Single payer healthcare is radical, both in the fact that it is an extreme divergence from current policy and thus would constitute an extreme change as well as it aims at a problem close to the source.
Those are the conditions in material reality and that is what radical means.
Also, where did I say that Hasan isn’t more radical than people here? you’re putting words in my mouth. I just have problems with the work you’ve shown, not necessarily your conclusion. My hypothetical is because according to the work you’ve given, Obama would also have to be more radical as well as Hasan as what you’ve said repeatedly has batted away the idea that the ratio of conviction to reach matters in any way.
If you had just kept it pithy and said “Hasan is more radical than the people on this site,” I likely would’ve snorted, liked it, and moved on.
Edit: I actually hadn’t said anything about him yet so far, would you feel better about me questioning the formation of your argument if I say something nice about Hasan during each comment? I have no issues doing that if you cut out the weird snideness in your comments.
You can claim it’s “radical” all you want, the state is not cracking down on people pushing Obamacare, again wild I have to spell this out
The state is cracking down on Pro-Palestinian advocates, almost like pro-Palestine politics IS RADICAL, hence my original comment
Also what “work” are you talking about, I’ve literally wedded my usage of the word radical to pro-Palestine politics for this thread, nobody can disagree pro-Palestine politics IS radical, but apparently the issue is me pointing out Hasan’s reach makes that radicalism (pro-Palestine politics) more meaningful than whatever the fuck this forum is doing right now
I said his reach would be meaningless WITHOUT the accompanying radicalism, but I guess that’s wild “conflation” beyond the pale and I apparently also hate homeless people now lmao
You can claim it’s “radical” all you want, the state is not cracking down on people pushing Obamacare, again wild I have to spell this out
I am and just because something is radical doesn’t mean it invites state crackdown. Ultras are more radical than us all and the state won’t crackdown on them because they’re fucking idiots. You haven’t had to spell anything out to me as none of your spelling out has been relevant to what I said.
Palestine politics IS radical, but apparently the issue is me pointing out Hasan’s reach makes that radicalism (pro-Palestine politics) more meaningful than whatever the fuck this forum is doing right now
I didn’t disagree, actually if you read what I said I explicitly agreed on that.
Also what “work” are you talking about
Pro-Palestine (radicalism) + Reach (millions of viewers) = More radical than forum users
but apparently the issue is me pointing out Hasan’s reach makes that radicalism (pro-Palestine politics) more meaningful than whatever the fuck this forum is doing right now
Again, I explicitly agreed with this premise, if someone else disagreed take it up with them.
I said his reach would be meaningless WITHOUT the accompanying radicalism
That part I didn’t have issue with. Again, I agreed. I had issues with you saying we need to conflate the two without consideration of the makeup of them. Y’know, as I previously said if you read what I said.
I apparently also hate homeless people now lmao
??? Huh? I don’t have any opinions on your opinions on the homeless… I’ve never considered how you feel about the homeless before, I presume you want the best for them?
Edit: Conflation is what brings about opportunism, even if you yourself simply misused it and have proper understanding, as you mentioned with the repeated struggle sessions over not burning the fucking Zionist entities flag there are obviously people that susceptible. Such a type would see that and feel what you stated as written feels intuitive correct and would use that as some litmus test which while it sometimes works I feel would lead to all types of opportunists passing as well which was my sole is.
I had issues with you saying we need to conflate the two without consideration of the makeup of them
Except I did make consideration of the makeup, hence the fact I specified “Pro-Palestine politics” from the start and throughout the thread, YOU’RE the one who changed the makeup to fuckin Obamacare, and asked me “is Obama radical?”
Pro-Palestine (radicalism) + Reach (millions of viewers) = More radical than forum users
Yes, if you change the formula you’re gonna get a different answer, good thing I didn’t just say radicalism without any qualification and specified from the beginning, but that didn’t matter three comments ago, because we had to dunk even tho the dunk didn’t make any sense
Yes you said pro-palestine politics with the loudest and most visible voice.
Everyone on this site is pro-palestine (dubiously with some of the shit I see but I digress) thus making it seem that radicalism is more with a bigger reach.
And typically when doing word equivalency equations, the core component is that in the parenthesis and the part on the outside is treated as instantaneous not as qualitative so I read it that way as well as the fact you’ve reference the radicalization separately:
radicaliztion and the normalization of pro-Palestinian politics
So you’ve mentioned it in an instantaneous way that makes it seem like the form of radicalization is instance based for what you were saying.
I’m not dunking on you and was seeking clarification because I’ve seen an opportunist suspectable bent on this site and thought your statement had room for those susceptible to misinterpret. I don’t know what your problem with me is, but I thank you for sufficiently clarifying.
Like I said in another comment to another user, One’s expression of radicalism is often ELEVATED by one’s reach, and one’s reach can be defined by one’s radicalism, that’s been my point from the start, far from being “unrelated” or even “equivalent” they interact with each other
Reach helps with the radicalization of other people, one’s personal radicalism can define HOW you use your reach, this describes Hasan Piker perfectly, I’m not saying radicalism and reach are the same thing
I’m been saying they can be linked, they can have a relationship, radicalism without any degree of reach is simply someone talking to themself, it’s still radical, but it’s not useful is it?
I’m pointing at an interaction between two things and the resulting utility and making a comparison, frankly I’m shocked how this went over so many people’s heads
I’m at work and responding from my inbox not the thread so if you addressed this somewhere else I haven’t seen it and I’m sorry if you’ve had to repeat yourself because of that.
Single payer healthcare is radical, both in the fact that it is an extreme divergence from current policy and thus would constitute an extreme change as well as it aims at a problem close to the source.
Those are the conditions in material reality and that is what radical means.
Also, where did I say that Hasan isn’t more radical than people here? you’re putting words in my mouth. I just have problems with the work you’ve shown, not necessarily your conclusion. My hypothetical is because according to the work you’ve given, Obama would also have to be more radical as well as Hasan as what you’ve said repeatedly has batted away the idea that the ratio of conviction to reach matters in any way.
If you had just kept it pithy and said “Hasan is more radical than the people on this site,” I likely would’ve snorted, liked it, and moved on.
Edit: I actually hadn’t said anything about him yet so far, would you feel better about me questioning the formation of your argument if I say something nice about Hasan during each comment? I have no issues doing that if you cut out the weird snideness in your comments.
You can claim it’s “radical” all you want, the state is not cracking down on people pushing Obamacare, again wild I have to spell this out
The state is cracking down on Pro-Palestinian advocates, almost like pro-Palestine politics IS RADICAL, hence my original comment
Also what “work” are you talking about, I’ve literally wedded my usage of the word radical to pro-Palestine politics for this thread, nobody can disagree pro-Palestine politics IS radical, but apparently the issue is me pointing out Hasan’s reach makes that radicalism (pro-Palestine politics) more meaningful than whatever the fuck this forum is doing right now
I said his reach would be meaningless WITHOUT the accompanying radicalism, but I guess that’s wild “conflation” beyond the pale and I apparently also hate homeless people now lmao
I am and just because something is radical doesn’t mean it invites state crackdown. Ultras are more radical than us all and the state won’t crackdown on them because they’re fucking idiots. You haven’t had to spell anything out to me as none of your spelling out has been relevant to what I said.
I didn’t disagree, actually if you read what I said I explicitly agreed on that.
Pro-Palestine (radicalism) + Reach (millions of viewers) = More radical than forum users
Again, I explicitly agreed with this premise, if someone else disagreed take it up with them.
That part I didn’t have issue with. Again, I agreed. I had issues with you saying we need to conflate the two without consideration of the makeup of them. Y’know, as I previously said if you read what I said.
??? Huh? I don’t have any opinions on your opinions on the homeless… I’ve never considered how you feel about the homeless before, I presume you want the best for them?
Edit: Conflation is what brings about opportunism, even if you yourself simply misused it and have proper understanding, as you mentioned with the repeated struggle sessions over not burning the fucking Zionist entities flag there are obviously people that susceptible. Such a type would see that and feel what you stated as written feels intuitive correct and would use that as some litmus test which while it sometimes works I feel would lead to all types of opportunists passing as well which was my sole is.
I think otherwise you’re correct.
Except I did make consideration of the makeup, hence the fact I specified “Pro-Palestine politics” from the start and throughout the thread, YOU’RE the one who changed the makeup to fuckin Obamacare, and asked me “is Obama radical?”
Yes, if you change the formula you’re gonna get a different answer, good thing I didn’t just say radicalism without any qualification and specified from the beginning, but that didn’t matter three comments ago, because we had to dunk even tho the dunk didn’t make any sense
Yes you said pro-palestine politics with the loudest and most visible voice.
Everyone on this site is pro-palestine (dubiously with some of the shit I see but I digress) thus making it seem that radicalism is more with a bigger reach.
And typically when doing word equivalency equations, the core component is that in the parenthesis and the part on the outside is treated as instantaneous not as qualitative so I read it that way as well as the fact you’ve reference the radicalization separately:
So you’ve mentioned it in an instantaneous way that makes it seem like the form of radicalization is instance based for what you were saying.
I’m not dunking on you and was seeking clarification because I’ve seen an opportunist suspectable bent on this site and thought your statement had room for those susceptible to misinterpret. I don’t know what your problem with me is, but I thank you for sufficiently clarifying.
Like I said in another comment to another user, One’s expression of radicalism is often ELEVATED by one’s reach, and one’s reach can be defined by one’s radicalism, that’s been my point from the start, far from being “unrelated” or even “equivalent” they interact with each other
Reach helps with the radicalization of other people, one’s personal radicalism can define HOW you use your reach, this describes Hasan Piker perfectly, I’m not saying radicalism and reach are the same thing
I’m been saying they can be linked, they can have a relationship, radicalism without any degree of reach is simply someone talking to themself, it’s still radical, but it’s not useful is it?
I’m pointing at an interaction between two things and the resulting utility and making a comparison, frankly I’m shocked how this went over so many people’s heads
I’m at work and responding from my inbox not the thread so if you addressed this somewhere else I haven’t seen it and I’m sorry if you’ve had to repeat yourself because of that.
This comment I fully agree with.