4 ms·

>>No, it's not. That's a superficial and biased interpretation. Your characterization is absolute nonsense, and I've already explained exactly why. >>especial

>>No, it's not. That's a superficial and biased interpretation. Your characterization is absolute nonsense, and I've already explained exactly why. >>especially since your credibility is already very low because of your union conspiracy ramblings. I've addressed this disingenuous criticism before: Your pithy response to my argument that unionized news staff have an economic interest in promoting left wing political ideas - when I've elaborated at length as to why I believe this is the case - suggests you're approaching this issue very emotionally, and not in a good faith attempt to open-mindedly explore what I'm saying to see if it's true. You realize that name-calling and sophistry is not debate, right? You can't just bully people into adopting your interpretation of the world. Asserting that a claim is "a superficial and biased interpretation" or "conspiracy ramblings", is not evidence. It's just a baseless opinion, and in terms of substance, the equivalent of name-calling - an attempt to appeal to people's emotions to manipulate them into believing something, instead of convincing them by presenting a logical argument. >>we can dive deeper into other possible causes to an increased social spending without that being "an embrace of social democracy". We can dive deeper in your mental gymnastics, as you try to maintain "neoliberalism" has been ascendant, whilst the economy has become more social democratically structured? It's undeniable that the West has massively moved toward a more social democratic economic model.

cloudfifty 5y ago
That entire reply is totally devoid of any substance whatsoever. I assume you're not planning to provide any reputable source, just keep repeating your own authoritative assertion like your last sentence? > It's undeniable that the West has massively moved toward a more social democratic economic model. If it's undeniable, you shouldn't be the only one claiming this. Not even conservatives (in Europe at least) are saying this, even though it would be mana from heaven for them if it was true.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  I've already provided the substance. Now I'm just explaining that your grandiose denunciations are without substance. Once more: Asserting that a claim is "a superficial and biased interpretation" or "conspiracy ramblings", is not evidence. It's just a baseless opinion, and in terms of substance, the equivalent of name-calling - an attempt to appeal to people's emotions to manipulate them into believing something, instead of convincing them by presenting a logical argument.
  - cloudfifty 5y ago
    Please focus on providing those sources rather than trying to derail with tone policing. To reiterate: If it's undeniable, you shouldn't be the only one claiming this. Not even conservatives (in Europe at least) are saying this, even though it would be manna from heaven for them if it was true.
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      I am not policing your tone. I am policing the content of your comments, which are appeals to emotion that are without substance. They belie disingenuity. What is the point of me digging up a source when you've completely dismissed clear macroeconomic evidence of a shift to a more social democratic economic structure? How many examples would I need to dig up of academic authorities concurring on what the statistics clearly show, before you concede I am right?
      - cloudfifty 5y ago
        Still no sources. Just talk and repeating your own interpretation as authoritative. > which are appeals to emotion that are without substance No, they are repeated appeals for source to an extraordinary claim which obviously would be more commonplace if it was true since large political camps would have a lot to gain from it. But the lack thereof says a lot, that's why I keep requesting a reputable source to back up your claim that goes deeper than a superficial glance at a social spending figure. > How many examples would I need to dig up of academic authorities concurring on what the statistics clearly show, before you concede I am right? You can start with providing a single one? As much as I dislike linking to this article it's relevant to this because it shows how not even a right-wing pseudo-intellectual media-outfit that certainly can't be dismissed as having a "union-led left-wing bias" agrees with your claim: https://quillette.com/2021/04/07/what-happened-to-social-democracy/ https://quillette.com/2021/04/07/what-happened-to-social-dem... "Starting in the 1970s, such things as foreign competition, mass immigration from developing countries, automation, and the growing financialization of economic power undermined this progress. In the United States, data from the Census Bureau show that the share of national income going to the middle 60 percent of households has fallen to a record low since the 1970s. Wealth gains in recent decades have gone overwhelmingly to the top one percent of households, and especially to the top 0.5 percent. Social mobility has declined in over two-thirds of European Union countries, including Sweden. Across the 36 wealthier countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the richest citizens have taken an ever-greater share of national GDP while the middle class has shrunk. Much of the global middle class is heavily in debt—mainly because of high housing costs—and “looks increasingly like a boat in rocky waters,” suggests the OECD." When will you concede that you're are practicing dogmatism because of your ideological bias?

cloudfifty 5y ago

That entire reply is totally devoid of any substance whatsoever. I assume you're not planning to provide any reputable source, just keep repeating your own authoritative assertion like your last sentence? > It's undeniable that the West has massively moved toward a more social democratic economic model. If it's undeniable, you shouldn't be the only one claiming this. Not even conservatives (in Europe at least) are saying this, even though it would be mana from heaven for them if it was true.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
I've already provided the substance. Now I'm just explaining that your grandiose denunciations are without substance. Once more: Asserting that a claim is "a superficial and biased interpretation" or "conspiracy ramblings", is not evidence. It's just a baseless opinion, and in terms of substance, the equivalent of name-calling - an attempt to appeal to people's emotions to manipulate them into believing something, instead of convincing them by presenting a logical argument.
- cloudfifty 5y ago
  Please focus on providing those sources rather than trying to derail with tone policing. To reiterate: If it's undeniable, you shouldn't be the only one claiming this. Not even conservatives (in Europe at least) are saying this, even though it would be manna from heaven for them if it was true.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    I am not policing your tone. I am policing the content of your comments, which are appeals to emotion that are without substance. They belie disingenuity. What is the point of me digging up a source when you've completely dismissed clear macroeconomic evidence of a shift to a more social democratic economic structure? How many examples would I need to dig up of academic authorities concurring on what the statistics clearly show, before you concede I am right?
    - cloudfifty 5y ago
      Still no sources. Just talk and repeating your own interpretation as authoritative. > which are appeals to emotion that are without substance No, they are repeated appeals for source to an extraordinary claim which obviously would be more commonplace if it was true since large political camps would have a lot to gain from it. But the lack thereof says a lot, that's why I keep requesting a reputable source to back up your claim that goes deeper than a superficial glance at a social spending figure. > How many examples would I need to dig up of academic authorities concurring on what the statistics clearly show, before you concede I am right? You can start with providing a single one? As much as I dislike linking to this article it's relevant to this because it shows how not even a right-wing pseudo-intellectual media-outfit that certainly can't be dismissed as having a "union-led left-wing bias" agrees with your claim: https://quillette.com/2021/04/07/what-happened-to-social-democracy/ https://quillette.com/2021/04/07/what-happened-to-social-dem... "Starting in the 1970s, such things as foreign competition, mass immigration from developing countries, automation, and the growing financialization of economic power undermined this progress. In the United States, data from the Census Bureau show that the share of national income going to the middle 60 percent of households has fallen to a record low since the 1970s. Wealth gains in recent decades have gone overwhelmingly to the top one percent of households, and especially to the top 0.5 percent. Social mobility has declined in over two-thirds of European Union countries, including Sweden. Across the 36 wealthier countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the richest citizens have taken an ever-greater share of national GDP while the middle class has shrunk. Much of the global middle class is heavily in debt—mainly because of high housing costs—and “looks increasingly like a boat in rocky waters,” suggests the OECD." When will you concede that you're are practicing dogmatism because of your ideological bias?