if i say to you “people think the word nazi has negative connotations”, then even with no other context then obviously you’d conclude that i’m a nazi freak
Good thing Nazism isn’t sound, nor does it sound good, even without the label.
the post doesn’t make any justification for the ideas being sound and good, it says they sound good
It does, actually. Marxism is popular and easily understood, yet red scare propaganda and anticommunism has given it a negative connotation. Eugenics and Nazism are not popular, and have bad connotations because they are bad ideas in general, not to mention Nazism being based on pure evil extermination.
Good thing Nazism isn’t sound, nor does it sound good, even without the label.
it was brought up to explain why “it’s just saying it has negative connotations” doesn’t make something neutral
Marxism is popular and easily understood, yet red scare propaganda and anticommunism has given it a negative connotation
you’re kind of just imagining a different post at this point?
“it does, actually”? you’re going to have to clarify what you mean by “this post makes a justification as to why the concepts behind marxism are sound and good”, unless you mean that “people thinking the ideas sound good” is your justification, which you just argued a second ago wasn’t what the post was doing, and which is exactly what i’m saying is a junk justification
“Marxism is popular” this post very specifically makes the point that marxism isn’t popular, but its ideas are. that’s like the whole point of the post
also, “easily understood” what? we haven’t even defined what sort of marxism we’re talking about here
it says nothing about the reasons for negative connotations; you’re adding that yourself
Eugenics [is] not popular
again, i’ve given two examples where the average person would probably support eugenics-in-description-only
No, it was brought up to draw equivalence to Marxism, don’t play coy.
cool ur jets buddy
it wasn’t, and doesn’t even really make sense when read through that lens
what kind of person comes into a thread and posts a pro-communism video clip and then angrily equates marxism to nazism?
No, Marxism is popular, it’s just sold as different names.
that’s describing the same sentiment i just expressed using different words
Is there some other kind we need to worry about here that’s hard to understand?
honestly the term “marxism” is nebulous enough that just deciding on what counts as “in-scope” is kind of non-trivial
are we talking about the economic theory? marxist communism? the whole body of marx’s work?
what definition are you using?
No, you pretended the average person would.
i’m fairly confused what you’re trying to say here
are you saying that that, for those two concepts, you don’t think you could pitch the basic ideas behind them in a way such that the average person would agree?
it wasn’t, and doesn’t even really make sense when read through that lens
what kind of person comes into a thread and posts a pro-communism video clip and then angrily equates marxism to nazism?
I dunno, why bring up the Nazis as though they had popular ideas?
honestly the term “marxism” is nebulous enough that just deciding on what counts as “in-scope” is kind of non-trivial
are we talking about the economic theory? marxist communism? the whole body of marx’s work?
What parts of Marxism do you want to chop off? I am referring to the whole of Marxism, ie critique of Capitalism, philosophical grounding in Dialectical and Historical Materialism, and Communism.
are you saying that that, for those two concepts, you don’t think you could pitch the basic ideas behind them in a way such that the average person would agree?
Yes, people generally don’t agree with the ideas posed by Nazism.
I dunno, why bring up the Nazis as though they had popular ideas?
i didn’t and i’ve already clarified that?
i’m not sure what more there is to say on this
What parts of Marxism do you want to chop off?
if you’re referring to everything then that would include stuff like das kapital which i don’t think you can reasonably refer to as “easy to understand”
“philosophical grounding in Dialectical and Historical Materialism” also seems like it would be a fairly hard thing for the average person to understand
also, marx didn’t invent communism, so to say communism is contained within marxism is incorrect
the opening of the communist manifesto literally references the fact that european powers were already trying to “exorcise” the idea from the continent at the time
Yes, people generally don’t agree with the ideas posed by Nazism.
nazism proposed pre-natal scanning and graduate family planning stimulus? that’s news to me
if you’re referring to everything then that would include stuff like das kapital which i don’t think you can reasonably refer to as “easy to understand”
“philosophical grounding in Dialectical and Historical Materialism” also seems like it would be a fairly hard thing for the average person to understand
also, marx didn’t invent communism, so to say communism is contained within marxism is incorrect
the opening of the communist manifesto literally references the fact that european powers were already trying to “exorcise” the idea from the continent at the time
All of these are fairly straightforward and easy to understand, it just takes a while to get into the nitty gritty. Marx did not invent Communism, but Communism is core to Marxism.
nazism proposed pre-natal scanning and graduate family planning stimulus? that’s news to me
Ah, “the trains ran on time.” We both know that’s not Nazism.
All of these are fairly straightforward and easy to understand, it just takes a while to get into the nitty gritty
i feel like everything’s “easy to understand” if you assume infinite time to explain it, but for the sake of argument, let’s agree that these in fact “easy to understand”
in which case, the ideas behind pre-natal scanning and graduate family stimulus are also easy to understand, so we haven’t really moved anywhere.
this post still doesn’t make any case for marxist ideals being sound other than “people like them when they hear them without the label”. which i’m arguing (via the use of the provided two examples) is also true for eugenics.
and if “people like the ideas when they hear them without the label” is justification for ideas being good, then eugenics must be good, but we know eugenics isn’t good, so it’s not a good justification
so the post doesn’t make a good argument for marxism being good
and we already know the post is attempting to be an argument for why marxism is good, because you already acknowledged it’s making the case that “people have a negative connotations about marxism”, and combined with the point about nazis from earlier you enjoyed so much, that’s sufficient to show that it’s attempting to be an argument for why marxism is good
Ah, “the trains ran on time.” We both know that’s not Nazism.
what are you talking about? why are you trying to bring nazis into everything now?
(also, “trains ran on time” is mussolini, who was a fascist, not a nazi)
Good thing Nazism isn’t sound, nor does it sound good, even without the label.
It does, actually. Marxism is popular and easily understood, yet red scare propaganda and anticommunism has given it a negative connotation. Eugenics and Nazism are not popular, and have bad connotations because they are bad ideas in general, not to mention Nazism being based on pure evil extermination.
You’re not cooking here.
it was brought up to explain why “it’s just saying it has negative connotations” doesn’t make something neutral
you’re kind of just imagining a different post at this point?
“it does, actually”? you’re going to have to clarify what you mean by “this post makes a justification as to why the concepts behind marxism are sound and good”, unless you mean that “people thinking the ideas sound good” is your justification, which you just argued a second ago wasn’t what the post was doing, and which is exactly what i’m saying is a junk justification
“Marxism is popular” this post very specifically makes the point that marxism isn’t popular, but its ideas are. that’s like the whole point of the post
also, “easily understood” what? we haven’t even defined what sort of marxism we’re talking about here
it says nothing about the reasons for negative connotations; you’re adding that yourself
again, i’ve given two examples where the average person would probably support eugenics-in-description-only
No, it was brought up to draw equivalence to Marxism, don’t play coy.
No, Marxism is popular, it’s just sold as different names. Big difference.
Is there some other kind we need to worry about here that’s hard to understand?
No, you pretended the average person would.
cool ur jets buddy
it wasn’t, and doesn’t even really make sense when read through that lens
what kind of person comes into a thread and posts a pro-communism video clip and then angrily equates marxism to nazism?
that’s describing the same sentiment i just expressed using different words
honestly the term “marxism” is nebulous enough that just deciding on what counts as “in-scope” is kind of non-trivial
are we talking about the economic theory? marxist communism? the whole body of marx’s work?
what definition are you using?
i’m fairly confused what you’re trying to say here
are you saying that that, for those two concepts, you don’t think you could pitch the basic ideas behind them in a way such that the average person would agree?
I dunno, why bring up the Nazis as though they had popular ideas?
What parts of Marxism do you want to chop off? I am referring to the whole of Marxism, ie critique of Capitalism, philosophical grounding in Dialectical and Historical Materialism, and Communism.
Yes, people generally don’t agree with the ideas posed by Nazism.
i didn’t and i’ve already clarified that?
i’m not sure what more there is to say on this
if you’re referring to everything then that would include stuff like das kapital which i don’t think you can reasonably refer to as “easy to understand”
“philosophical grounding in Dialectical and Historical Materialism” also seems like it would be a fairly hard thing for the average person to understand
also, marx didn’t invent communism, so to say communism is contained within marxism is incorrect
the opening of the communist manifesto literally references the fact that european powers were already trying to “exorcise” the idea from the continent at the time
nazism proposed pre-natal scanning and graduate family planning stimulus? that’s news to me
All of these are fairly straightforward and easy to understand, it just takes a while to get into the nitty gritty. Marx did not invent Communism, but Communism is core to Marxism.
Ah, “the trains ran on time.” We both know that’s not Nazism.
i feel like everything’s “easy to understand” if you assume infinite time to explain it, but for the sake of argument, let’s agree that these in fact “easy to understand”
in which case, the ideas behind pre-natal scanning and graduate family stimulus are also easy to understand, so we haven’t really moved anywhere.
this post still doesn’t make any case for marxist ideals being sound other than “people like them when they hear them without the label”. which i’m arguing (via the use of the provided two examples) is also true for eugenics.
and if “people like the ideas when they hear them without the label” is justification for ideas being good, then eugenics must be good, but we know eugenics isn’t good, so it’s not a good justification
so the post doesn’t make a good argument for marxism being good
and we already know the post is attempting to be an argument for why marxism is good, because you already acknowledged it’s making the case that “people have a negative connotations about marxism”, and combined with the point about nazis from earlier you enjoyed so much, that’s sufficient to show that it’s attempting to be an argument for why marxism is good
what are you talking about? why are you trying to bring nazis into everything now?
(also, “trains ran on time” is mussolini, who was a fascist, not a nazi)