The phrasing is intrinsically nebulous and rhetorically charged
Really? I’ll be less nebulous. I think the government should step in and provide food to all Americans, setting a purchase price based upon actual cost to produce.
useful more as a tactic for constructing a straw man than for advocating meaningful social change.
I think you might be confusing me. Because it sounds like you’re saying I should lie and pretend I don’t want to undermine supply and demand because it would be easy for a dishonest interlocutor to make me look scary. I don’t like my side lying about our positions.
I simply pointed out that there are a lot of us on the left who are “advocating for supply and demand being “discarded by government””. You came up with the phrase, and it is a clear reference to capitalism.
I am for the government intervening to break “supply and demand” in some cases. I hope you’re not saying “supply and demand” is a nebulous term. It’s a clear term with a clear meaning.
I feel that unfairly disrespects socialism, the same way people try to backpedal “defund the police” until it only means “give the police more money”.
The whole point of the left is that we’re not in love with unregulated capitalism. Price regulation is an “entry level” view for being Left of center.
I have to ask. Is English not a first language to you? Are you possibly running your replies through a translator? Very often your responses to me come across as nonsense, not in a logical sense, but as if language is failing us trying to communicate with each other.
Again, I was objecting to a particular course of rhetoric, of protecting capital by insinuating a false dichotomy against the consolidation of state power.
I really think we’re failing to communicate far more than disagreeing on anything, and I don’t know how to fix that. I’m sorry.
I mean no disrespect, but you sound a bit like I did in college, trying to hard to use big words that the message itself is completely unclear. Not saying that’s the case, just that I can’t follow your underlying intent.
You are mining quotations out of context, leveraging them for your own agenda, and pretending there is no problem any deeper than some inadequacy in my use of language, though it is supported only by your absurd conjectures.
Really? I’ll be less nebulous. I think the government should step in and provide food to all Americans, setting a purchase price based upon actual cost to produce.
I think you might be confusing me. Because it sounds like you’re saying I should lie and pretend I don’t want to undermine supply and demand because it would be easy for a dishonest interlocutor to make me look scary. I don’t like my side lying about our positions.
You are not the one who chose the phrase. You expressed affinity for it, and I explained my concerns.
Huh? What are you actually talking about?
I simply pointed out that there are a lot of us on the left who are “advocating for supply and demand being “discarded by government””. You came up with the phrase, and it is a clear reference to capitalism.
I am for the government intervening to break “supply and demand” in some cases. I hope you’re not saying “supply and demand” is a nebulous term. It’s a clear term with a clear meaning.
The phrasing is not a serious explanation of a desirable political course.
It is just dishonest rhetoric, being given to collapse the gamut of transformative possibility into a bogeyman of consolidated state power.
I feel that unfairly disrespects socialism, the same way people try to backpedal “defund the police” until it only means “give the police more money”.
The whole point of the left is that we’re not in love with unregulated capitalism. Price regulation is an “entry level” view for being Left of center.
I have to ask. Is English not a first language to you? Are you possibly running your replies through a translator? Very often your responses to me come across as nonsense, not in a logical sense, but as if language is failing us trying to communicate with each other.
Again, I was objecting to a particular course of rhetoric, of protecting capital by insinuating a false dichotomy against the consolidation of state power.
I really think we’re failing to communicate far more than disagreeing on anything, and I don’t know how to fix that. I’m sorry.
I mean no disrespect, but you sound a bit like I did in college, trying to hard to use big words that the message itself is completely unclear. Not saying that’s the case, just that I can’t follow your underlying intent.
Of course our communication is poor.
You are mining quotations out of context, leveraging them for your own agenda, and pretending there is no problem any deeper than some inadequacy in my use of language, though it is supported only by your absurd conjectures.