So what’s a “westerner” who thinks both sides are different flavours of bullshit? Also, what’s a “westerner”? Also also, “bourgeois proletariat”? How does a non capital owning worker who owns capital exist? Is that just propaganda against wage workers who happened to be born in a specific location?
“But you don’t understand, the news man said I have permission to use this to make fun of North Korea. Why are you spoilsports trying to take away my fun?”
Critical thinking doesn’t enter into it at all.
All cool though when you use the same tactic to “other” people who don’t have the same “enlightened upbringing” as you though right?
It’s not like you couldn’t have made a comment on the publicly known biases of the sources in question - NYP is a far-right (from a US American perspective) editorial-mill, and the BBC is at best center-left, while still toeing the McCarthy line against second-world states. Neither is a credible source on haircuts in North Korea.
A Westerner is someone that lives in a previous colonial metropole, usually Western Europe, or one of their settler nation states.
In other words, someone who does not live in the global south ie. those peoples victimized by colonial imperialism.
Why refer to them as the bourgeoisie proletariat? It’s the first time I’m coming across the phrase but it makes sense. This 20% segment of humanity holds 80% of global wealth, to the great suffering of others. This 20% segment has historically contributed over 50% of cumulative carbon emissions, disproportionately contributing to climate change through relative excess, while looking down at those that have less than them.
While not talking about any one person in particularly, surely anyone can see that describing this segment of humanity collectively as the bourgeoisie proletariat couldn’t be more fitting.
Now this is how you JAQ off, a real GOANer (going over all nitpicks) lol. Can’t attack the heart of the argument in the post linked so you resort to this shit
I feel like all your objections are just about the terminology used in an article I didn’t write. I wouldn’t use the term “bourgeois proletariat” for example, but the actual point that the article is making is correct and insightful.
It’s not like you couldn’t have made a comment on the publicly known biases of the sources in question
Neither is a credible source on haircuts in North Korea.
Yeah, no shit, that’s the point.
There’s people in here blindly believing this propaganda even when it comes from such a biased and unreliable source as the NYP. That’s not because of a failure of critical thinking or because they’re just “stupid” or something, it’s because they simply choose not to engage in critical thinking at all. Because, as I said, they don’t actually care whether it’s true or not, they just enjoy getting a chance to shit on the DPRK to feel better about their own lives and their own system.
You can’t convince people based off facts and evidence if they’re basing their beliefs off of things completely unrelated to facts and evidence. Tell them the NYP is unreliable and they’ll probably just attack you for “defending North Korea” or they’ll demand you prove a negative (and not bother to read if you actually put in the effort). They simply want to believe the propaganda.
You deferred to authority with your reference to a blog that defines classes of people as “westerners” and “proletariat bourgeoisie”. Those definitions are then used throughout the article as though they are commonly known entities, and even further entities that should be considered a lesser class. Regardless of the article you linked, the quotes that you selected use the terminology I am questioning.
So I am asking to define what those classes are, and which people are bound to that definition? I own my house, but not my means of production; does that make me a “proletariat bourgeoisie” or just a modern peasant? What if someone owns a small business but rents an apartment?
You deferred to authority with your reference to a blog
Jesus Christ, any time I cite any sort of theory about anything people immediately jump down my throat with this “appeal to authority” bullshit.
I referenced the blog not because it has any sort of “authority” but because it explains the concept quite well.
I’m sorry that, apparently unlike you, I’m capable of respecting insight regardless of whether it’s written in the most proper, ideologically correct phrasing.
So I am asking to define what those classes are, and which people are bound to that definition?
No. Message the author if you want a definition. I already told you I wouldn’t use the term personally.
The overall point is quite clear regardless of that terminology. And you haven’t said a single thing to contest that point, you’re just whining about phrasing for no apparent reason.
What they mean is the proletariat of exploitative countries, those in the imperial core, who they see as having a distinct class character from the proletariat of exploited countries.
Does that satisfy your pointless pedantry? Of course not. Now you’ll find another pointless detail to quibble over, or you’ll nitpick my definition. Because the point being made seems to have struck a nerve with you, but you can’t actually find anything to counter it so you focus on this nonsense.
If the shoe fits, wear it. I’m guessing you know it’s true, at least on some level, and that’s why you’re doing this.
Liberal’s brain conveniently stopped working. All knowledge that could inconvenience them just magically disappeared.
Repeats “I am very stupid” ten times in a row, thinks repeating a lie often enough makes it true. Must have been a very painful hit to the liberal worldview.
So what’s a “westerner” who thinks both sides are different flavours of bullshit? Also, what’s a “westerner”? Also also, “bourgeois proletariat”? How does a non capital owning worker who owns capital exist? Is that just propaganda against wage workers who happened to be born in a specific location?
All cool though when you use the same tactic to “other” people who don’t have the same “enlightened upbringing” as you though right?
It’s not like you couldn’t have made a comment on the publicly known biases of the sources in question - NYP is a far-right (from a US American perspective) editorial-mill, and the BBC is at best center-left, while still toeing the McCarthy line against second-world states. Neither is a credible source on haircuts in North Korea.
A Westerner is someone that lives in a previous colonial metropole, usually Western Europe, or one of their settler nation states.
In other words, someone who does not live in the global south ie. those peoples victimized by colonial imperialism.
Why refer to them as the bourgeoisie proletariat? It’s the first time I’m coming across the phrase but it makes sense. This 20% segment of humanity holds 80% of global wealth, to the great suffering of others. This 20% segment has historically contributed over 50% of cumulative carbon emissions, disproportionately contributing to climate change through relative excess, while looking down at those that have less than them.
While not talking about any one person in particularly, surely anyone can see that describing this segment of humanity collectively as the bourgeoisie proletariat couldn’t be more fitting.
Now this is how you JAQ off, a real GOANer (going over all nitpicks) lol. Can’t attack the heart of the argument in the post linked so you resort to this shit
I feel like all your objections are just about the terminology used in an article I didn’t write. I wouldn’t use the term “bourgeois proletariat” for example, but the actual point that the article is making is correct and insightful.
Yeah, no shit, that’s the point.
There’s people in here blindly believing this propaganda even when it comes from such a biased and unreliable source as the NYP. That’s not because of a failure of critical thinking or because they’re just “stupid” or something, it’s because they simply choose not to engage in critical thinking at all. Because, as I said, they don’t actually care whether it’s true or not, they just enjoy getting a chance to shit on the DPRK to feel better about their own lives and their own system.
You can’t convince people based off facts and evidence if they’re basing their beliefs off of things completely unrelated to facts and evidence. Tell them the NYP is unreliable and they’ll probably just attack you for “defending North Korea” or they’ll demand you prove a negative (and not bother to read if you actually put in the effort). They simply want to believe the propaganda.
I don’t see why you’re so offended by this idea.
You deferred to authority with your reference to a blog that defines classes of people as “westerners” and “proletariat bourgeoisie”. Those definitions are then used throughout the article as though they are commonly known entities, and even further entities that should be considered a lesser class. Regardless of the article you linked, the quotes that you selected use the terminology I am questioning.
So I am asking to define what those classes are, and which people are bound to that definition? I own my house, but not my means of production; does that make me a “proletariat bourgeoisie” or just a modern peasant? What if someone owns a small business but rents an apartment?
Jesus Christ, any time I cite any sort of theory about anything people immediately jump down my throat with this “appeal to authority” bullshit.
I referenced the blog not because it has any sort of “authority” but because it explains the concept quite well.
I’m sorry that, apparently unlike you, I’m capable of respecting insight regardless of whether it’s written in the most proper, ideologically correct phrasing.
No. Message the author if you want a definition. I already told you I wouldn’t use the term personally.
The overall point is quite clear regardless of that terminology. And you haven’t said a single thing to contest that point, you’re just whining about phrasing for no apparent reason.
No, I’m asking you for your definition. Who are you punching down on? If you don’t know, then you are assuming their definitions.
What they mean is the proletariat of exploitative countries, those in the imperial core, who they see as having a distinct class character from the proletariat of exploited countries.
Does that satisfy your pointless pedantry? Of course not. Now you’ll find another pointless detail to quibble over, or you’ll nitpick my definition. Because the point being made seems to have struck a nerve with you, but you can’t actually find anything to counter it so you focus on this nonsense.
If the shoe fits, wear it. I’m guessing you know it’s true, at least on some level, and that’s why you’re doing this.
Of course not, because you haven’t answered my question. What’s a Westerner? What’s a Bourgeoisie Proletariat?
Least obviously bad faith .worlder
Liberal’s brain conveniently stopped working. All knowledge that could inconvenience them just magically disappeared.
Repeats “I am very stupid” ten times in a row, thinks repeating a lie often enough makes it true. Must have been a very painful hit to the liberal worldview.
Literally just did.
Is this how I find out I have psychic powers? Who could’ve predicted this?
Removed by mod
deleted by creator