Slashdot Mirror

Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act. Democrats were for continued segregation

I mentioned neither Republicans nor Democrats. Progressivism, both big- and -small p versions, cuts across party lines: Theodore Roosevelt was a Republican, Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat.

However, you're simply wrong about the major parties and the Civil Rights Act. Democrat LBJ pushed the 1964 Civil Rights act through Congress, after Democrat JFK introduced it, and a majority of both Democratic and Republican Representatives and Senators voted for it. The split was strictly a North-South one. ("South", here, being states once under the control of the terrorist group that styled itself the "Confederate States of America".)

Both Southern Democrats and Southern Republicans were opposed to it, and Northern Democrats and Northern Republicans, in favor. (Though a slightly greater percentage of Southern Republicans opposed the bill, and a slightly smaller percentage of Northern Republicans supported it, than geographically comparable Democrats.)

I invite you to check your facts before you accuse someone of "Fail!" Because now you look like a total ass.

If you mean "progressive" (small "p") as in describing an individuals' attitude or outlook, then yes. If you mean Progressives, as in the movement that's been around since the '20s and counts Socialists and Communists as ideological brothers then you, sir, are incorrect.

You need to stop getting your history from Glen Beck, friend. The Progressive Era -- big P -- was from the 1890s to the 1920s, it didn't come into being in the '20s. And if you want to label Theodore Roosevelt a commie, well, good luck with that.

The rest of your post is a class-warfare mini-rant along with the "social justice" and "economic justice" buzzwords that Progressives use as cover for the fact that what they propose is socialist/communist/fascist-style redistribution of wealth by a powerful central government.

I just love the way that right-wing loons have started lumping communists and fascists together, despite the fact that one of the primary attributes of fascism was anti-communism -- fascism was the right's counter-move to the Russian Revolution. It's almost as much fun as the way they complain about people talking about class warfare, while promoting the actual practice of that warfare.

And if you think socialism necessarily implies a powerful central government, you need to read this. (And also have a look at this.) State socialism is not the only form of socialism.

It's capitalism that requires a strong government, to create and defend artificial property rights. Many socialists believe in a small government -- Marx himself, wrong as he was about so much, believed that under his philosophy the state would eventually wither away, unneeded.

I consider capitalists, even the "less correct ones" like, say Bill Gates and his monopoly, infinitely more moral (even if perhaps not 100% intentional) than even what you'd call "center" socialists.

I don't know who or what I'd call "center" socialists, I don't think I've ever used the term.

I find it pretty remarkable -- nonsensical, even, bordering on insane -- to claim that Bill Gates is infinitely more moral than socialists like Peter Kropotkin, Eugene Debs, Carl Sandburg, Noam Chomsky, Kurt Vonnegut, or George Orwell, or the anarchists at your local "Foot Not Bombs" chapter.

It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.

http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/index.cgi/work/essays/language.html

http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/index.cgi/work/essays/la nguage.html

"A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus:

      1. What am I trying to say?
      2. What words will express it?
      3. What image or idiom will make it clearer?
      4. Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?

And he will probably ask himself two more:

      1. Could I put it more shortly?
      2. Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly? "

No; I don't work for Google. I work for Alacos; We (among other things) write Windows to Linux migration software. (disclaimer: I do not speak for Alacos.)

I personally believe that Google is chivalrous, and again: It's because of the evidence. Granted: This is a point of controversy. The interpretation is difficult. But the previous actions and good character of the company cause me to believe what they say: That they are doing this because it is right, not just because it is profitable.

We all work for money, it has always been this way, and it is not bad. I believe that wealth and abundance are good things; Are they not?

And I believe that the true goal of socialism is universal brotherhood, and I think that Google is working with that sort of motive as well. Their actions are in line with this.

I personally do not believe in censorship. But most people in the world do. I do not censor my 4 year old's web browser. But other people do. If I make technology for them, I have to include censorship for them. I believe in allowing people to disagree with me, and I do not claim to have universal understanding. (Should Google?)

I strongly doubt that Google agrees with censorship. We know for a fact that people pester Google over and over: "Censor this. Censor that. I can't believe you let people find X." People probably blame Google for anything they find objectionable on the web. Realize that you are in an environment where people are begging to censor.

If Google really wanted to make money and be Evil, they could. Think creative for a few moments, and realize all the ways they could. But they don't. Or, if they do, they are so immensely stealthy and crafty, they are completely undetectable.

You are strengthening my view that Google detractors are experiencing cognitive dissonance. "Google? Good? But... wait... that... can't... be... Does not compute... Capitalism is, by bottom-line definition,... BAD... Does... not... compute..."

Don't be a robot. Some times, there are good companies. Reward them when you see them.

I can't stop this, not sure i want to, but there are issues.

Fair enough.

I agree Google has a lot of power. I do wish they found some way to devolve the power that they have. I don't know that they actually asked for it. I'm not sure they know what to do with it themselves.

My personal theory is this: Google sees the promise of technology, and the things it can do for us. They look over at Wikipedia, and go: "Wow, this is amazing, this is exactly the sort of thing we've hoped for. Technology for Good." They see the rise of civil society, and watchdog groups, and transparency, and go: "Ah, this looks good to."

They look into the future, and see an amazing society. They see greater Democracy, of the participatory kind, not the top-down kind.

And they are religiously bent on achieving that end, and by ethical means.

That's what I see. And that's what I support.

Technology has, in many ways, mooted "communism" vs. "capitalism." Both capitalists and communists credit Wikipedia to their ideology. But it's basically a moot point now.

More and more of the world will be "computerized," as we develop the user interface to biology and matter.

I personally think this is a good thing, and will make for a safer, fairer, world.

The author George Orwell wrote an article about this in 1945; I find it a very interesting read, and probably even more relevant today. (It seems remarkably prescient in many respects.) It's called Politics and the English Language, but don't let the title put you off: it's not about politics per se, just about how writers (mis)use English in various types of writing, political and otherwise.

It's online in many places, for example here and here. Well worth a read.

Mahatma Gandi was an asshole. Read Orwell's essay on him.

Unfortunately, most Sci-Fi writers fall into two categories:

Two categories that I suspect you would define as crap. Always remember, 90% of everything is crap.

Taking the "human condition" to the extreme.

It's a common technique in fiction to try and distill down something "pure" about humanity, to reveal things hidden by day-to-day life. Typically this is done by creating an unusual setting to eliminate reader's preconceived notions. You might do this by trapping children on an island, sending someone to fictional lands, or having animals play the parts of humans. That you might set people into a future distopia or future utopia doesn't change the basic technique.

Futures where sex is the only thing driving humanity.

Geez, as a kid I sought out the slightly racier sci-fi and I never saw anything that bad. Sure, I saw books that had alot of sex in them (looks to Heinlein), but where it's the only driving force? Perhaps you're confusing erotica set in a sci-fi setting with the wide variety of sci-fi options.

I hate to break it to the authors, but this sort of society would quickly degrade due to a lack of scientific focus. Not to mention that human feelings on the subject are actually pretty immutable. (No matter what anyone says.)

I hate to break it to you, but many people would argue that lots of human advancement is the indirect result of a desire for nookie. Even ignoring the iffy assumption that human feelings are immutable, if they are immutable they are immutable in that people want sex; not real complicated.

Most of them have space travel as a background to get to a fantasy-like world.

Heaven above, was your reading limited to erotica and Stasheff? Yes, there is alot of great sci-fi that doesn't fit into these two categories. Did Heinlein, Clarke, Orwell, and Asimov never exist? What in the world are you looking for?

Personally, I thought Heinlen's juveniles were the best examples of Sci-Fi.

Oh, that's what you're looking for. Boy's adventure stories and pulp adventure. Great stuff, I enjoy them myself, but it's an amazingly small subset of sci-fi. Sci-fi includes a wide variety of writing, just like historical fiction, fantasy, or modern stories.

I believe the thread you are responding to meant that there is no justification for war, because it is invariably worse than the problem it seeks to solve.
Regarding your question in the first paragraph: The only lasting methods of social change are nonviolent, so the answer is through nonviolent methods. You might find George Orwell's Reflections On Gandhi relevant. Gandhi's comment regarding the Jews in Nazi Germany is distasteful and unpleasant, but most likely true. The last two sentences of your post are arguing from an emotional point of view, and I can only hope that should such a tragedy befall me, I will remain rational enough to practice what I preach.

Damn right. Read Down and out in Paris and London by George Orwell. One of the best books I've read in a long time.

Cire

A copy of the essay is readily available online here; it appears to be legitimately online.

If you have no idea what I am talking about, start here, or just jump straight to this summary.

In an out-of-context way, yes it does. On a related note, it's interesting to note that The Party claimed that they invented airplanes and helicopters.