going to get used?

They're used, just not as much as Experience, Leadership, and Integrity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, servo75 said:

The definition of a liberal judge is one who believes in a "living" Constitution, while a Conservative judge by definition is one who sticks to the law and the Constitution. An "activist judge" acts like a legislator in a robe, for example saying that a President cannot make an executive order undoing an executive order made by the previous President. Enacting DACA was constitutional, according to these judges (they're wrong, it's a decision made by personal bias), one district judge has the power to tell the next President he can't undo the same order? That's judicial activism if I've ever seen it. I never said that conservative judges have no bias. Even within the conservative side of the Supreme Court there are very varied opinions about Constitutional meaning. We could see by the latest session that Kavanaugh voted with the liberal wing many times. That's not to say he's a liberal judge, only that even among originalists there are varied opinions. That's neither bias nor activism.  I'm not even claiming to pick a side here, I think it's objectively true that activist and conservative are opposite ends of the spectrum, and I stand by my statement.

I see you cling to the old, simplistic binary, black-and-white, us-and-them divide that it's all just "liberals" and "conservatives" as close to unified blocs, with strong stereotypes and assumptions about both applied with impunity, and expecting that to stand as credible rhetoric and be considered respectable. Just because you're not the only one who thinks that way - in fact the numbers of "dumbed down sport team political ideology" are growing to disturbing proportions - the truth is, the term "political SPECTRUM" is really used advisedly - or should be. But despite having died it's last gasps as a religion, with it's rituals and open statements on worldview in the 15th Century, the toxic and socio-politically and culturally cancerous Manichaean mindset is making is making a huge comeback in the world today, and it's ruinous, destructive, counter-productive way of viewing the world is infecting the minds of so, even those with high levels of education and who are given much respect and even authority. That is the dangerous part. I suggest you disabuse yourself of Manichaean thinking and learn to view things with a true sense of perspective, context, and proportion - a full education and knowledge of what you speak, even if they're ideologies and viewpoints you disagree with or dislike - at least understand them and know what they REALLY entail, not just bad stereotypes and tropes, before speaking about them as though you were speaking with any authority on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

I see you cling to the old, simplistic binary, black-and-white, us-and-them divide that it's all just "liberals" and "conservatives" as close to unified blocs, with strong stereotypes and assumptions about both applied with impunity, and expecting that to stand as credible rhetoric and be considered respectable. Just because you're not the only one who thinks that way - in fact the numbers of "dumbed down sport team political ideology" are growing to disturbing proportions - the truth is, the term "political SPECTRUM" is really used advisedly - or should be. But despite having died it's last gasps as a religion, with it's rituals and open statements on worldview in the 15th Century, the toxic and socio-politically and culturally cancerous Manichaean mindset is making is making a huge comeback in the world today, and it's ruinous, destructive, counter-productive way of viewing the world is infecting the minds of so, even those with high levels of education and who are given much respect and even authority. That is the dangerous part. I suggest you disabuse yourself of Manichaean thinking and learn to view things with a true sense of perspective, context, and proportion - a full education and knowledge of what you speak, even if they're ideologies and viewpoints you disagree with or dislike - at least understand them and know what they REALLY entail, not just bad stereotypes and tropes, before speaking about them as though you were speaking with any authority on the issue.

Patine, I'm done. This started out as a suggestion for campaign issues, nothing more. I like to think that I am an authority of looking up words in a dictionary. You're making waaay too much over this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, admin_270 said:

They're used, just not as much as Experience, Leadership, and Integrity.

Okay. I'm probably making too much work for myself, but I will experiment in my version of the campaign of picking 10 issues and customizing them for each state, so that a Republican campaigning on immigration in Arizona might have a great impact, but campaigning on tax rates in California would have very little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, servo75 said:

Patine, I'm done. This started out as a suggestion for campaign issues, nothing more. I like to think that I am an authority of looking up words in a dictionary. You're making waaay too much over this.

One does not understand political ideologies and viewpoints from simple dictionary articles alone. But even your "suggestions" alone shows you've learned absolutely nothing and still view things in an over-simplified, stereotypical, and completely unrealistic and inaccurate way. And you, and the disturbingly growing number of people embracing binary socio-political thinking are themselves one of the greatest threats to civilization as a whole. Because, in truth, there are actually no binaries in the social sciences, and trying to force them in does far more harm than good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can i get this scenario if i dont have subscription and use older version of the game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2019 at 5:06 PM, Patine said:

 you've learned absolutely nothing and still view things in an over-simplified, stereotypical, and completely unrealistic and inaccurate way.

I think we've hit the sticking point here. You're free to believe that if you want. I think you're being unfair here. I'm biased. You're biased. Admin270 is biased. Everyone's biased. But you accuse me of bias even when stating facts. That's okay. If you think my facts are wrong, counter them. If you think my opinion is wrong, try to change it. I'm open to changing my mind on things and researching facts when they're incorrect. But your method of attacking me every time you disagree is counter-productive and not conducive to mature conversation. Even when I cite well-researched sources you reflexively attack them as biased without even looking at them just because they come from a "right wing" source. When I made my comments about the in-game scenario, Admin_270 and I had a respectful back and forth discussion. It's too bad that you can't do that. I'm a flawed person just like everyone else, and I fully understand that my opinions are the minority on this forum. I really don't care. I put that quote on my avatar for a reason. I will walk toward the fire every time. When I know I'm right, I state it. I don't care if opinion is 99-1 against me. But if you want to change my mind, approach me and have a reasoned debate. Attacks will be responded to with attacks. Reason will be responded to with reason. It's entirely your choice.

That is all I will say on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@admin_270 Another couple issues (unrelated):

- Ocasio-Cortez can only endorse far-left candidates (meaning just Mike Gravel)

- it seems like there's too many undecided voters, and that number continues to grow the closer you get to the primaries

- despite the huge number of undecideds, it seems next to impossible to win any delegates as a lesser candidate

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, servo75 said:

I think we've hit the sticking point here. You're free to believe that if you want. I think you're being unfair here. I'm biased. You're biased. Admin270 is biased. Everyone's biased. But you accuse me of bias even when stating facts. That's okay. If you think my facts are wrong, counter them. If you think my opinion is wrong, try to change it. I'm open to changing my mind on things and researching facts when they're incorrect. But your method of attacking me every time you disagree is counter-productive and not conducive to mature conversation. Even when I cite well-researched sources you reflexively attack them as biased without even looking at them just because they come from a "right wing" source. When I made my comments about the in-game scenario, Admin_270 and I had a respectful back and forth discussion. It's too bad that you can't do that. I'm a flawed person just like everyone else, and I fully understand that my opinions are the minority on this forum. I really don't care. I put that quote on my avatar for a reason. I will walk toward the fire every time. When I know I'm right, I state it. I don't care if opinion is 99-1 against me. But if you want to change my mind, approach me and have a reasoned debate. Attacks will be responded to with attacks. Reason will be responded to with reason. It's entirely your choice.

That is all I will say on the subject.

I'll give you a good challenge. When you were last active, you corrected me on a lack of knowledge of Libertarian ideals and relying on stereotype an inaccurate information when I spoke on them, and I did the same on your view of Socialism, Social Democracy, and Communism, and, mostly, how they actually DIFFER SHARPLY from each other. Since then, I HAVE read about Libertarian ideology and belief and doctrine, and from Libertarian (or quoted therefrom) as much as possible. I have learned a lot more about the ideology. I still find it repugnant, but I have learned, and corrected my lack of information. Have you done the same analogous learning, from the same kind of sources (that is, their own rhetoric), about Socialism, Social Democracy, and Communism and how they actually differ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jnewt said:

@admin_270 Another couple issues (unrelated):

- Ocasio-Cortez can only endorse far-left candidates (meaning just Mike Gravel)

- it seems like there's too many undecided voters, and that number continues to grow the closer you get to the primaries

- despite the huge number of undecideds, it seems next to impossible to win any delegates as a lesser candidate

 

I've had that problem too with the undecided voters, the popular count might be 35-30 even close to the convention.

I still noticed, though I haven't tried this out in the latest version yet, that when primaries were being used in a campaign, we would get WILD results in the general. Large undecided numbers, I'd see New Jersey, Connecticut, and Washington going red, while Nebraska, Texas, and Utah go blue. I wouldn't have this problem when running the campaign just in the general.

As for AOC only endorsing far-left candidates, I got news for you... it ain't just Mike Gravel. From what I saw among the 20 debaters:

  • Far Left: Sanders (actually he needs his own category), Warren, Booker, Gilibrand, DiBlasio, Robert Francis O'Rourke, Castro, Swalwell, Harris
  • Left: Yang,  Inslee, Gabbard, Bootiecall, Biden, Klobuchar
  • Center-Left: Delaney, Ryan, Hickenlooper

Others like Bennet and Williamson I didn't hear enough to really get a feel for. Watching those debates was like going to a vegan restaurant... Almost every Dem primary prior to this one I could always find at least ONE candidate that I liked, or at least didn't make me want to puke: Webb in 2016, Kucinich or Lieberman in 2004... there wasn't a soul on that stage either night that I could even consider voting for. I mean I've seen better choices at a vending machine containing only a pack of used gum. 😝

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Patine said:

I'll give you a good challenge. When you were last active, you corrected me on a lack of knowledge of Libertarian ideals and relying on stereotype an inaccurate information when I spoke on them, and I did the same on your view of Socialism, Social Democracy, and Communism, and, mostly, how they actually DIFFER SHARPLY from each other. Since then, I HAVE read about Libertarian ideology and belief and doctrine, and from Libertarian (or quoted therefrom) as much as possible. I have learned a lot more about the ideology. I still find it repugnant, but I have learned, and corrected my lack of information. Have you done the same analogous learning, from the same kind of sources (that is, their own rhetoric), about Socialism, Social Democracy, and Communism and how they actually differ?

I have not yet, but I would be willing to research the exact differences, which I never doubted there were. It's just that I don't much care what they are, since all three are evil ideologies that end up in the same dark place YES, there is a slight difference between getting my arm cut off at the elbow or just above the wrist. All three end up in the same dark place: A dystopian society with a despotic dictator where citizens chase down rats for food. It cannot end any other way. Socialism and Democratic Socialism are just two different means to the same end, and Marx himself, I believe (or was it Lenin) even said that communism is the end goal of socialism. So while there are technical differences, they're hardly important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...