College students furious after they’re tricked into rejecting socialist ideal

[Forogil]

Because I worked at a top 25 university for 5 years until I moved out of the country in December and walked past student events and talked with students on a daily basis. And it wasn't like I was just on one campus either. The work I do meant I visited and talked with staff at other universities on a regular basis. Additionally, the comment that started this off was a right wing nutjob grossly mischaracterizing college students as socialists and then directly stated they were communists after he claimed they were socialists.

How can we know that calling them socialists (or communists) are mischaracterizing them - and why wasn't that point made instead?
Is it impossible that a student in the US is socialist (or communist)? No.
Does the student hold up a sign explaining their views so that we can check? No.
So, are we supposed to be mind-readers?

Note that I explained that I used the words in the common way and gave references. If someone wanted to say that they used it in different ways, that would have been easy - but instead this word-game began.

That's exactly what Nexx did as a response to the equivocation that college social democrats were socialists in context of the language initially used.

How do we know that they are social democrats, when the term wasn't used at that point - and you introduced it incorrectly implying that it is socialism?

You jumped in and played semantics. As an added note, a mainstream use of the word socialist to describe anyone on the left is very different in the states than someone who uses the word socialist abroad. Exactly as you stated.

And this is an international forum. Not a US-forum using Fox-news as a source of language.

- - - Updated - - -

You're wrong, get over it. A synonym by definition works both ways, what a fucking nonsense thing to say otherwise.

One would think that, but why isn't it listed as a synonym in the other direction in that case - and why don't everyone state that analogy and equivalence are synonyms?

Don't you have a nagging feeling that they aren't normal synonyms - but just two words that are somewhat related? Or is the confirmation bias so strong that you don't care about that?

[Theinquisition]

I hope I never become this petty in my old age. Or my not-so old age, for that matter. Ever, really.

You don't think the left on this page aren't petty?

lol

LOL

BWAAHAHAHA.

Have some leftist turds from this site make weak ass attempts to dox you and harass your family, then come talk to me about being petty.

- - - Updated - - -

It doesn't really matter how many hours a CEO works when he can just pack the board full of his own stooges and effectively set his own pay.

that's not how it works.

CEO's and other major executives are typically appointed by boards of directors who consist of major shareholders. CEO's don't just get to hire whomever they want. Secondly, the board of directors determine the pay of the CEO and other executives.

[Puremallace]

This is the very definition of false equivalency. On grades in most scenarios it is an even playing field. There is NOTHING even about how we distribute wealth in the US.

[Noradin]

This is the problem you keep ignoring. It's not the transferability of the wealth/gold/money that matters. It's the ownership.

That is irrelevant to the argument at hand.
If you want to make a analogy between two things or concepts then those need to match in the property or properties the analogy makes use of.
If you want to talk about transfer then grades cannot be used as analogon for wealth, because wealth has transferability as its most important property while grades have untransferability as most basic property.
That is all there is to it.

And no, "ownership" is not the most important poperty of wealth/gold/money, transferability is.
If you cannot give it away in exchange for something then it means nothing regardless of who "owns" it.

[RaoBurning]

that's not how it works.

CEO's and other major executives are typically appointed by boards of directors who consist of major shareholders. CEO's don't just get to hire whomever they want. Secondly, the board of directors determine the pay of the CEO and other executives.

And those CEOs sit on other boards, with other board members as CEOs in other companies, and so on. Lots of potential for back scratching going on there.

[Beet]

Who's defending it? We're calling bullshit on an invalid comparison while conservative wackjobs are saying, 'hur dur, we gots dem stoopid liberals!'

Plenty of people in this thread. Also you realize that many here do the same thing with conservatives right? I see way way more posts here making fun of "hur dur dumb conservative/trump supporter" than I do for mocking liberals. But that's because there's way way way more liberals here than conservatives.

[jackofwind]

And I can guarantee you wont become a millionaire doing what you're doing.

Becoming a millionaire is more about luck, talent and ingenuity than pure effort.

A guy can bust his ass 100 hours a week and never become a millionaire, while a spoiled teenager can have one great idea or take advantage of one opportunity and strike it rich.

The thing that changes is usually the more effort you put into something the more talented at it you will become, which then will increase your ingenuity and talent. There's a reason most famous architects hit their stride in their 40's or later.

[Masark]

Evidently you've never worked that hard for anything. Effort and earnings are absolutely connected, ask any millionaire or business owner.

So what effort did the Waltons put in? What effort did Trump put in?

[Jinpachi]

Becoming a millionaire is more about luck, talent and ingenuity than pure effort.

A guy can bust his ass 100 hours a week and never become a millionaire, while a spoiled teenager can have one great idea or take advantage of one opportunity and strike it rich.

The thing that changes is usually the more effort you put into something the more talented at it you will become, which then will increase your ingenuity and talent. There's a reason most famous architects hit their stride in their 40's or later.

Dead wrong. Once you learn what it takes to become a millionaire, you can lose it all and still be able to make it all back again. There's a formula to it. Go read the Law of Success.

- - - Updated - - -

So what effort did the Waltons put in? What effort did Trump put in?

Stop worrying about what effort they put in and worry about what you need to do to reach that same level. Goddamn stop being contemptuous of people who are successful and work out your own success.

[jackofwind]

Dead wrong. Once you learn what it takes to become a millionaire, you can lose it all and still be able to make it all back again. There's a formula to it. Go read the Law of Success.

Sure, a book written in 1925 will tell you everything you need to know about success. All the millionaires interviewed for that book had exactly what I was talking about - new ideas, new products, talent, and ingenuity.

If you think that effort alone is enough to make someone a millionaire you're delusional. You can break your back hucking rebar on job sites 16 hours a day for 60 years and still be in the lower middle class. No one could debate your effort, but since you lacked a combination of talent, ingenuity, and skill you never advanced or made any real money.

PS: When millionaires lose everything they still get heavily favored by banks for loans stc. because of their historic ability to generate income, their contacts, and potential earnings. They're seen as safer bets than average people and get far better loans at far better rates. It's not an equal comparison whatsoever.

- - - Updated - - -

Stop worrying about what effort they put in and worry about what you need to do to reach that same level. Goddamn stop being contemptuous of people who are successful and work out your own success.

I'm perfectly successful in my profession, hold multiple degrees, am a homeowner in a good neighbourhood, and paid my own way.

I still don't think Trump's kids have done anything to merit the amount of money and influence they have access to. Do I really care? No, because it's largely irrelevant to my life. But I certainly won't pretend that they're better, smarter, or more talented than me simply because their dad is rich.

[Astalnar]

Grades aren't analogous to income. So you already started off with a false analogy. There's no way to justify this analogy. It doesn't work.

In order to get good grades, you have to put effort and time in your studies. Thus it is not false analogy.

[Orange Joe]

In order to get good grades, you have to put effort and time in your studies. Thus it is not false analogy.

grades are capped. Income is not.

[anyaka21]

Maybe I'm wrong here, but my idea of socialism is that people are allowed to have and own business' etc... but things like power (ie: electricity, water, etc..), healthcare, et al.. are taken care of by the government.

Which makes this video and the title less about rejecting socialism, and more about rejecting or communistic ideals.

[Mojo03]

Well what are you arguing for? Are you saying successful people have too much power and we should remove it? Are you saying lower class people should have more power?

I'm saying people with money have too much influence over how our country is run (politicians) and how our society forms beliefs (media).

[niil945]

How can we know that calling them socialists (or communists) are mischaracterizing them - and why wasn't that point made instead?
Is it impossible that a student in the US is socialist (or communist)? No.
Does the student hold up a sign explaining their views so that we can check? No.
So, are we supposed to be mind-readers?

Note that I explained that I used the words in the common way and gave references. If someone wanted to say that they used it in different ways, that would have been easy - but instead this word-game began.


How do we know that they are social democrats, when the term wasn't used at that point - and you introduced it incorrectly implying that it is socialism?

Are you intentionally being obtuse? Are you actually trying to tell me that, while there are thousands and thousands and thousands of college kids rallying around Bernie Sanders and people on the right here are calling them socialists, that you actually think we're talking about real Communists? In America? Ahahahahahaha! Clearly you jumped in and assumed that the person who started with the insult was actually talking about something that only ever gets discussed in history classes in the U.S. Here's a tip for you for future conversations. No one here cares one iota about real communists. It's a classic example of the right wing lunacy. They've been calling democrats socialists in the U.S. in a pitiful attempt to insult everyone on the left for a least four decades, as long as I've been having political discussions. If you want to have a nuanced and detailed conversation about socialism, that's great, good for you, but you're way out of context here.

And this is an international forum. Not a US-forum using Fox-news as a source of language.

That's exactly my point. And you made it for me. There are discussions where socialism is distinct from communism. And this is one of them. It's a common tactic of the extreme right, or the right trying to troll the left, where they make accusations trying to create a link between modern socialism and Marxism where one doesn't exist. And you ate that shit up.

[Torto]

I'm saying people with money have too much influence over how our country is run (politicians) and how our society forms beliefs (media).

Why is that an issue? If your a CEO of a large company employing thousands of people, and the government is about to enact legislation that will harm your business, don't you have an obligation to petition the government on behalf of your employees?

- - - Updated - - -

Why do you keep saying there's no incentive to work more or try to make more money? You realize keeping 50% of 1000k is still more money than 50% of 500k, right? You still make more money.

It is self evident. If you work and someone takes half of what you worked for, your incentive to work more is lessened. Or alternatively, your incentive to work elsewhere where you get to keep more of your hard earned rewards increases.

In context of this thread, you can choose between 2 universities. One will share your A grade with another student so you both end up with a C cos fairness, and the other lets you keep your A grade. Which university are you going to choose?

[mvaliz]

Why does the subject line read like it's a clickbait Alt-right newslink?

oh yeah, right...

[Macaquerie]

Why is that an issue? If your a CEO of a large company employing thousands of people, and the government is about to enact legislation that will harm your business, don't you have an obligation to petition the government on behalf of your employees?

Why would you even say something like this? Not only is it blatantly disingenuous to imply that businesses lobby the government to benefit their employees, because if that were the case they'd be all on board with minimum wage hikes and stronger health and safety regulations, but also you are pretty much conceding that you can't make your point without appealing to left-wing sensibilities about prioritizing the well-being of the common people and all that. And in any event, workers can lobby the government on their own behalf, they don't need management to do it for them.

[mvaliz]

Which makes this video and the title less about rejecting socialism, and more about rejecting or communistic ideals.

The Dumbass Donnie Dump supporters don't know any better. You can point to Canada, England, Germany, Australia and all those things and say "Do you think they are evil Socialists?" and you'd still get them to drool stupid out of their mouths.

[Torto]

Uh what? That's not the argument put forth at all or even close to it. Even if you change the argument to that it makes no sense because grades still aren't analogous to wealth. What don't you get about that?

Hahaha, see this is the beauty of the video. You can't answer the question because it goes against the grain about your socialist belief system. Of course you wouldn't share your grades you worked for, so all you can do is obfuscate about different reward types.