Growing similarities between the USSR and USA (As told to me by 2 former Soviets)

[Rukentuts]

Not really, I see it all the time. I try to avoid such people, but they're like leeches.

Your anecdotal experiences do not encompass the complete picture.

[Felya]

First they came for the communists,
and I thought it would be a slippery slope to assume that they will come for some other group.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I thought it would be a slippery slope to assume that they will come for another group.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I thought it would be a slippery slope to assume that they will come for me next.
Then they came for me,
and there were no slippery slopes left.

You messed it up.... It would be:

First it would be a slippery slope to assume that they will come for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

---------- Post added 2013-05-17 at 08:32 PM ----------

Not really, I see it all the time. I try to avoid such people, but they're like leeches.

How do you see something all the time, while trying to avoid it? It seems that at least, your avoidance methods are a failure.

---------- Post added 2013-05-17 at 08:34 PM ----------

Your anecdotal experiences do not encompass the complete picture.

Look at all the freeloaders in China and tell me communism isn't indicative of freeloaders.

[Deleted]

Not really, I see it all the time. I try to avoid such people, but they're like leeches.

That doesn't make it true, or credible. Abuse of welfarestatus is a minority.

[fengosa]

In theory that might work, but it hasn't been working in reality. Instead the poor just get on welfare and drain the resources of hard-working people, while refusing to put any effort to improve their own social standing. Meanwhile that money we're giving to the poor has to come from somewhere; the people who actually work.

It's funny, other countries have welfare programs and still maintain reasonable budgets. Perhaps the US problems actually come from its military costs, ineffecient healthcare system and corporate subsidies?

[Endus]

Seriously though, someone already payed taxes on that estate? Why should something be taxed twice? Seems like a cheap attempt to put a temporary band-aid on our reckless spending problem.

No. It isn't double taxation. No more than any other kind of taxation. You get taxed on income, for instance, and then taxed on stuff you buy, via sales tax. This does not mean your income was taxed twice, it means your income was taxed once and your purchase was taxed once.

For estate tax, your income is taxed once, and then your estate is taxed once. There is no double taxation. Not only that, but there isn't even a problem with double taxation; in Canada, for instance, you pay income tax both federally and provincially.

So not only are you incorrect in claiming that it's double taxation, even if it were, that wouldn't be an argument against it in the first place.

The state isn't supposed to give the lower (or upper for that matter) classes special treatment, it's suppose to treat everyone equally, no?

No. I have no idea where you got that idea, because it hasn't been true of any Western government for the better part of a century.

Governments typically don't allow themselves to treat people differently based on protected classes, but economic standing is not a protected class. This is why you can't tax someone more because they're black, but you can tax someone more because they're rich. Because "being rich" is not a protected class.

[Easo]

I think OP doesnt realy understand what USSR was.

[fengosa]

I think OP doesnt realy understand what USSR was.

Arguably the bigger issue is his grasp on modern day US.

[Elim Garak]

You messed it up.... It would be:

Nope, You are just in denial.

Look at all the freeloaders in China and tell me communism isn't indicative of freeloaders.

What about US citizens living on welfare? Like millions of them? Freeloaders, right?
Also there's no communism in China.

[Kasierith]

I'm not sure why you insist on focusing on differences that are only tangentially related to the topic at hand. This isn't about left vs right but top (authoritarian) vs bottom (anarchist).

The US used to be quite centrist in that regard, but it has lately been moving towards the top where the USSR was. Do you deny this?

Yes, I deny this. For the reason why I deny this, place read through my posts up to this point in the thread. Any other questions?

Oh, and trying to iron a political system into "anarchist" or "authoritarian" is so far out there that I don't even know how to respond. Governments are immensely multifaceted.

[Sunseeker]

Arguably the bigger issue is his grasp on modern day US.

A long running issue with Laize.

[Fuiking]

I'm fairly certain that they, having lived through the USSR (One was born in the 1930s) would know plenty about it. The younger of them is actually quite technologically savvy and in his 40s so he's not that old.

The fact is that the Soviets had a Constitution that granted some great rights on paper. The problem was it was JUST a piece of paper. If you can explain to me how it's different that the US Executive offices can conduct searches of your person, property or correspondence without a warrant ISN'T near enough as makes no difference to what the USSR did, I am all ears.

Ah, Stalin, sorry, but that guy was just a plain arse, I mean, if the armenian genocide, nor the holocaust had happened he had won the title of the biggest murderer by miles. (Katyn, 5year plan, ethnic cleansing (or resettlement but it was cleansing) , cleansing of the army etc etc)

[blib]

If you are trying to argue that certain constitutional rights is being disregarded in certain situations and that's a bad thing then, sure.

May I ask why you so desperately want to link it to the USSR while denying you are trying to make a slippery slope argument? If you aren't then why make the comparison?

You can discuss why the reaction to the breach of rights isn't bringing out a stronger reaction but, again, USSR, why?

[Felya]

Nope, You are just in denial.

I don't think you understand what that quote means.

What about US citizens living on welfare? Like millions of them? Freeloaders, right?
Also there's no communism in China.

You mean like the person I was responding to? No communism in China? Nice...

---------- Post added 2013-05-18 at 01:40 AM ----------

Arguably the bigger issue is his grasp on modern day US.

Which is interesting when you consider the 70 year old men he talked to, probably have forgotten more than I remember. While I remember a lot...

[Elim Garak]

I don't think

I get that.
You implied that they "didn't come for communists yet" (as in "violated any part of the constitution"). That is clearly nonsense - because they did.

No communism in China? Nice...

Can you show me where exactly in China communism is located?

And freeloaders are everywhere - no matter what economic system you use.

Which is interesting when you consider the 70 year old men he talked to, probably have forgotten more than I remember. While I remember a lot...

You were born in 1979. USSR officially ended in 1991. Unofficially it was going down since 1985. You have no experience of USSR, you only experienced its agony, briefly as a kid - not even a teenager. And you have the nerve to suggest that that 70 old has bad memory.

[Felya]

I get that.
You implied that they "didn't come for communists yet" (as in "violated any part of the constitution"). That is clearly nonsense - because they did.

No, I am not implying anything. Even if you want to hinge your bets on McCarthiesm, it ended decades ago. It would mean the opposite of US turning into USSR.

Can you show me where exactly in China communism is located?

How about on the government owned land that is specifically designated for foreign commerce?

And freeloaders are everywhere - no matter what economic system you use.

The fact that this should be directed at the person I was responding to, hasn't changed.

You were born in 1979. USSR officially ended in 1991. Unofficially it was going down since 1985. You have no experience of USSR, you only experienced its agony, briefly as a kid - not even a teenager. And you have the nerve to suggest that that 70 old has bad memory.

Yeah, imagine that, you have the nerve to suggest I spent no time in USSR and I suggested that old people have bad memory. What an ass hole I am... Just a heads up as well, 'I forgot more than you'll ever know' is an old country song.

[Elim Garak]

No, I am not implying anything.

Yeah, right.

How about on the government owned land that is specifically designated for foreign commerce?

I don't see it. Do you have the exact address?

The fact that this should be directed at the person I was responding to, hasn't changed.

That's irrelevant. You claimed that communism and freeloaders come hand in hand.

Yeah, imagine that, you have the nerve to suggest I spent no time in USSR

Nope, I suggested no such thing. Read again. You have no experience of USSR even if you were physically inside the borders of a country that was still called USSR at the time of you being in there.

It's like you read just the epilogue and then claimed you know what the rest of the book was like.

Infracted - please be respectful towards other posters

[Espe]

This is the same guy who brags about "getting away with" a DUI, right?

Laizy, maybe you should focus on what you need to do to become a better person instead of spouting off right-wing conspiracy theories on gaming forums. I know the conservatives are desperate to pander to their racist, misogynistic, homophobic base but comparing the US to the USSR is taking that whole shtick a bit far. If you truly cared about freedom you wouldn't align yourself with the conservative bigots.

Infracted - please do not harass other posters

[Konker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Nevermind that article is flagged for bias and opinion... it's based completely on a false premise.

Obviously, slippery slopes are not logical reasonings to find absolutes but rather theoretical posibility based upon tolerance of many small changes vs resistances to large changes to arrive at the same conclusion. I've always found it well established that it is easier to progressively lead people from A to B, B to C, etc.. than it is to lead someone from A to Z. Slippery slope is just a metaphor to illustrate the vulnerability and exploitability of that human trait.

For example, if someone wants your help to move furniture (C) but you would normally not go over do it (A), they are far more likely to have success if they find a way to get you there first (B) and then ask you to do it. It does not guarantee a result, but each step incrementally removes obstacles (namely from relative reasoning) from the desired result. Moral of the story - don't take steps in the direction to a destination you do not want to tread unless very clearly defined lines are drawn.

"Slippery Slope" is recognition of a tendency, not a reasoning to determine destination as the article suggests. As to wether or not the USA is incementally becoming more like the USSR, that's debatable. My concern is more along the lines of our migration to positive liberties, in contrast to our constitution of negative liberties, as one issue with the USSR is that their constitution promised more from the government than was practical. The point - pay attention to where you are going and not just to where you are.

[Endus]

Nevermind that article is flagged for bias and opinion... it's based completely on a false premise.

Obviously, slippery slopes are not logical reasonings to find absolutes but rather theoretical posibility based upon tolerance of many small changes vs resistances to large changes to arrive at the same conclusion. I've always found it well established that it is easier to progressively lead people from A to B, B to C, etc.. than it is to lead someone from A to Z. Slippery slope is just a metaphor to illustrate the vulnerability and exploitability of that human trait.

For example, if someone wants your help to move furniture (C) but you would normally not go over do it (A), they are far more likely to have success if they find a way to get you there first (B) and then ask you to do it. It does not guarantee a result, but each step incrementally removes obstacles (namely from relative reasoning) from the desired result. Moral of the story - don't take steps in the direction to a destination you do not want to tread unless very clearly defined lines are drawn.

"Slippery Slope" is recognition of a tendency, not a reasoning to determine destination as the article suggests. As to wether or not the USA is incementally becoming more like the USSR, that's debatable. My concern is more along the lines of our migration to positive liberties, in contrast to our constitution of negative liberties, as one issue with the USSR is that their constitution promised more from the government than was practical. The point - pay attention to where you are going and not just to where you are.

No. Slippery slope arguments are fallacious. Always. If there's actually a legitimate reason to see a further step down a certain path, you can make that argument based on those legitimate reasons.

Any time anyone says it's a "slippery slope", you can freely disregard whatever else they have to say, because they're basically saying "I have no evidence at all but I'm going to try fearmongering about things anyway". If they had actual reasons, they argue based on those, instead. It's a phrase only used when they have no objective reason to honestly think things will go that way.

Your example, FWIW, wasn't even a slippery slope argument. Slippery slope arguments state that because events led to Event/Situation/Fact X, they will continue in that same vein to Event/Situation/Fact Y, which they frame as further down a certain path from X

It's a fallacy, because the only reason to go from X to Y is if there is a pressure towards Y. This was never shown, and a slippery slope argument assumes there is no such pressure, that we will "accidentally" slide from X to Y despite how awful Y objectively is. Not only is there an absence of evidence, the argument assumes that there is no evidence. It's not just bad logic, it's a way of saying "I have no evidence to back up my claims and no justification for whatever I'm saying."

[fengosa]

I get that.
You implied that they "didn't come for communists yet" (as in "violated any part of the constitution"). That is clearly nonsense - because they did.

Just so we're clear on the issue the Internet has no standing authority over what is or isn't constitutional. Reasonable search and seizure is open to interpretation on many levels.