It’s a ~famous quote. Do you think a quote reflects my personal views on something? Should I perhaps go about and edit quotes to my liking?
Secondly, “take root” is ofc metaphorical, and we could argue the semantics of what constitutes “taking root”. It’s clear that at the very least if it took root, it lost to some degree to another thing that took root (like a corporate kleptocracy) and while no-country is perfect clearly the countries with much better social programs has had this metaphorical plant of socialism bloom a bit more.
Should I perhaps go about and edit quotes to my liking?
No. Just pick ones that actually stand up to scrutiny. I guess you don’t know where the term “redneck” (as it’s used in the US, of course) actually comes from, do you?
It’s clear that at the very least if it took root, it lost to some degree
Absolutely not. It was actively destroyed. Do you really think they invented internal political police organisations like the FBI to “fight crime”?
Absolutely not. It was actively destroyed. Do you really think they invented internal political police organisations like the FBI to “fight crime”?
You seem to be having issues with metaphors.
Who honestly gets that pissed off at a quote? I guess a temporarily embarrassed millionaire.
When someone says “let them eat cake” do you actually jump in with "actually there’s a lot of diabetics in the US population and type II diabetes is a known national issue, so actually they shouldn’t be eating cake, they should eat at moist wholegrain if they eat any bread, you see wholegrain actually keeps your blood glucose steadier for longer. And she never even said it, that’s a mistranslation! "
Or would you perhaps understand there’s a specific thing that’s relayed though that meme?
" dO YoU rEAlLy tHiNk fBi fights crime? wHaT aN iDIoT1!! tHeYrE a GoVeRNmeNt cOnSPiRaCY aGaInST sOciAlIsm, noT aCTuAL lAw eNfORcEmEnT"
Appealing to my (alleged) lack of understanding of metaphors does not change the fact that you - unironically - attempted to explain history using a quote that can be easily disproven.
Or would you perhaps understand there’s a specific thing that’s relayed though that meme?
So are you or are you not cogniscent of the fact that your silly quote misrepresents history?
It doesn’t even misrepresent history. Socialism having been purposefully suppressed by some isn’t mutually exclusive with the sentiment of the quote.
The existence of the red scares doesn’t mean that the people that were influenced by them actually weren’t. Which is essentially your argument.
Since you want to be that anal and asinine about this, tell me, what qualifies as “taking root” in a society? Oh and I demand clear metrics based on the SI-system. How deep are the roots? How thick? What’s the strain?
Perhaps it’s hard for you to understand, but socialism is a political ideology and an economic system. Not a vascular plant.
It’s rare to see someone duck and dive as much as you are doing… but it takes all kinds, I guess.
It’s rare to see someone going “this you” (several times, I might add) without any elaboration whatsoever, and then trying to talk about “dodging” things.
Like why oh why would you ignore my question about what qualifies as “taking root”? Hmm? How exactly do you go about measuring that? (At this point you’ll realise you’re just a contrarian kid who doesn’t even possess the vocabulary to talk about the thing he’s challenging, but you’ll never admit it, even to yourself.)
How does one measure “taking root”? Oh I know, by actually seeing how far into the pot the roots have dug. So what precisely are the roots in a non-tangible political movement? Can’t answer? Because you know how silly it is?
Thirdly, your entire argument is “no, that’s not the reason socialism didn’t take off in America, the reason is that it was forcibly suppressed so everyone just gave up on it and there’s no-one deluding themselves that they’ll make it big one day and that’s why they should support policies that help the rich and be against proper welfare”.
Probably paraphrased poorly, so why don’t you specify your argument. You know, unless you’re a contrarian kid and literally have none. ;)
That’s because you are rarely gifted in the “can’t-see-the-bloody-obvious” department.
Like why oh why would you ignore my question about what qualifies as “taking root”?
Again… this you?
Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
Who brought this piss-poor excuse of quote to a discussion about history? Me or you?
You want your quote to (somehow) not be fallacious? You describe what the term “take root” means - and do so in a way that (somehow) disqualifies the vast and well-documented history of socialist movements in US history.
so why don’t you specify your argument.
I’m not the one with the shit-take, Clyde - you are.
Is “this you” some sort of cro-magnon speak for “was this authored by you”?
Because I very clearly said in my first reply to you that it’s a well known quote from John Steinbeck? And you can find it plastered everywhere even if you google even just a part of the quote? You missed all that? You’re unaware of the quote?
Life must be hard when you don’t understand metaphors, huh? Or perhaps you do in fact understand it, but you’re now pretending not to, because it was pointed out how moronic it is of you to start criticising the “historical accuracy” of a fucking metaphor.
For someone who keeps going on about something being “fallacious” (you’re using the word wrong, I really hope this isn’t your first language haha), you sure seem to be dodging a lot of the questions asking you to describe what actually is “fallacious” about the quote (you mean “erroneous”, not “fallacious”, even though I’m sure you don’t understand the difference ahaha).
But try, please. I’d like to hear more about your take on the issue. So America uses “socialism” as a curse word because of the red scares, yeah? That’s why “socialism never took root”? So those people who are brainwashed to think they are temporarily embarrassed millionaires instead of part of the proletariat, they don’t actually think like that, because… socialism was forcefully suppressed?
Please, do enlighten me, since you still seem having trouble making an argument in the first place. :)
It’s a ~famous quote. Do you think a quote reflects my personal views on something? Should I perhaps go about and edit quotes to my liking?
Secondly, “take root” is ofc metaphorical, and we could argue the semantics of what constitutes “taking root”. It’s clear that at the very least if it took root, it lost to some degree to another thing that took root (like a corporate kleptocracy) and while no-country is perfect clearly the countries with much better social programs has had this metaphorical plant of socialism bloom a bit more.
No. Just pick ones that actually stand up to scrutiny. I guess you don’t know where the term “redneck” (as it’s used in the US, of course) actually comes from, do you?
Absolutely not. It was actively destroyed. Do you really think they invented internal political police organisations like the FBI to “fight crime”?
You seem to be having issues with metaphors.
Who honestly gets that pissed off at a quote? I guess a temporarily embarrassed millionaire.
When someone says “let them eat cake” do you actually jump in with "actually there’s a lot of diabetics in the US population and type II diabetes is a known national issue, so actually they shouldn’t be eating cake, they should eat at moist wholegrain if they eat any bread, you see wholegrain actually keeps your blood glucose steadier for longer. And she never even said it, that’s a mistranslation! "
Or would you perhaps understand there’s a specific thing that’s relayed though that meme?
" dO YoU rEAlLy tHiNk fBi fights crime? wHaT aN iDIoT1!! tHeYrE a GoVeRNmeNt cOnSPiRaCY aGaInST sOciAlIsm, noT aCTuAL lAw eNfORcEmEnT"
Go home to grow a mustache, boy-o.
Appealing to my (alleged) lack of understanding of metaphors does not change the fact that you - unironically - attempted to explain history using a quote that can be easily disproven.
So are you or are you not cogniscent of the fact that your silly quote misrepresents history?
You were saying?
Mustaches are easy - backbone isn’t. I hope it won’t prove impossible for you.
“Attempted to explain history”
So you think QUOTES are my personal theories?
It doesn’t even misrepresent history. Socialism having been purposefully suppressed by some isn’t mutually exclusive with the sentiment of the quote.
The existence of the red scares doesn’t mean that the people that were influenced by them actually weren’t. Which is essentially your argument.
Since you want to be that anal and asinine about this, tell me, what qualifies as “taking root” in a society? Oh and I demand clear metrics based on the SI-system. How deep are the roots? How thick? What’s the strain?
Perhaps it’s hard for you to understand, but socialism is a political ideology and an economic system. Not a vascular plant.
This you?
Looks pretty self-explanatory to me.
Again… this you?
It’s rare to see someone duck and dive as much as you are doing… but it takes all kinds, I guess.
It’s rare to see someone going “this you” (several times, I might add) without any elaboration whatsoever, and then trying to talk about “dodging” things.
Like why oh why would you ignore my question about what qualifies as “taking root”? Hmm? How exactly do you go about measuring that? (At this point you’ll realise you’re just a contrarian kid who doesn’t even possess the vocabulary to talk about the thing he’s challenging, but you’ll never admit it, even to yourself.)
How does one measure “taking root”? Oh I know, by actually seeing how far into the pot the roots have dug. So what precisely are the roots in a non-tangible political movement? Can’t answer? Because you know how silly it is?
Thirdly, your entire argument is “no, that’s not the reason socialism didn’t take off in America, the reason is that it was forcibly suppressed so everyone just gave up on it and there’s no-one deluding themselves that they’ll make it big one day and that’s why they should support policies that help the rich and be against proper welfare”.
Probably paraphrased poorly, so why don’t you specify your argument. You know, unless you’re a contrarian kid and literally have none. ;)
That’s because you are rarely gifted in the “can’t-see-the-bloody-obvious” department.
Again… this you?
Who brought this piss-poor excuse of quote to a discussion about history? Me or you?
You want your quote to (somehow) not be fallacious? You describe what the term “take root” means - and do so in a way that (somehow) disqualifies the vast and well-documented history of socialist movements in US history.
I’m not the one with the shit-take, Clyde - you are.
Is “this you” some sort of cro-magnon speak for “was this authored by you”?
Because I very clearly said in my first reply to you that it’s a well known quote from John Steinbeck? And you can find it plastered everywhere even if you google even just a part of the quote? You missed all that? You’re unaware of the quote?
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/328134-john-steinbeck-once-said-that-socialism-never-took-root-in
But… you think I missed the obvious? :D
Life must be hard when you don’t understand metaphors, huh? Or perhaps you do in fact understand it, but you’re now pretending not to, because it was pointed out how moronic it is of you to start criticising the “historical accuracy” of a fucking metaphor.
For someone who keeps going on about something being “fallacious” (you’re using the word wrong, I really hope this isn’t your first language haha), you sure seem to be dodging a lot of the questions asking you to describe what actually is “fallacious” about the quote (you mean “erroneous”, not “fallacious”, even though I’m sure you don’t understand the difference ahaha).
But try, please. I’d like to hear more about your take on the issue. So America uses “socialism” as a curse word because of the red scares, yeah? That’s why “socialism never took root”? So those people who are brainwashed to think they are temporarily embarrassed millionaires instead of part of the proletariat, they don’t actually think like that, because… socialism was forcefully suppressed?
Please, do enlighten me, since you still seem having trouble making an argument in the first place. :)