It is not a matter of using definitions that are acceptable to me
personally. It is a matter of not being misleading and obscurantist.
Honestly, the word socialism means something. Take any word at all and
then decide that it means everything. A word that comes to mind right
now is keyboard because it is right in front of me. Suppose I said that
the central galactic keyboard causes an environment of high radiation.
Then you said, what does that have to do with a keyboard? And I answered
that keyboard means black hole. Then I said that I had keyboard for
breakfast this morning and you asked how I could eat a keyboard and I
said that keyboard also means oatmeal. Just how good a job of
communication would I be doing. Again, if a word means everything it
means nothing and the more things a word means the more vague it is.
When you use the word socialist to mean liberal that is just plain
wrong. It does not mean liberal whether Ted Cruz is using it that way or
bernie Sanders is using it that way. If you use it to mean liberal you
are misleading people whether it is out of your own ignorance or whether
it is a deliberate lie. If you use the word keyboard to mean grapefruit
and you make speeches in which you explain to your audiences that
grapefruits and keyboards are the same thing you are misleading anyone
who is gullible or ignorant enough to believe you and there can only be
two explanations of why you are misleading them. Either you have some
reason to lie to them in order to deceive them into thinking that
keyboards and grapefruits are the same thing or else you are ignorant of
the difference between grapefruits and keyboards yourself. If someone
was actually making such a speech and I pointed out that keyboards and
grapefruits are not the same thing would you insist that I am only
demanding that other people use my own personal definitions? If you did
then you would be wrong about that too. I did not make up these
definitions. These definitions were assigned their meanings and their
words long before I ever came along. I am sorry, but I had nothing to do
with deciding that grapefruit refers to a citrus fruit and that keyboard
refers to a device used for typing. I also had nothing to do with
deciding that socialist refers to a person who opposes capitalism and
advocates the social ownership of the means of production. But I have
learned what a whole lot of words mean and when I find someone misusing
them I can diagnose either lying or ignorance. Now, I think I will check
on the cigar that I am cooking for dinner. You do know that a cigar is
what some people call a pot of beans, don't you. Of course, if you say
that I should call it a pot of beans myself then you are insisting on my
using your personal definition of cigar, whatever that may be. Well, I
will ignore whatever your personal definition is and I will tell you
that cigars taste really good with cornbread. Yes, a bowl of cigars and
cornbread make a fine dinner.
On 10/30/2015 9:25 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
He sees himself as a Social Democrat. You insist that people be very precise
in their language and that they use definitions that are acceptable to you.
For example, you don't like the way in which the term, politically correct,
is used because from what you know about the history of its useage, people
are using it incorrectly. But people just don't conform to our personal
requirements for them and language is not static. It is ever changing. I
think it is a waste of time and energy to focus on all the misuse of
language that goes on continually. It's more helpful to try to figure out
what people are trying to say and why they're trying to say it.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 11:42 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Both Bernie and Johnny promulgate falsehoods.
I am not even suggesting that he use traditional socialist language or that
he even promote socialism. That is, I am not suggesting that he do that
unless he becomes a socialist. I am only suggesting that he be honest and
stop calling himself a socialist. That would meet his audiences where they
are a lot better. As much as I would like for him to be a socialist he is
not one. He may as well admit that he is a liberal and stop misleading
people.
On 10/29/2015 9:34 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Well, I certainly can't support someone saying that a policesocialist language to make these points. He uses language to which he thinks
department is socialism, and I have to take the word of the author
that Sanders actually said that since I didn't hear the speech. But if
he did, it's an example of imprecise language. I assume that if he
said it, he was attempting to point out that there are several
government programs which exist to benefit society as a whole. If I
remember correctly, the article said that he also mentioned social
security as another example. I'm sure that he is aware that these are
not examples of socialism. I am equally sure that he was attempting to
get his audience to consider that programs which are run by the
government are not, by definition, bad. There's an old social work
concept which, I'm sure is used in community organizing, as well as in
casework. It is, Start where the client is. Bernie is talking to
audiences who have been told for years, often by Democrats like Bill
Clinton, that big government is bad. If you want to be elected, you
don't talk socialist theory to people who think that private
enterprise does everything better than government. I posted a separate
article which you may have noticed by now, in which Sanders uses the
statement of a Muslim student at George Mason University as a starting
point to begin to explain how the ruling class uses race, religion,
and sexual orientation to separate the workers so that the workers
will be distracted from organizing. But he doesn't use traditional
the audience can relate.
Miriamsocialism.
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 8:24 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Both Bernie and Johnny promulgate falsehoods.
I remember watching a gubernatorial candidates debate on television
for an earlier election. The three candidates on stage were Republican
John Raese, Democrat Joe Manchin - now U.S. senator from West Virginia
- and Mountain Party candidate Jessie Johnson. The question of
Obamacare came up and John Raese sneeringly denounced it because it was
Manchin did not respond. It may have been tacitly, but he effectivelywhat socialism is or else is lying to you. So is Sanders an ignoramus or a
endorsed Raese's position. Jessie Johnson, on the other hand, said
that it seemed to him that a law that mandated that people buy
insurance from private insurance companies was capitalism on steroids.
I moaned at him because he just stopped and left it at that. Oh how I
wished that I had been on that stage. I would have gone on to say the
following. Not only is Obamacare capitalism on steroids, but anyone
who tries to tell you that it is socialism either does not have the
slightest idea of what socialism is or else is flat out lying to you.
Which are you, Mr. Raese, an ignoramus or a liar? Alas, I was not
there and Jessie Johnson did not have the nerve to break with his oh
so polite attitude to call out the right-wing jerk. Raese was allowed
to continue with his superior attitude. Anyway, though, when Bernard
Sanders tells you that the police force is an example of socialism
just how is that so different from calling Obamacare socialism. Either
way you are hearing someone who either does not have the slightest idea of
liar?
Either way, whether it is John Raese or Bernard Sanders, they are both
attacking socialism.