Quote from: RPGPunditNot based on the setting as it is in its default form. Unless you're playing with some kind of metaphysic or material outside of the setting-as-written, there is no escape from the Magic Deer.

1. Get a patsy
2. Give patsy a 'helm of invincibility'
3. Plant rumour that only a blow mighty enough to kill a god could defeat the wearer of the 'helm of invincibility'
4. Make sure patsy is a bad ruler
5. Wait for deer to show up
6. Point and laugh as the deer shows up to kick King Bad Ruler in the head
7. Feast on venison and tell your friends how the helmet didn't make the (late) King invincible, it just mirrored the killing blow onto his murderer as well
8. Take the (now vacant) throne
9. Party on without fear of the magic deer

:haw:

I find it amusing the thread gets moved to tangency and all the politics dies.

totally ruins a good thread.

Never fear, shewolf!

Quote from: Old GeezerGood question.

Thanks!

Quote from: Old GeezerI'll admit my reaction to "Value, Price, and Profit" was mostly emotional/philosophical.  I don't worry about problems with Marx' value system as a practical matter of economics, for the same reason that I can join the IWW and proclaim that I support "the destruction of the wage system and One Big Union" -- because we are so far from the destruction of the wage system that the light from the destruction of the wage system won't reach us for ten thousand years.

OK - on two counts. One, it's hard for any of us, no matter how hard we try nor how much we claim, to be completely unemotional about reactions to these kinds of things. Two, because I think I'm clear on the point you make here (and later) that you see this more in philosophical terms than in pragmatic world-changing-next-week terms. Thank heavens - or I'd have to man the battlements. And I'm too tired from 2 days of gaming...

Quote from: Old GeezerI read Value, Price and Profit and realized I didn't disagree with a single word.  At which point I said to myself, "I don't disagree with any of it.  It also goes against everything I've been taught."  It took me a week or so of intense soul-searching to realize that I believed Marx was more correct.

It's been a long while since I read any Marx, so one of these days, when I have time, I'll try to wolf down Value, Price, and Profit. But what I found interesting was the last part. If it's OK with you, I'd love to hear in what ways (specifically) you found him more correct.

Quote from: Old GeezerNotice I do not say more practical.  Or more achievable, given the state of today's US.  In my opinion, Marx was right about something else, as well.

Gotcha.

Quote from: Old GeezerClass war was inevitable.
The class war in the US occured 1950- 2000.
It was a propaganda war.
The Proletariat lost.

A cold war and a class war - see, two front mistake and all that.

I would be interested in more information on the nature of the war and why you think the prols lost.

Quote from: Old GeezerAlso, I'm not joking when I say getting my MBA planted the seeds that made me a Socialist.  Most of what I was taught about being a middle manager was about actively doing things that would reduce the benefits to employees to enrich the stockholders.  We were taught how to conceal illegal union-busting activities.  We were told that bait-and-switch was smart marketing, but make sure you don't get caught.

Basically, being trained as a middle manager taught me that all the bad things people think about middle managers and corporations are true.

This, to me, was the most stunning part of your response.  Where the heck did you get your MBA - that's amazing! Anyone else here have that kind of experience? I only have a few undergrad business classes from long ago, and the experience of running a business for ten years; but man, that's...well...amazing.

Quote from: Old GeezerI frankly admit many of my assumptions are emotionally evaluated.  Someone with different emotions might conclude differently.  Also, many of my assumptions start from my experience, and no two people have the same experience.

Fair enough! Pseudo will get all upset if he sees this - he doesn't believe people can agree to disagree. :haw:

Quote from: Old GeezerAs a footnote, I'd like to point out that this discussion proves that it is indeed possible to have a discussion between opposing points on the subject of politics in an unmoderated internet forum WITHOUT it turning into a flamewar or poo flinging.

Even if we never do agree, I still want to thank you for taking the time to listen carefully and speak respectfully.

I mean this when I say "My pleasure!"

Quote from: Old GeezerNot bad for a hapless brainwashed tool of the Capitalist class.

You know us brainwashed tools of the Capitalist class: we're trained to try harder - for our overlords.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd when they "become a part of the larger civil society", will they retain the "life of thrift" and other skills that allow them to perform their economic role so effectively?  

...

And what benefit is an increase in social capital supposed to produce?

A certain minimum level of social capital is necessary to avoid total civil war and social collapse.

If middleman minorities assimilate, they might retain the "life of thrift" -- but that's a separate question.

You seem to have a habit of introducing more new questions than get answered.

I had originally asked you whether the original statement was meant as a universal, but I suppose my questions don't merit the courtesy of a response.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd what benefit is an increase in social capital supposed to produce? . ..

But middeman minorities largely escape those problems because they are civically engaged communities. They are simply civically engaged among themselves, rather than among the broader community around them.

Your first is a false question because social capital is so hard to measure or indeed identify. An increase is social capital doesn't bring any 'benefits' because it is an abstract measure of a range of forms of interaction. Its whether you view those forms of interaction as good or bad thats the question.

What you've described secondly is the difference between Putnam's two types of social capital - bridging and bonding. Bridging social capital is cross-community while bonding is intra-community.

What Putnam uses it to describe is degrees of civic participation. Bowling Alone didn't really address minorities but looked at the wider social participation in the US and the reasons why, for instance levels of voting were falling along with membership of voluntary and social organisations.

Recently, which is what Riprock is referring to, he has also done work identifying that diverse communities do cause individuals to 'hunker down' and become less connected with their surrounding community - what isn't clear from his article is if this applies to both forms of social capital (i.e. do minorities have less social capital than they would in country of origin even with 'high levels' of bonding capital). I'd also question Riprock's statement that its non-assimilating minorities that cause this. IIRC Putnam is quite clear he feels it is a possible consequence of diversity overall not of assimilation (the samples that scored highest on his scale were the smallest and most homogenous). Finally bridging capital has to work both ways - communities with high levels of bonding capital may be like that because the dominant community does not offer opportunities to develop bridging capital. In the UK for instance despite often media scares on the supposed insularity of minorities, most ethnic minorities have at least one white person they self-describe as friend or associate while most white people have none from a minority.

As to the benefit of high levels of social capital, I don't think its on a good-bad scale of lots-none. Like anything having an excess, or the wrong type of any other capital can cause problems. I may have a trillion zimbabewan dollars but that doesn't give me much to buy. Similarly Putnam first developed his theories studying mafia is southern Italy. Communities influenced by the mafia (in all its forms) have high levels of social capital but its very much of the bonding type with low levels of bridging capital meaning the communities remain isolated from wider civic participation enabling the mafia to exert influence.

The quote that started this clusterfuck was from Mr Analytical, a self-confessed right-winger. Possibly he was even smiling a bit when he wrote it.

Still, I'm glad to see another thread talking about RPG.net. Never enough of them here, right?

Ned

Quote from: Ned the Lonely DonkeyThe quote that started this clusterfuck was from Mr Analytical, a self-confessed right-winger. Possibly he was even smiling a bit when he wrote it.

Still, I'm glad to see another thread talking about RPG.net. Never enough of them here, right?

Ned

Well, this being the first serious mention of RPG.net since page one, thanks for constantly griping about another website. Could we all stop it now?

Reading the whole damn thread first: Your friend and companion in not looking like a doofus.

Dear God, read the WHOLE THREAD? My two and four and four year old kids have got more political insight than you pinheads!

Ned

Quote from: Old GeezerSO, I'm an open Socialist, a member of the IWW, a member of RPGnet, a self-proclaimed Trotskyite, and...

... I LOVE old fashioned D&D and dungeon crawls.

So what does that mean?

It means you can enjoy escapist fiction without condoning every single principle of the societies it depicts. I think absolute monarchy is a terrible system but I'm totally up for fighting on the side of Good King CheeseLich in a fantasy game.

Quote from: RPGPunditThat's because in the US, the republicans tend to be populists and anti-intellectuals, while the democrats tend to be elitists and self-styled intellectuals.

It's worth noting that this wasn't always the case in the U.S. It coincides with the migration of the dixiecrats from the Democratic to the Republican party that began in the early 60s.

Quote from: John MorrowSowell addresses, for example, Asian middleman minorities in Africa in his book Race and Culture and part of the evidence that he offers is that in various points of history, rulers or colonial powers have tried to stop or thwart middleman minorities because of the perceived damage they were doing to the indigenous population and when they've been successful, it causes problems because the benefits offered by the middleman minority becomes apparent.  It is why, for example, Uganda wanted their Asians back after getting rid of most of them.

It's a truism in struggling Africa countries that once the Arabs leave, things are heading downhill fast.

Quote from: riprockA certain minimum level of social capital is necessary to avoid total civil war and social collapse.

While I think that's a silly way to describe it, I'll agree.

Quote from: riprockIf middleman minorities assimilate, they might retain the "life of thrift" -- but that's a separate question.

It's separate but significant.  If they assimilate and lose their ability to perform their middleman function, then society loses their services.

Quote from: riprockI had originally asked you whether the original statement was meant as a universal, but I suppose my questions don't merit the courtesy of a response.

I don't know if it's 100% universal or not.  I think it's true most of the time, though.

Quote from: Ned the Lonely DonkeyStill, I'm glad to see another thread talking about RPG.net. Never enough of them here, right?

It was actually about the SUBJECT of the thread, and I'd say its mostly drifted from being TbP  oriented and into interesting territory.

Don't let that stop you, though. You go riiiight ahead (pat, pat).

Not only that, but I actually got a smiley from Old Geezer. You hear me? A frickin' SMILEY! That alone makes the thread worthwhile.

Quote from: James J SkachIf it's OK with you, I'd love to hear in what ways (specifically) you found him more correct.

Gurgh.  This is one of those questions that I answer either in 30 words, or 30,000, I fear.  I'll do my best.

ESSENTIALLY, I realized that I agreed with his essential argument that the entire basis of dividend-Capitalism is knowingly paying your workers less than you know their labor is worth.  And that that is, quite simply, morally wrong.

The hard part ever since has been 'so what the hell do I do about it'.  See previous comment about 'the light from abolition of the wage system'.

Why do I think the Proles lost?  By EVERY measure I've ever seen, the rich are getting richer and the working class continue to get boned harder.  The wealth gap increases as working families scramble merely to stay afloat.  Workers take the most incredible abuse from their bosses ("I expect 60 hour weeks!"  "I want BLOOD!") and they hunker down and endure instead of throwing their coffee cups at their bosses and walking out.  Workers are gathered together and told their wages are being cut even as CEOs get bonuses, and union membership is at the lowest percentage in well over a century.  If Jimmy Hoffa had not existed, it would have been necessary for Capital to invent him -- but he is LONG dead.  You can kill any idea of universal health care in the US just by putting the word 'Socialized' in front of it, despite the fact that the typical American Prole couldn't define 'Socialist' if you put a gun to his head.

That's a few reasons.

My MBA -- University of Minnesota, Carlson School of Management, 1987.

See, the FIRST thing they taught us was "this is how to tell someone is lying with statistics" and "this is how to tell when somebody is lying to establish plausable deniability and this is how to derive their actual meaning".

Then they proceeded to do these things.  So I figured, "If THAT guy is lying to establish plausable deniability, and you are doing the EXACT SAME SORTS OF THINGS... then all my professors are lying to establish plausable deniability."  For instance, they never ACTUALLY advocated "These measures are illegal union busting and you should use them".  But they DID discuss them, and DID discuss how rarely they are found out, and how rarely anyone is punished....

"You might say so, but I couldn't possibly comment."

Here's the most blatent example"

In the early 1980s Compaq had a known problem with their power supplies.  They blew out in about nine months.

Compaq told everyone that they'd developed a new power supply and were replacing the old ones under warranty and that the new power supply didn't have that problem.

In point of fact, they were just installing old-model power supplies and figuring that people would be upgrading to 286 computers before the second supply blew out and that nobody would ever know.

We were told that that was a "smart marketing strategy".

Fortunately a classmate of mine had his BA in Theology and expressed his outrage more coherently than I could.

But although openly lying to the customers is the most extreme example of what my MBA experience was like, the rest is different only in degree, not kind.

Quote from: Old GeezerGurgh.  This is one of those questions that I answer either in 30 words, or 30,000, I fear.  I'll do my best.

ESSENTIALLY, I realized that I agreed with his essential argument that the entire basis of dividend-Capitalism is knowingly paying your workers less than you know their labor is worth.  And that that is, quite simply, morally wrong.

The hard part ever since has been 'so what the hell do I do about it'.  See previous comment about 'the light from abolition of the wage system'.

Thanks, man. I should read it and then get back to you. It's pointless for you to try to explain it more, and I'm sorry I put you on the spot about it. But you did a nice job in few words.

Quote from: Old GeezerWhy do I think the Proles lost?  By EVERY measure I've ever seen, the rich are getting richer and the working class continue to get boned harder.  The wealth gap increases as working families scramble merely to stay afloat.  Workers take the most incredible abuse from their bosses ("I expect 60 hour weeks!"  "I want BLOOD!") and they hunker down and endure instead of throwing their coffee cups at their bosses and walking out.  Workers are gathered together and told their wages are being cut even as CEOs get bonuses, and union membership is at the lowest percentage in well over a century.  If Jimmy Hoffa had not existed, it would have been necessary for Capital to invent him -- but he is LONG dead.  You can kill any idea of universal health care in the US just by putting the word 'Socialized' in front of it, despite the fact that the typical American Prole couldn't define 'Socialist' if you put a gun to his head.

That's a few reasons.

Interesting.  Thanks!

Quote from: Old GeezerMy MBA -- University of Minnesota, Carlson School of Management, 1987.

See, the FIRST thing they taught us was "this is how to tell someone is lying with statistics" and "this is how to tell when somebody is lying to establish plausable deniability and this is how to derive their actual meaning".

Then they proceeded to do these things.  So I figured, "If THAT guy is lying to establish plausable deniability, and you are doing the EXACT SAME SORTS OF THINGS... then all my professors are lying to establish plausable deniability."  For instance, they never ACTUALLY advocated "These measures are illegal union busting and you should use them".  But they DID discuss them, and DID discuss how rarely they are found out, and how rarely anyone is punished....

"You might say so, but I couldn't possibly comment."

Here's the most blatent example"

In the early 1980s Compaq had a known problem with their power supplies.  They blew out in about nine months.

Compaq told everyone that they'd developed a new power supply and were replacing the old ones under warranty and that the new power supply didn't have that problem.

In point of fact, they were just installing old-model power supplies and figuring that people would be upgrading to 286 computers before the second supply blew out and that nobody would ever know.

We were told that that was a "smart marketing strategy".

Fortunately a classmate of mine had his BA in Theology and expressed his outrage more coherently than I could.

But although openly lying to the customers is the most extreme example of what my MBA experience was like, the rest is different only in degree, not kind.

That is, as I said, amazing.  Now that I think about it, I remember when the Enron thing was blowing wide open, and it looked like shit like it was going to be all over the place, there was some discussion about these very things.  That is, I remember hearing/reading (I should try and find the source) that people were, rightly so, questioning what the fuck was going on with the ethics in business and this led to calling into question what was being taught about the subject. And they were tracing it back to business education from the mid eighties on.

Thanks again!