I think you are wrongly offended by my throwing a boogeyman word into the buzzword folder. If anything, that usage in the exact way you describe is what clinches its spot in buzzword HoF.

These ideas suffer the same problem as high scientific theory in that they can be carefully defined and nitpicked in the process of their conception/design, but cannot be practiced or tested in a very feasible way. Every test fails and there is never a lack of factors to explore as to why, and so, we never abandon the core theory being tested, we just add, remove, and edit items from it to try and conform the theory to reality.

Like having a favorite kid and favoring them even though they fail x thing again and again. "Maybe if we get him lessons, maybe if he has the right equipment, maybe if he has better motive, etc etc my kid won't fail"

I don't have to prose bluster to say it proper but I agree with most of what you have said about debate and what I'll dub our "womb memory" of liberal ideas. In my personal oet system, liberalism is thrown out the window and debate is replaced largely with force, just like any le evil communist. I started out, and still here maintain, that it is the economic freedom of average people that has resulted in the world's most successful state entities. We malign that chaotic world-computer-tier freedom with the buzzword "capitalism" just as we malign attempts and theories that pursue perfect order as "communism". But I will defend "capitalism" as the free market and drop it the second it is paired with the word "jew" or words that have too much to do with behaviors associated with them. The reason I will even superficially defend that buzzword is because free trade is a basic law of the land, just like gravity, and to try and stopper the flow of trades for any grand purpose is as foolish as trying to hold up rain.

Thinkers all have attachments to ideas that get tied into a buzzword. It is why buzzwordery exists. Basically for the purpose of interfering with debate and weakening the traditions of the liberal order those debates take place in. Buzzwords exist to "get you" by the collar of your understanding of an associated concept.

You said I want to ignore power and talk ideas. I am talking about power and the source of it. The source is not attitude. The source is not the world's most perfect understanding of the definition of the word Communism. It is work. The physical laws of the world have resulted in a system in which work is most efficiently harnessed. States that stray too far from that physically determined framework fail. Communism implies interference with that framework, and given most circumstances, circumstances that apply to the vast majority of people in this world, it fails due to that.

Originally, days ago now, I was bitching to you over "democracy cannot exist in a society dominated by money". I stated, essentially, that democracy can only exist in a state with a healthy economic engine. I think this is as close as we'll get to "circling back to that". Power is an economic engine. This is what fails a failed communist state. This is what enables any degree or quality of "democracy" to exist. Money is behind every bullet, every state murder, every censored word, every powerful group, behind every path to more power, to more money, to more order. "This particular democracy is fake and corrupt" would be a better statement imo.

I think you are wrongly offended by my throwing a boogeyman word into the buzzword folder. If anything, that usage in the exact way you describe is what clinches its spot in buzzword HoF. I think it's very important to accept common use "raped-definitions" or "buzzinitions" of these words.

These ideas suffer the same problem as high scientific theory in that they can be carefully defined and nitpicked in the process of their conception/design, but cannot be practiced or tested in a very feasible way. Every test fails and there is never a lack of factors to explore as to why, and so, we never abandon the core theory being tested, we just add, remove, and edit items from it to try and conform the theory to reality.

Like having a favorite kid and favoring them even though they fail x thing again and again. "Maybe if we get him lessons, maybe if he has the right equipment, maybe if he has better motive, etc etc my kid won't fail"

I don't have to prose bluster to say it proper but I agree with most of what you have said about debate and what I'll dub our "womb memory" of liberal ideas. In my personal oet system, liberalism is thrown out the window and debate is replaced largely with force, just like any le evil communist. I started out, and still here maintain, that it is the economic freedom of average people that has resulted in the world's most successful state entities. We malign that chaotic world-computer-tier freedom with the buzzword "capitalism" just as we malign attempts and theories that pursue perfect order as "communism". But I will defend "capitalism" as the free market and drop it the second it is paired with the word "jew" or words that have too much to do with behaviors associated with them. The reason I will even superficially defend that buzzword is because free trade is a basic law of the land, just like gravity, and to try and stopper the flow of trades for any grand purpose is as foolish as trying to hold up rain.

Thinkers all have attachments to ideas that get tied into a buzzword. It is why buzzwordery exists. Basically for the purpose of interfering with debate and weakening the traditions of the liberal order those debates take place in. Buzzwords exist to "get you" by the collar of your understanding of an associated concept.

You said I want to ignore power and talk ideas. I am talking about power and the source of it. The source is not attitude. The source is not the world's most perfect understanding of the definition of the word Communism. It is work. The physical laws of the world have resulted in a system in which work is most efficiently harnessed. States that stray too far from that physically determined framework fail. Communism implies interference with that framework, and given most circumstances, circumstances that apply to the vast majority of people in this world, it fails due to that.

Originally, days ago now, I was bitching to you over "democracy cannot exist in a society dominated by money". I stated, essentially, that democracy can only exist in a state with a healthy economic engine. I think this is as close as we'll get to "circling back to that". Power is an economic engine. This is what fails a failed communist state. This is what enables any degree or quality of "democracy" to exist. Money is behind every bullet, every state murder, every censored word, every powerful group, behind every path to more power, to more money, to more order. "This particular democracy is fake and corrupt" would be a better statement imo.