Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08 Ideology: Trotskyism Party Member Yeqon wrote: He is. I mean, I like Solid and all, but his father's story is a thousand times more interesting to me. The ambiguity of it, his visionary nature; he's not just the pawn in somebody else's game, at least not for long. He's a pretty byronic figure. As for the female playable character, I'm really hoping the WWII-era Boss game happens. That'd fix it, and she's awesome. Quote: It's only really in Peace Walker, so that's not really that surprising. If you played that though, it's all over the place. It's to the point where, even as a card-carrying commie, you'd wish they'd stop rambling about what Che did in every cutscene. Quote: For me, the only game novels I've read have been KotOR-related; I read Revan and actually loved it. Honestly 90% of what I play are RPGs in general, so that's what I mainly focus on. For a non-RPG to catch my attention it has to have either a great storyline (like Metal Gear) or be interesting in some other way (like, I enjoyed Brutal Legend for the background music mostly). I do like Fallout a ton though, that's up with Metal Gear but not as consistently amazing. I also enjoyed Warcraft III, and its lore is very extensive, though not what I'd call unique or all that surprising. StarCraft II's story is great; I'm sure I's is too, but I could never get very far in it because honestly I'm horrible at RTS games (a colossal misnomer, they're all tactics and no strategy). I just try to overwhelm the enemy with a ton of random troops, the "zerg rush" tactic, and get killed every time because of it. The turn-based, longer-term strategy games are where I shine, and usually the story of those is some variation on "conquer the world." Quote: Huh, I've never even heard of those. Braid sounds interesting though; what does it do to explore those, or would that be spoiling something? Quote: It's not that weird. Bokkens are used even in basic aikido, judo, and plenty of other martial arts. Especially "internal" ones, meaning ones that rely on using an opponent's force against them instead of matching force against force. Like karate, muay thai, which tend to be purely hand-and-feet-based, because using a sword in a style like that would mean badly injuring and possibly killing your sparring partner. In something like aikido or judo, you'd probably start practicing with them a few weeks in. Getting to use a real (non-wooden) sword like a wakizashi is a rare treat in advanced sessions, usually, and generally tightly-controlled for obvious safety reasons. Dodging a sword is fun, getting your arm sliced off isn't. xD Also, it's not kendo, which is pretty rarely practiced in the West. Usually it's grappling and dodging instead of actually swinging the swords at each-other. One person is swinging, the other is grabbing the sword and dodging it and trying to knock the person swinging to the ground. Conscript wrote: For the record, that's why I stopped debating and am "playing games." Sorry, but it gets really tedious trying to respond to walls of text that don't really have any structure. If you want a discussion, try to boil it down to the essential points you're trying to make. And for the record I actually agree the Soviet Union's government structure wasn't ideal, that it was too centralized and stagnantly bureaucratic. Centralized and bureaucratic structures are easy to infiltrate, and if a few social democrats and/or capitalist opportunists started to monopolize the top (which happened), they could bring it all crashing down. I think most of our point is that Lenin didn't really have a choice in the matter, he was simply being pragmatic. The USSR was incredibly divided, with a long drawn-out Civil War right on the heels of the Revolution. The Whites were threatening to undermine everything the Bolsheviks fought for, backed by Western capitalist powers who would have gladly jumped in and instituted a capitalist regime. Under those circumstances, a measure of centralization is an absolute necessity. We can't deal with the world we want to have, our goal is to create it. That means dealing with the world that is.
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53 Ideology: Other Leftist Pioneer
Ohh lets higyenize the party and get rid of the dissident voices via whatever means possible, even if we need to debate about games to disperse the thread or complain about the dissident's lack of writing style
I call it ended. You lost the debate the momment you resorted to those tatics.
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08 Ideology: Trotskyism Party Member AldoBrasil wrote: Wow, could you be more narcissistic? Nobody's out to get you. Nobody even cares, and it has nothing to do with your (mostly bad) arguments. We just don't want to slog through and respond bit-by-bit to a billion rambling, barely-coherent posts. Nobody likes doing that, whether someone agrees with us or not; people just skim past posts like that. As I said, if you want a discussion, boil it down to the essentials. Organize your thoughts. Then people will be motivated to respond, and then we'll talk. If you don't have the courtesy to do that, then yeah, you'll be ignored.
Maybe when you don't write like shit I'll consider you. But otherwise, I gave you a chance to reiterate your position, preferably more coherently.
Enough of the victim mentality. As miss said, nobody cares. This is an internet forum of primarily english speakers. There's nothing wrong with asking you to write better so we can have that debate in the first place. ![]()
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53 Ideology: Other Leftist Pioneer
Yes, because we cant refute the arguments (if they are bad they could be refuted quite easily, right ?) lets attack the text structure, writting style, the person arguing, etc...
But not the arguments
How can I refute something I can't understand?
This Quote: is a mess. Compare to MissStrangelove's reply which breaks your post down bit by bit with quotes and keeps things nice and tidy. ![]()
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08 Ideology: Trotskyism Party Member AldoBrasil wrote: No, we just don't care to, and the reason should be pretty clear. Take your head out of your ass and step in someone else's shoes for a second. Do you have any idea how time-consuming responding to a long, incoherent, aimless rant is? We have other things to do with our time, and you aren't the center of the universe or really saying anything we haven't heard before from every liberal on the planet. Again, quit it with the persecution complex. It's not like you're some brilliant persecuted genius whose ideas we can't wrap our puny little heads around. We don't care enough to be out to get you. What we care about is having a discussion that isn't full of overwhelmingly tedious posts. People just don't like responding to those, it's annoying. People take a look at posts like that and skim them, they're just hard to get through because they lack any structure. If you organized your posts in a way that actually invites a response, then we could have a nice fruitful debate.
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53 Ideology: Other Leftist Pioneer
Of course, you dont care
Walk along, dont look there proletariat, its not important. Quote: Its the other way around. This kind of side-attacks were the hallmark of stalinism (you can see the concept in Stalinist answers, he never attacks the root argument, but uses non sequiteurs, strawmans etc, all sorts of phallacies). Basically, if my argument is badly formated etc, how can Yeqon made a long post answering what i said and his post was lauded. If it was only incoherent babble etc as you claim now, he would have nothing to answer to. So, you at first took my arguments seriously when you felt safe in the fact that someone (A "resident bolchevique") answered them. But as soon as i returned with a point by point answer to Yeqon and you runned out of arguments, you switched to Argumentum ad Hominem. You know, i know, everybody knows, you dont have an answer to my questions. PERIOD. Last edited by AldoBrasil on 25 Jul 2014, 21:12, edited 2 times in total.
I really think it's just that
- your positions are entirely unoriginal (I've been there) - you still fail to make a compelling argument for them. "Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53 Ideology: Other Leftist Pioneer
Where did i claim originality ?
Pls show me. On the other hand, like i said earlier, if my arguments are so lame and easy to refute, why dont you take care of refuting it ?
There are reasons why the soviets lost their function and it's not the Bolsheviks.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53 Ideology: Other Leftist Pioneer
And so the reasons were ?
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08 Ideology: Trotskyism Party Member AldoBrasil wrote: So, you're the proletariat now, being beaten down by a bunch of big mean Stalinists? You're some guy making rambly posts on a forum people go to when they're bored. But awesome, keep proving my point. Quote: First off, I love me some nice juicy "phallacies." Second, no, it's seriously not an ideological thing. It's a human thing. Your posts are long and very scattered, they go on aimless tangents about dozens of different things. That's called being incoherent, and it's a problem in anyone no matter their ideology. You're not being persecuted, so cut the narcissistic preaching. Quote: It was lauded in part because we admired his taking the time to do that. I'm sure it was time-consuming, my responses all were and they were hard to get through. We have better things to do with our time. Quote: Except the fact is we do. There have been tons of debates on these exact same questions on this very forum. We haven't "run out of arguments," we just don't care to go through every detail of your posts. You write them in a rambling way that's hard to respond to in the first place, and despite what you might think, you're saying nothing we haven't heard before countless times. We'd just be repeating our responses to those other people. You're a legend in your own mind. Mabool wrote: Exactly.
Yeqon's post isn't a fragmented mess and has flow. Look at how his use of one-line sentences is emphasize points he's making, for example.
Yeqon wrote: In comparison, you write in a sort of rambling, stream of consciousness kind of thing where you can't decide on format. One looks quality enough for a paper and is inviting, the other is a wall of text with no apparent flow or organization (especially since you don't quote what you're replying to). Quote: Then claim it's because you argue too well, even though all of us have heard such a liberal view before. frag off. Last edited by Conscript on 25 Jul 2014, 21:30, edited 2 times in total.
![]()
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53 Ideology: Other Leftist Pioneer
Liberal ? What part of my post is liberal ?
Werent they too incoherent to be understood ? Now they are comprehensible enough to be labeled liberal ? You are right. I am wrong. Pls send to the Gulags, i need some reeducation. PS.: i am still waiting for Mabool to show me the reasons. You two i know gave up due to the higher nature of the debate (And found nice excuses in "text style", "comprehension" etc - ok ok dont feel ashamed).
The few decipherable bits where you just talk of a generic masses vs the party dichotomy, the railing against vanguardism. Your views seem liberal and you (perhaps mistakenly) identify as a left com, your posts just make that impossible to tell. At least, as much as I'm willing to try and read them.
Quote: You'll be lucky to get any interest at all in your ideas with that attitude. ![]() Quote: civil war, poverty, failure of international revolution Leon Trotsky: Stalinism and Bolshevism - read this, and if you think you still haven't been refuted, come back to me. "Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08 Ideology: Trotskyism Party Member AldoBrasil wrote: The "higher nature of the debate"; see? You're essentially saying we disagree with you because our minds are too puny to understand your genius, so we're persecuting you instead. Instead of looking at yourself and why someone might be annoyed dealing with you, and dismissing off-hand any criticism we happen to give. Basically, you're just acting like some petulant narcissist. I also find it really funny how he claims we're ignoring his arguments because he's too good for us, and yet he hasn't responded to a single pragmatic, non-theoretical point here. So, I'll reiterate: "We can't deal with the world we want to have, our goal is to create it. That means dealing with the world that is."
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53 Ideology: Other Leftist Pioneer
A dude walks in a bar in a rural part of USA and asks for a bottle of coke and a cup.
The bartender brings the coke and the cup to the dude. He takes the coke, puts some in the cup and proceed to drink it. Arggg - he exclaims - Its hot ! The bartender looks at him confused. He asks, can i have some ice rocks ? The bartender yells with a redneck accent - Ok, i will bring ice rocks for you, mister hollywood actor ! Thats how i see you now
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53 Ideology: Other Leftist Pioneer Quote: Nope, i am just mocking at you because you dont know how to answer yet pretend you know. Typical childish answers : - Your post is incomprehensible (Maybe my posts are just ok but you dont want to understand, or having understood, dont want to accept). - You think your post is original (with a USA redneck accent - as if i win anything from posting here something original) - You are babbling (denial mode on) - Its not that your posts went unanswered, its just we are too tired to answer them, we discussed that things before... (Can be summarized as : I know the answer, but i dont want to tell) And so on, so on... Quote: Yes, but you cannot leave fundamental tasks to do later, because as Stalin shows, as as soon as a new class of rulers are placed in power, they will fight and repress the proletariat to avoid losing power to the people. As soon as the revolutionary wave was tamed by a "great leader", people will sit down and watch their "socialism" be destroyed in front of them. Dealing with the world as it is means dealing with the fact that people love power and go whatever means to keep it. |
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
|
||||||