+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

-Log In
Why such political uniformity here?
Log In to post a reply
85 messages
View: flat \ threaded

79 posts

Re: Why such political uniformity here?

This was rich:


This is what he is calling being "shushed", about 650 words of mostly just questions he could not answer, because he's a feeble poser of a troll, not a good faith participant in a discussion.

PhotoPhreak wrote:
vivakomeda wrote:

You know what her talking points are. She espouses them in each and every interview, with virtually no exceptions.

Here's a fun one.

Somehow, she holds off on introducing her view on the "state of the world today" until 2:50. There's a "systemic problem", she informs us.

She hates hates HATES capitalism. Always alludes to it. Here she angrily says "not every aspect of human life can be sold or bought, you know".

Her awful, ignorant views on financial markets and rating agencies come up here. "Who are these people?", like she says in the song. "Who are these people"? (I guarantee, she doesn't actually want to know the answer). She blames "mathematics" for people not being able to borrow money at the same price (I wonder, would she lend her money to someone she doesn't think will pay her back?)

She suggests she could be the next Pussy Riot.

There's lots of talk about "the elite". "Bourgeois".

13 minutes is where the real ignorance starts.

I won't try to sum it up. Listen for yourself. Schoolgirl pamphleteer stuff. She even blames capitalism for the condition of "our swimming pools"!

Let me be blunt. I'm quite confident of this: You're talking out of your arse. I watched it. She's almost completely right. (The only times I felt she was missing the mark was when she veered into routine Marxist rhetoric, which wasn't often, only about 1/20th of what she said. Attributing all of our problems to profit/capitalism is absurd, humans have forever had most of the problems we still have today. The rest of what she said could just as well have been said by an observant anarcho-primitivist.) Her diagnosis was nearly 100% spot-on. Oh, you think she's ignorant? I assume you yourself know the names of those people queried about, right? Say, did you ever happen to notice any of those names in one of the countless long articles by Matt Taibbi, a guy who is surely not ignorant and whose columns substantiate what Laetitia said about ratings agencies? Or perhaps you might have noticed some of their names in a book by Nassim Taleb, who would probably agree with Laetitia re: being ruled by arbitrarily-powerful people who have an infantile grasp on the consequences of their decisions. Do you object to her preference for cooperatives? Because I sure don't. In fact, I think the Mondragon setup is a most sublime form of capitalism (yes, capitalism), a glimpse into as near a utopian arrangement as humans will probably ever be able to manage. I bet Simone Weil would agree with Laetitia about cooperatives. Is she wrong about swimming pools? Not really. Public utilities are being neglected, and it has a great deal to do with budgetary priorities dictated by lobbyists for what are colloquially known as capitalist pigs, the bad kind of capitalists, who possess a disproportionate amount of clout compared to all other capitalists, all other people. Do you dispute this? Do you dispute that people are being overworked and underrewarded despite the leisure time promised to us for ages by one after another technology revolution? (Now, I would remind Laetitia that responsibility is a two-way current, citizens are still free to choose to find an alternative path, to pool resources to build and repair their own public and private spaces, to re-shape the world via making different choices as consumers every day, to willfully defy the institutional forces she bemoans as oppressive. And I would ask her what today's "austerity" would seem like to humans who lived 200, 2000, 20000 years ago, humans who not only did not feel entitled to more from life, but who were able to enjoy life despite lacking the material benefits of 2014 or even 1914 -- amazing! Or not amazing.) Are you arguing that public transportation is properly valued in a society where almost everything is, as she said, geared for maximum profitability? And what's wrong with being the next Pussy Riot? Or, what's inaccurate about Laetitia's concern that she could possibly wind up being persecuted if she were more popular? Are you not aware of how many public figures have been persecuted in the world over the last 50 years for dissenting too well for their own good in front of too big an audience? Ever heard of the court case US v John Lennon? That's just one famous example. Should we, uh, not be afraid of dictatorships? You won't try to sum it up? Funny, because that's exactly what you tried to do, and you miserably sucked at it. What is your deal, man? Are you a bank-teller projecting your self-loathing onto Laetitia? Are you seething with misogyny, hence the totally unwarranted "schoolgirl" cheapshot? Are you prejudiced against the French, lol? You call her ignorant, but I came away with the EXACT OPPOSITE IMPRESSION, and guess what, I'm right, and you are wrong. Can you prove otherwise? Try it. I won't even expect you to articulate yourself in a non-native language like Laetitia did so remarkably well. Deal? So, go ahead, respond. Try to think twice before you hit submit, second-guess yourself as often as you need to, rehearse a mea culpa. Just some friendly advice.

This is maybe being all perceived as me being cruel, but I'm trying to alert the forum to a reality, as plainly and as colloquially as possible, but also as earnestly and as cogently as I can. This is a real distinction I am making: The member vivakomeda is a troll. He literally fits the definition. Please be more aware of this.

Jan 13, 2014, 09:38


Topic Outline: