DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Ben Shapiro

Got you.

Because that could never be happening. I mean the far left just love God, being sober, drug free, marriage, unborn babies, and sexually pure men and women. Yeah, no war on that at alllllll. I mean they just love "Christ"mas too right?

lol

I think it says volumes that you believe loving God is a white culture.

Or that being sober is white culture. Or being sexually pure is white culture.

I bet you stand by those statements too. Smh

His point about Nordic countries being homogenous, as it relates to socialism, is that culturally and socially they are all rowing in one direction, that as societies and cultures they value hard work and a strong work ethic, healthy lifestyles, social cohesion, and individual responsibility. Agree or disagree with the premise, I don't care. I don't have a dog in the hunt.



I don't think he said Vermont is a socialist state, I believe he said Norway's brand of socialism - which isn't really socialism - would work in Vermont because it was comparably homogenous to Norway, with similar standards and ethics, and doesn't have to pay for it's own defense.



Clearly he's talking about NATO spending, where the US covers about 22% of the total NATO budget, with the other countries making up the balance. Norway, along with some other countries fall short of the targeted 2% of GDP spending at 1.6%, but I believe have committed to raising those expenditures to meet the targeted 2%.



That's a simplistic overview. As a founding member of NATO, they enjoy the protection of the coalition. Attacking Norway would be tantamount to attacking the NATO coalition, including the United States. Why would any country threaten Norway under those circumstances? What would there be to gain? Russia certainly isn't going to roll into Norway for her oil, which is probably one of the biggest benefits of being a NATO ally for her.



I don't know if you're saying the US military compares to a socialist country or not but the US military is paid for entirely by tax dollars from capitalistic gains in a free market economy, generating no revenue whatsoever on its own. It must be fully funded to survive. I don't know what your point is here. The military is certainly not an example of working socialism.



I believe he was saying this type of socialism (which isn't really socialism) might work for a (relatively) short period before cracks start to show. Strict socialism hasn't worked in Russia, China, Venezuela or Cuba, in fact has failed miserably. And you have to note that Nordic "socialist" countries aren't strictly socialist. They are free market societies in that most of the businesses and means of production are privately held which bolsters those economies through productivity and distribution of wealth through the marketplace. At their roots, they are capitalistic welfare states supported by extremely high tax rates.



I believe what he was talking about are those cracks. Looking at Norway and nordic countries historically, there was a ripe period of economic growth and because of that prosperity governments decided to take on more social responsibility. Becoming capitalistic welfare states after achieving monetary success through capitalism. And that since the conversions, high tax rates, high costs of food, housing and so forth are becoming burdensome to the population and to the state resulting stagnant growth which is addressed by instituting tax cuts to stimulate productivity, opening state monopolies to the free market, cutting back on social programs, and so forth. That ultimately, capitalistic welfare states are also unsustainable. Whether this is true or not, I don't know since the nordic countries haven't collapsed yet.

Is he lying? Is he a liar? Perceive it how you will. Seems you disagree with what he's saying and want to label it as lies before fully understanding what he's talking about. Perhaps you believe in a utopian socialistic Nordic society which he says doesn't exist because it has its own set of issues - which it does - is actually capitalistic welfare - which it is - and perhaps you don't like hearing that. You're beliefs are your own and I'm fine with that.

Frankly, I didn't start this thread to defend his positions. Whether I agree or disagree with his views wasn't the point, it was that he is able to argue his POV without malice, and clearly and logically present his viewpoint in an accessible way backed by facts instead of constantly attacking with the you're this or you're that or you did this or you did that kind of BS so prevalent in today's discussions.

Ben, just like a lot of conservatives, have a warped understanding when it comes to NATO's budget and such.

the amount one spends for NATO's budget is based on GDP. so no matter what, the US will always spend way more than any other country in the alliance. yea, we pay 22% of the budget because we have the largest GDP in the world. but NATO's annual budget is around 2.3-2.7 billion, and we pay 550 million. which means the other 1.5 or 1.7 billion is paid by the europeans.

also, people seem to want to combine NATO spending with overall defense spending, which is a very misleading way to go about it.

for example, people complain about NATO countries like Germany not hitting their 2% for NATO, but those same people won't bring up the fact that Germany spends around 15% of their GDP on defense spending overall.

there's a reason they won't, and thats because it completely destroys the BS narrative being put out there.

just like this BS narrative conservatives use about Trump getting NATO countries to commit to 2%. NATO countries had ALREADY committed to the 2% under Obama by i think 2022 or 2024, and yet somehow Trump is getting praise for.....getting NATO to recommit to the same % and timeline?

lol, ok.

also, CHS is absolutely correct when he states that nordic countries aren't spending as much on defense because they aren't constantly in conflict. its actually a simplistic view to simply chalk up that aspect by saying "Well, the US pays for it".

actually, its quite disrespectful.

also, its quite odd that we're the ones who started the alliance to begin with, and are now whining about it non stop. it reminds me of conservatives who constantly whine about the global economy that we Americans are in charge of in the first place. makes no sense.

but don't mind me. i'm just a combat vet who actually knows how these alliances operate.

also, i try my best to get through a ben shapiro videos, but i can't because i have a hard time listening to a guy who sounds like his balls haven't dropped yet. his voice is god awful annoying and it doesn't get any easier listening to him.

he also has a very whitewashed romanticized view of history and how things work around here. he's another one of those who worships this "judo-christian" society, while simultaneously ignoring all the problems, and just simply chalks it up to "leftist progressive blah blah blah". he also relies on his cult followers to use stupid video titles such as "ben DESTROYS..." or "Ben OWNS....", basically trying to get viewers to go into a video already with a bias, expecting some mic drop moment from ben.

something i've yet to witness watching any of his videos.

If you want to watch / listen to someone who is a true debater extraordinaire find some Christopher Hitchens. He is articulate and typically all in-compassing with the way he tries to attack any topic - he was an atheist and maybe best known for railing against organized religion - but he has espoused about lots of topics.

Well let's take a look at that for a moment. You're using the old and worn out argument that, "The left are the Godless hoard!" Yet Obama was a Christian. Of course the man you elected helped lead the birther movement claiming he was a Muslim born in Kenya. I didn't know that was a "Christian thing".

You elected a man who has lied over 8000 times while in office in a two year period and his "Christian supporters" uphold him. He cheated on all three of his wives. Another wonderful "Christian value".

It's the GOP who wants to deny healthcare for all. Who wish to cut social Security benefits and other social programs for the poor.

So it's great to spout platitudes that claim it's your side that are so rightious and the other side who are the Godless hoards. But let's use your example of Christmas.

Jeremiah 10:1-5

Hear ye the word which the Lord speaketh unto you, O house of Israel:

2 Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.

3 For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.

4 They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.

5 They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.

Yet you follow pagan customs and claim to be honoring Christ. All one needs to do is look at the customs of Christmas, Easter and so on to see that you're not honoring Christ, instead you are spitting in his face.

Christ had compassion, kindness and healed many...... without sending anyone a bill.

Christ turned the water into wine and said, "Feast ye and rejoice".

Maybe it's time you take a long look in the mirror before judging and casting stones at others. Because there's scriptures about that too....

Again, I would like to point to you about my post regarding facts and perceptions of facts. You seem to have a hard time distinguishing between the two of them. You seem to need a grand narrative to "understand" facts, which is why you're explaining from where Ben Shapiro is coming from, rather than just talking about the facts. Even the schizophrenics have impeccable logic, when followed with them. But when looked at from an observer's eyes, they're clearly crazy. If you're more interested in this concept, I suggest you read 'Freud's Notes Upon A Case of Obsessional Neurosis'. There are others that I could suggest, but I like that one more. It covers the patient Rat Man, who believed that his fiance and father were being ate by rats. Again, a completely logical and rational point of view considering the source, however completely crazy idea with no tether to reality.

Like I stated before, there is only one reality, how we perceive reality is completely different. Reality is reality regardless of context. You do not need context to understand facts. Facts are facts, and do not need narrative arches to be understood. Of course some things are esoteric, so things need to be properly defined so they can be properly understood, but at the end of the day 1+1=2, because if you add one thing, to another thing, you now have two things. The proof is right there in the pudding. No context is needed. However, if I say 1+1=3, obviously in reality this is a stupid thought as 1+1 does not equal 3. You say, "CHSdawg you nincompoop 1+1=2, not 3." and you would be completely right. So now, I look dumb because I got reality wrong. So what is there to do? Change the context. I say, "Yes, 1+1=2, that's obvious, but if you are familiar with my work then you would know when I do simple math, I always add a +1, so if I'm taken in context what I'm really saying is 1+1+1=3. That is 100% true, and if you deny that you are the dumb one, and not me for getting simple math wrong. Now you're in a position to accept my newly defined argument, or back down on your claim that my facts are wrong and 1+1=2 not 3. You can either go along with the narrative I've set forth or remain rooted in reality. Let's go with the fun option and say you follow me, "I'm sorry CHS, I didn't know your full context. Please forgive me for doubting you. I will only act knowing your full context". Great. To make it painfully clear, context is how we perceive reality, it is NOT representative of actual reality.

Now to your post, where you argue that I misunderstood his context while not debating numbers or facts.



Yes, I understand why he said that. I will also add that he contextualizes Norway and other Nordic countries to be homogeneous both culturally and ethnically, because the conservative talking point is that diversity offers nothing, while the left talking point is that diversity is the key to the future. Not only can Ben say that socialism only works in these countries, but they only work because they reject leftist dogma that diversity is good for the world. That's his context. That doesn't change the FACT that diversity is a key focus point for socialists. You cannot build a workers' movement by just focusing on one group and not the proletariat itself. This is why most the of socialists before WW2 called themselves internationalists. It's why Cuba, Venezuela, Syria and South Africa always worked closely together, despite being separated by population, language and among racial lines. Socialism does not work because of homogeneity, it works in spite of that. And just because Norway is homogeneous doesn't mean that it's now incomparable to the US. That is a malicious lie.


Yes, he did not say that Vermont is a socialist state, he said that "Bernie Sanders' philosophy works in Vermont and it works in Norway." Not "would work", but "works". He then states everything you just said, but says socialism only works in these countries because they pay so little on defense. Again, this is a lie. Increased defense spending, would lead to more socialism in Norway or Vermont. Norway publicizes companies that work directly with the government. And in regards to the US, our biggest safety social nets are directly involved with the military, when it comes to things like healthcare, post-secondary education, etc., etc. To say that military spending acts inversely to socialism is ignoring factual data, which is why Ben Shapiro doesn't provide any evidence for this claim and rushes past it.

Again, I'm not going to play semantic games. Can you explain why Norway isn't a socialist country? Not only do they have a very secure safety social net, but they also have state owned businesses. Those state owned businesses sometimes pay dividends directly to citizens. Compare this to say, Venezuela, where 70% of the GDP is privately owned, where there is a lack of social safety nets, but is somehow a socialist utopia if Conservatives like Ben Shapiro is to be believed. So how is Norway not a socialist country, but Venezuela is? Does a failing state determine if something is socialist to you? What is your criteria? Like Ben, you said something bonkers and provided no evidence, so that's why I'm asking you.



I've combined these two points, because they are the same thing. Yes, he is talking about NATO. He says that because of NATO, Norway spends nothing on their military, which allows them to have socialism. Again, this ignores that Norway spends 4% of its GDP on its military. Yes, attacking Norway would be like attacking NATO. That is how treaties work. However, if Norway were to attack a country, NATO members would not need to attack that country. NATO is a defense treaty, not an aggressive and defensive treaty. That is why, while the US fights two wars a decade, NATO members do not. That is also why NATO members do not need to spend 20-30% of their GDP on military expenditures, but instead 5%. But again, this is a silly debate point because there is no inverse relationship between military spending and socialism. It's actually more correlated. For example, look at Israel who has forced conscription, but also free universities and universal healthcare. Norway's socialism does not thrive because its military budget is so small.



Yes, I understood that he thinks that Norway only works for a small window, but Norway has been a socialist country since before WW2. They have been thriving for decades. Again, he makes a false claim, provides no evidence and quickly moves on to his next talking point. Oh look, you listed Venezuela as a socialist state too, so my analogy is even better. How is Venezuela a socialist state when 20% of their GDP is held by the government, whose social safety nets are extremely small, and not Norway where the government owns 35% of the GDP, and has excellent social safety net programs, including even maternity and paternity leave? But yes, there will be no "strictly socialist" country, as socialism is a Hegelian development between capitalism and communism. Socialism original aim was to create a society for communism. So yes, capitalism is still a very strong part of socialism. That is why communists will never call themselves a socialist.



Yes, I understand where he is coming from. That socialism is failing so bad in Nordic countries, that they are on the verge of bankruptcy. However, this is again not true, and I'm a little shocked that you ignored the facts and numbers that showed that Norway is nowhere close to going bankrupt. So I will repeat them here.

US Norway comparison:
Credit rating: USA = AA (excellent) Norway = AAA (Outstanding)
Deficit: USA = 984 billion dollars Norway = 84 million dollars
Debt: USA = 104% of the GDP. Norway = 30% of the GDP.

Now which one of these countries are closer to going bankrupt? I would have to trust the economists and bankers who believe that Norway has better credit than the US.



He's stating incorrect things as facts, so yes he is. Facts are facts, they do not rely on perceptions, but reality. Like Shapiro says "Facts don't care about your feelings (perception).



No, I understood exactly where he was coming from. I didn't need his thoughts to be recontextualized, because like I said, he's a skilled orator who speaks clearly. However, I did predict that you would try to recontextualize his positions when I said:





No, I don't believe in socialist utopias because they are still capitalism societies that extol the exploitative nature of capitalism. I have no problem hearing that socialism is capitalism, because I've known that for decades and is clearly written out by Lenin, Marx, Benjamin, and every person who has ever wrote about communism and socialism.


Yes, we know. That's exactly why Rocket posted multiple instances of Ben Shapiro being extremely malicious, insincere, uncouth and having paranoia induced delusions, for example, Rocket posting Ben's article where he states that Obama's administration would start a race war by the end of his term. Ben is a talking head, the thing about talking heads is not only do they drown out others, but also themselves. It's easy to forget that Ben is just as malicious as the SJWs he argues against, because he's constantly talking.

Thank you for being a lot more respectable today than you were last night. If you do wish to continue this discussion, I hate to ask this, but please focus on trying to refute facts rather than trying to contextualize Ben Shapiro's words. Saying that he is right, because his viewpoint is sound, isn't relying on facts, it's relying on a cohesive narrative. For example, I could say Ben Shapiro is an idiot kid based on these three pieces of information: 1) He is an idiot 2) He is not the size of an average adult, but the size of your average 8th grader 3) Ben Shapiro's vocal range is that of a prepubescent boy. Using the logic that you're using in this thread, the points made by me are neither lies nor truths, but viewpoints that you can debate. However, in reality, what I said is not true at all, because he's not an idiot, he knows what he's doing, nor is he a child, I think he is in his 30's, but don't quote me.

I find the discussion interesting, so leaving your condescending notion that I don't understand reality -vs- perceived reality, or facts -vs- perception of facts aside, let's drill down on some of your facts.



First: We cannot know whether a Nordic capitalistic welfare system would work outside of its current boundaries because we have no examples of a working socialist market system outside the Nordic countries. As you point out, the closest system is Venezuela, which failed.

Second: You assume the homogenous argument is meant to be anti-diversity, I assume it is about work ethic and the unified culture of a prosperous and harmonious society that existed pre-welfare state. That this is the context of the argument.

Beyond that, you paint the conservative view as exclusionary and the liberal view as inclusionary. You say "the conservative talking point is that diversity offers nothing." That this is the "conservative view". This is a contrived assertion designed to paint conservatives as racist. You will be unable to find any conservative viewpoint that states "diversity offers nothing." Capitalism as an institution in fact encourages inclusion and diversity. It's a simple premise, A free market society is more successful when more people participate. Your facts in this instance are perceived, not actual.

If the contextualized nature of homogenized Nordic culture does include ethnicity within the definition, that is because ethnically it's true. Nordic cultures are not diverse. That's not an indictment, it's a fact.

Socialism as an institution doesn't care about cultural diversity, only creating a classless society. Saying social and cultural diversity is a key focus point is NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT. Cultural diversity never enters into the equation. The goal of socialism is to dispel class distinctions and relinquish control of industry to the state. You equate economic equality with cultural tolerance. The two are not the same. Inclusion within the system isn't the same thing as recognizing or welcoming diversity.

Almost every failed socialist experiment took place within a homogenized country so the "inclusionary nature" of that socialism was homogenous by definition. It doesn't matter what socialist called themselves, within the borders of the socialist countries themself lived the populations of those homogenous nations. When you say, "Socialism does not work because of homogeneity, it works in spite of that" the FACT is, socialism doesn't work at all evidenced by the fall of the two largest socialist countries in the 1990's. Which both happened to be extremely homogenous. That Norway isn't comparable to the US isn't a lie, it's a FACT. The two countries are incomparable on many levels, other than they share certain aspects of a free market society. Trying to say the two countries are comparable is bending facts to fit a narrative.



The point to be made here is more tax money is freed up to fund social safety nets if military spending is reduced. I don't think we need to disagree on this.



I'll concede the Venezuelan model has more in common with the Norway model than strict socialism. I probably shouldn't have lumped Venezuela with China and Russia. Why has Venezuela failed and Nordic free market welfare states still thriving? I would say it has to do with efficiency and culture. Within the Nordic countries you have that strong work ethic, healthy lifestyles, social cohesion, and individual responsibility I mentioned earlier. In Venezuela the military running the oil industry inefficiently contributed to falling production. Falling oil prices, food shortages, and general dissent were also contributing factors. Admittedly this is a simplistic summation, but for the point of this discussion it will serve.



I didn't address these numbers because I don't dispute them. I'm not saying the Nordic model is failing, and per your request, I'm not contextualizing what said or meant. Maybe he misspoke, maybe he has his facts wrong. I don't know nor care much. If he wanted to drill down into the issue he's more than capable.

Finally, I'm on record as saying I'd like to see a kinder, gentler US of A. I'd like us to reach a point where we have free education and healthcare. I'd like to see them funded by increased corporate taxes. I don't think we'll get there unless it's voluntary. The minute anyone tries cut into corporate profits, there would likely be corporate revolt. Jobs would dry up and move overseas. That's if you could get the lawmakers on board to begin with. Constituents and donors would push back hard, and their contributions would dry up, politicians would cave.

That's all I really have to say on the subject. If I've missed something, or you want to discuss something else, let me know.

Holy cow. Let me translate this dog whistle.

“You know, I have no experience with these cultures or countries. So I’m going to make a large generalization about two cultures, and value one over another because of work ethic reasons. Let’s convineintoy ignore the one I value less has a different skin color than mine, and is the one more dissimilar to me.”

First, I would like to thank you for actually being respectful this time and not participating in insults like your previous posts. I really appreciate you and the effort you put in.



You might feel that it's condescending, but it's not. It's simply explaining a difficult concept. If you feel that its condescending in nature, that is an inference that you made, not something I stated or wanted to express. I am sorry if you felt that it was condescending. But I would like you to reread my post because, again, I see you creating a rift between reality and perception. "your facts" they're facts. Facts are facts. They're not mine, they're not yours. They are themselves, which makes them facts. Reminder, you first did this language game when you said "Ben Shapiro has his own brand of logic". Facts are facts. Perception is perception. We need to keep this separate or it will only deepen the divide of our country. If we cannot look at the same facts and talk about them, then who will know what we're talking about?


First: This is completely false. There are multiple examples of various socialist countries working in a market economy. Canada, would be the largest if speaking about area, China and India if speaking about population, but any of the Western European countries would also suffice. Second: I never said anything relating that Venezuela is the closest system to Nordic countries. I did not make any comment about Venezuela. I simply asked a question why you considered Venezuela to be socialist and not Norway, which has a lower share of the GDP and businesses in the private sector. That was my question. You did not answer that question. I did not say that Venezuela is the closest thing to Norwegian's economic style. In fact, they are very different. Venezuela is in a 30 year fight to change their economic system from a free market system to a central planned economy. Clearly they have not progressed much in their fight. Lastly, I would not say that Venezuela's socialism has failed. I know you now want to argue this point, but I would ask you to hold off as we're having a large discussion as is, we should not add to the mess more. Point is, if you want to look at a social market economy, then look no further at what the Democratic socialists have done in Germany. Their population is 12x the size of Norway and 2x the size of Venezuela. They are 1/3 our size however. I would also suggest looking at modern day China which is quickly becoming more and more market based as the days pass by us.


I believe the homogeneous argument contains both of these talking points.


I do not paint anything, I simply describe the situation as is. If you think that downplaying diversity is exclusionary and racist, while supporting diversity is inclusive, and not-racist, then those are your thoughts. I did not say those things. Those are the connections you made while reading my words, but those are not my words. Maybe you believe them, maybe you don't, I don't care. If you don't believe my words, here is a video of Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson talking about how diversity is not a value. The title of the video, posted by Ben's website, is 'Diversity is not a value'.





This is untrue entirely. Capitalism encourages nothing other than supply should meet demand. It does not demand equality, it does not demand fairness, it does not demand diversity. Just because a lot of people participate in an economy doesn't mean the economy becomes diverse, if the people themselves aren't diverse. We are currently in a trade war with China because people have convinced the President that our economy has been crippled because China has not only taken our jobs, but also floods our country with their products. Again, capitalism does not favor diversity, it never has and it never will, unless the people want diverse things. Then the market will find diverse goods.


Again, untrue.


What?


False. Communism seeks to abolish the class system, Socialism strides to make the middle class hold the majority of the wealth.


False. All of the South American countries who practice socialism and who have had socialist states have put major stress on the importance on fixing racial tensions and creating a diverse environment for all.


This is Lenninism, a strict type of communism practiced by the USSR and Mao's China. Socialism's goal is to create a more fair meritocratic system than capitalism. Some socialists wish to move to a communist system, but not all.


I do not equate them, but the two are highly correlated. Because you cannot build a workers movement without reaching out to all workers, no matter race or gender. And again, when you look at the international community, you see the most cohesiveness and diversity from the hardcore socialist and communist countries. Before the US called for the end of apartheid and for Mandela to be freed, Fidel had been doing it for decades prior and would meet with Mandela before he became their President.


Do you mind putting out a list? I can only think of one, and that is the USSR. China has never been a very homogeneous country. Like the US, they contain a very diverse population, to the point where many of the regions have their own distinct dialects.



Which is why he didn't and quickly went on to the next point. Which again goes back to my point that he says a lot of lies quickly so people can't debate him. The term is gish galloping.



No one voluntarily will pay more taxes, especially companies that are beholden to stock members. I have a question for you: Where will these companies and people go if the US were to raise taxes on both? Socialist Europe, America or Asia? Capitalist South America? Russia? Hell, i don't know about you, but I'm proud to be an America. That is not say that I will give America a hall pass to be horrible, but I am proud of my country. While it may not get everything right, it's more right than other places are. So, as a proud American, if some company or rich person wants to move to Russia or Australia, then I'll help them pack. If you don't want to be here, and help our country, then please leave. Again, that's just me speaking as a proud American.

I'm not making a value judgement. I've been to Norway, lived in Panama, and was married to an Argentinian. Two of my children are biracial. And you sir, have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. So stuff your insult and your cherry picked reasoning. I hope it's clear to you what I'm saying here.

No thanks are necessary. The point I was trying to make is that discussion can be had without insults. I was merely responding in kind to your insults, then realized I was being part of the problem.



I understand the concepts. I don't need you to explain them to me, twice. I find that condescending. Let me post the definition of condescending for you: Having or showing a feeling of patronizing superiority. See, that would be condescending. It's a simple concept really. See? Condescending.



You are confusing socialism with free market welfare states. The rest of your argument to bolster your conclusions is made under faulty assumptions.



When you say, "the conservative talking point is that diversity offers nothing, while the left talking point is that diversity is the key to the future." You are painting a viewpoint. If you are saying you didn't intend to paint it as one being inclusionary and the other not, then perhaps reframe or further explain what you mean, because your words paint that conclusion to me. If I misinterpreted them I apologize. Perhaps you can explain the intent of making the statement in the first place.

As far as diversity being a value within any given economic model, it is correct that diversity isn't a factor in socialism, capitalism, free market welfare systems, or any other economic system. It's true, the systems themselves don't care, and don't rely on diversity to succeed. Just like the premise of a free nation doesn't rely on diversity to succeed. So when you say " Capitalism encourages nothing other than supply should meet demand." You are correct. I'll rephrase: A free market society has more to offer the more diverse it is. The success of that society is proportionate to that diversity.

A simple example would be goods and services available. I'm sure I don't have to ask you if you'd rather live in a society with many different types of restaurants, or a society that offered only one type of food.

So when you say, "unless the people want diverse things. Then the market will find diverse goods." You are supporting this premise, so in that sense, capitalism welcomes or integrates diversity, if not encourages it.



I didn't say it did, my point is made above.



The percentage of ethnic diversity in Nordic countries is less than 10%. (But I believe the numbers are increasing.)



Wrong. Socialism is an economic model, nothing more. Like capitalism and socialism don't care about diversity, socialism doesn't care about class. If a perfect model socialist society existed, and were wealthy, all would be wealthy. If the society were poor, all would be poor. You're hypothesizing a perfect model socialist utopia that doesn't exist.

Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done



You seem to view socialism and free market welfare states as one in the same.



Again, you view socialism and free market welfare states the same. They are not. Please give me one example of a country working under the strict principles of socialism.



I feel this is an entirely different discussion. If you expect me to defend colonialism I won't.



Again, I don't believe he lies, meaning speaks with the intent to deceive. Has he misspoken or falsely stated facts supporting his position, yes, I will concede that. And I don't mean to get into a semantics debate. But I don't consider him a liar, or you a liar, say in the way I consider Trump a liar. I also don't think his debate style prevents people from debating him. He seems very open to hearing the opposing side. That's one of his rules in his open forum, people who disagree get to go first.



In the case of manufacturing, wherever they can find cheaper labor to offset the dip in margins.



We both agree on this. Just as I'm sure we both agree there are things we would like to see changed. That's the beauty of living in a free society, we're allowed to express those feelings.

I get the feeling you've been trying to make a point throughout all of this (beyond the point you think Shapiro is a liar). If so, I'd like to hear it.

Again, I apologize if you feel insulted or belittled by my posts. That was never my intention nor what I did. I actually belittled myself in my post. But, again, I apologize to you if that is how you feel.


I've asked you multiple times to define socialism and you have not. You keep conflating socialism with a "free market welfare state", which is not a real category in economics. In fact, from a quick google search, it is a brand new term created in 2018 by Samuel Hammond who worked at the ultraconservative Mercatus Center. It is a red herring of a term. There are many different types of mixed economies that combine socialism and capitalism. Social market, Norwegian system, Folkhemmet, Dirigisme, socialist market economy. These are all different economic systems in socialism, but to you, you label all of these as "free market welfare state", when they're their own systems with their own designs.



Did you watch the video of Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro talking about how diversity is not a value? And that it's harmful. I posted it above. Again, I do not paint any story, just retelling what conservatives have said publicly, including Ben Shapiro. If you want me to explain the neoliberal point of view, it is that diversity is key, because it indicates a supposed fairness. That is why the neoliberal says stupid things like "We should have 100 billionaires, 48 men, 52 women, three trans people and 40 of them should be people of color", because they think that if we have actual markers of diversity, the US will be more diverse.


Again, this ignores that socialist countries try to increase diversity and make racial amends if wrongdoings had happened. Cuba, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Uruguay, South Africa can all be used as examples. You cannot build a coalition of workers, while excluding workers.


Again, what type of diversity are we talking about? Diverse populations or diverse ideas? I can understand where you're coming from if you say that capitalism thrives best under diverse ideas, but not populations. Again, the current Republican talking point is that we need to strengthen tariffs to avoid being over saturated by products from China, India, Mexico and so on and so forth.



I would be fine with either. I was watching Entertainment Tonight with a friend. ET had a segment on "virtual restaurants". I cannot remember if it was in Chicago or New York, but the premise was that a pizzeria got hit up by Ubereats, who told the pizzeria that they might want to expand into Southern Fried Chicken, because there were no fried chicken restaurants in the area. The pizzeria said OK, and expanded to fried chicken, and later would expand further to other ethnic foods that were not served in the neighborhood. Now Chicago and NYC have been around for centuries, and have been capitalist economic powerhouses. However, they did not offer a diverse selection of food, because the market had no way to ask for it. Further if you look at the most popular fast food restaurants, they're not a diverse selection of ethnic foods, it's burgers and pizza. I think most people in life, including myself, would be OK living off burgers and pizza. Which is clearly what the market is saying.


Again, it only encourages diversity, if the market wants diversity. If the market does not want diversity, then there will be no diversity.


From your post earlier:

Which is it? Does socialism not care about class or do they wish to eradicate class? Neither is correct, but you are inconsistent here. Socialism was created by Henri de Saint-Simon, whose original goal of socialism was to rank everyone in France to create a meritocratic society on the value of their worth.


Yes, like capitalism every citizen would be wealthy if the country is wealthy or poor if the country is. The important part is how the wealth is distributed in the country. In an "ideal socialist country" the country's wealth would be distributed on a 10-80-10 scale. 10% of the population would be extremely wealthy, 80% would be wealthy, and the last 10% of the population would be poor.




Emphasis mine. Again, there are various types of socialism including your "free market welfare state", but most importantly, and like I've stated, "But yes, there will be no "strictly socialist" country, as socialism is a Hegelian development between capitalism and communism. Socialism original aim was to create a society for communism. So yes, capitalism is still a very strong part of socialism. That is why communists will never call themselves a socialist." in a previous post.



No, I just understand socialism and not some concept that was invented a year or so ago, to make socialist ideas more palpable for a conservative audience.





Whose socialism? As the definition you provided, socialism has various economic models. There is not one single set of socialists principals. So again, Uruguay, Bolivia, China, Norway, Germany, and so on and so forth.




I don't expect anything. You just asked why Venezuela failed and I gave a different set of reasons that you did not bring up.




Fair enough. There's no way we can ever know what is in his heart. Simply, he tells his audience wrong facts so they can build an arsenal of facts to debate leftists. Whether or not that counts as lying is beside the point.



I think his debate style, largely based on his history of tournament debating through policy debates, does prevent people from actually debating. If you casually observe the policy debate circuit in high schools and colleges, you see the exact same techniques that Ben Shapiro uses. Speak fast, overwhelm the competition with information, and never cede ground. Policy debate is probably the worst debate format in the world. As many judges, coaches and participants would emphatically say. A better debate format would be a Lincoln Douglass debate, which gives ample time for everyone to cross examine, while being able to make their points separate from cross examination of facts. I have seen both Bruenigs, Liz and Matt challenge him to this debate style and he mocks them for it. Again, he is a great orator and a skilled debator. He went to Cal and Harvard, who have the best debate teams routinely.


But then we're not just talking about moving manufacturing, we're talking about moving their entire company, including their HQ and employees to a different country. I highly doubt the people who work for Amazon would like working in Indonesia more than America.




I do not know what you're talking about. I've made my points, and don't have any other points. Would you mind expanding here? Do you think I'm going to call Shapiro a racist or something?

No, that's not what I was getting at. I just feel you might have been trying to make or get to a larger point. If not, that's fine. I've enjoyed the discussion and it's helped me understand your points of view and to get to know you a little bit. I do appreciate that. I don't mean to cut off or en the discussion, I don't know that we're going anywhere with it, but if there's more you'd like to discuss I'm certainly willing to engage. Like I said, I've enjoyed it so thanks for sharing.

Nope it's been real and I've enjoyed this a lot. Good stuff, my man