5 ms·

> in order to say something that is true, I need to say something that is false. What does this mean?

by md224 11y ago

jgord 11y ago
I use the term 'slavery' because its descriptive, not because its literally true. I do understand that 711 shift workers don't have their feet cut off if they leave. When I say things like "we need a bit of Socialism right about now" .. I don't mean hardcore enforced-total-equality Socialism, I mean nice Socialism like the kind Bernie Sanders has been raving about.
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > I don't mean hardcore enforced-total-equality Socialism, I mean nice Socialism like the kind Bernie Sanders has been raving about. It's taboo to point this out, especially on HN, but I'm feeling bold today: You can't discuss the socialist policies of Western European countries without addressing their wealth. And you can't discuss the current wealth of Western European countries without acknowledging the process by which they acquired that wealth. The "nice socialism that Sanders has been raving about" is the kind that is practiced in countries with a long history of colonization and slavery[0]. During this timeframe, they "earned" a massive amount of money by extracting resources from people that they literally enslaved. This started before the 17th century and continued into the 20th century. Those people who were colonized and enslaved (and their countries) are still feeling the effects of that today, and they would not be so quick to describe that kind of socialism as "nice". [0] Denmark and Sweden are the two that Sanders has called out specifically by name.
  - marshray 11y ago
    Many countries in Western Europe have been destroyed and rebuilt multiple times since the 19th century when slavery was practiced.
    - chimeracoder 11y ago
      > Many countries in Western Europe have been destroyed and rebuilt multiple times This doesn't change the fact that the current economic status of Denmark and Sweden today is directly linked to their status as colonial powers and slaveholders from the 17th-20th century. > since the 19th century when slavery was practiced. This entire subthread began with the claim that being "low-class" in the US is tantamount to slavery. If that's the case, there should be no problem with accepting colonialism, as it was practiced by Sweden into the late 19th century and Demark into the early 20th century, as a form of slavery, since it resembles slavery far more closely than being a member of the working poor in the US.
      - marshray 11y ago
        So perhaps you can explain why, whatever this wealth was providing Denmark's 'economic status' the Nazi's didn't plunder it when they occupied it during WWII? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark_in_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark_in_World_War_II AFAICT, Denmark (and Germany, Japan, China, Singapore, South Korea, and everybody else) have whatever 'economic status' they have due to a lot more to what happened during the post WWII years than to colonial times.
        ptaipale 11y ago
        Yes, and attributing Sweden's wealth to slave trade is disingenuous. Attributing it to WWII years and selling ball bearings to Nazis is more relevant - but then, who in their position wouldn't have done that? I.e. stay out of the nasty war and trade, if it helps to keep peace on borders.
      - amag 11y ago
        Late 19th century, early 20th, Sweden was one of the poorest countries in Europe. The wealth of Sweden was accumulated post-WWII when the rest of Europe stood in ruins and needed to be rebuilt, not by being a colonial force to be reckoned with (it never was).
        11y ago
wfo 11y ago
Language can be used in a rigorous, technical way with definitions and as close to accurately as possible. Like in a technical manual or programming language. Or it can be used in an expressive way, the way that normal people write and talk and communicate, where people say things that are technically inaccurate but express meaning and and allow the listener or reader to understand the position, emotions, facts, thoughts and experiences of the speaker or writer. For example, "I'm starving, let's get a bite to eat." Do you say "No you aren't, that's technically inaccurate, how dare you minimize the concerns of the starving multitudes across the globe" or do you say "Okay." because you understand what he means? That first response is how the "that's not real slavery!" thread of discussion here looks to the rest of us. I think what he meant by that was he is communicating in the second, expressive way.
- abalashov 11y ago
  Church. I wrote a blog post recently that somewhat excoriated the technical community for a blunt and mechanistic approach to argumentation along these lines: http://likewise.am/2015/12/06/nitpicking-is-the-lowest-form-of-criticism/ http://likewise.am/2015/12/06/nitpicking-is-the-lowest-form-...

> in order to say something that is true, I need to say something that is false. What does this mean?

by md224 11y ago

> in order to say something that is true, I need to say something that is false. What does this mean?

jgord 11y ago

I use the term 'slavery' because its descriptive, not because its literally true. I do understand that 711 shift workers don't have their feet cut off if they leave. When I say things like "we need a bit of Socialism right about now" .. I don't mean hardcore enforced-total-equality Socialism, I mean nice Socialism like the kind Bernie Sanders has been raving about.

chimeracoder 11y ago
> I don't mean hardcore enforced-total-equality Socialism, I mean nice Socialism like the kind Bernie Sanders has been raving about. It's taboo to point this out, especially on HN, but I'm feeling bold today: You can't discuss the socialist policies of Western European countries without addressing their wealth. And you can't discuss the current wealth of Western European countries without acknowledging the process by which they acquired that wealth. The "nice socialism that Sanders has been raving about" is the kind that is practiced in countries with a long history of colonization and slavery[0]. During this timeframe, they "earned" a massive amount of money by extracting resources from people that they literally enslaved. This started before the 17th century and continued into the 20th century. Those people who were colonized and enslaved (and their countries) are still feeling the effects of that today, and they would not be so quick to describe that kind of socialism as "nice". [0] Denmark and Sweden are the two that Sanders has called out specifically by name.
- marshray 11y ago
  Many countries in Western Europe have been destroyed and rebuilt multiple times since the 19th century when slavery was practiced.
  - chimeracoder 11y ago
    > Many countries in Western Europe have been destroyed and rebuilt multiple times This doesn't change the fact that the current economic status of Denmark and Sweden today is directly linked to their status as colonial powers and slaveholders from the 17th-20th century. > since the 19th century when slavery was practiced. This entire subthread began with the claim that being "low-class" in the US is tantamount to slavery. If that's the case, there should be no problem with accepting colonialism, as it was practiced by Sweden into the late 19th century and Demark into the early 20th century, as a form of slavery, since it resembles slavery far more closely than being a member of the working poor in the US.
    - marshray 11y ago
      So perhaps you can explain why, whatever this wealth was providing Denmark's 'economic status' the Nazi's didn't plunder it when they occupied it during WWII? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark_in_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark_in_World_War_II AFAICT, Denmark (and Germany, Japan, China, Singapore, South Korea, and everybody else) have whatever 'economic status' they have due to a lot more to what happened during the post WWII years than to colonial times.
      - ptaipale 11y ago
        Yes, and attributing Sweden's wealth to slave trade is disingenuous. Attributing it to WWII years and selling ball bearings to Nazis is more relevant - but then, who in their position wouldn't have done that? I.e. stay out of the nasty war and trade, if it helps to keep peace on borders.
    - amag 11y ago
      Late 19th century, early 20th, Sweden was one of the poorest countries in Europe. The wealth of Sweden was accumulated post-WWII when the rest of Europe stood in ruins and needed to be rebuilt, not by being a colonial force to be reckoned with (it never was).
      - 11y ago

wfo 11y ago

Language can be used in a rigorous, technical way with definitions and as close to accurately as possible. Like in a technical manual or programming language. Or it can be used in an expressive way, the way that normal people write and talk and communicate, where people say things that are technically inaccurate but express meaning and and allow the listener or reader to understand the position, emotions, facts, thoughts and experiences of the speaker or writer. For example, "I'm starving, let's get a bite to eat." Do you say "No you aren't, that's technically inaccurate, how dare you minimize the concerns of the starving multitudes across the globe" or do you say "Okay." because you understand what he means? That first response is how the "that's not real slavery!" thread of discussion here looks to the rest of us. I think what he meant by that was he is communicating in the second, expressive way.

abalashov 11y ago
Church. I wrote a blog post recently that somewhat excoriated the technical community for a blunt and mechanistic approach to argumentation along these lines: http://likewise.am/2015/12/06/nitpicking-is-the-lowest-form-of-criticism/ http://likewise.am/2015/12/06/nitpicking-is-the-lowest-form-...