BF2S Forums America is Real-Life 1984.

Shahter wrote:

my life in russia began in 1976, when i was born the way pretty much every other human being gets into this world. i've been living here ever since and have seen with my own eyes what a "russian historian" had to gather during short visits and via e-mail and skype. i've actually spoken to actual people who actually treat actual addicts for actual drug dependencies. i'm also friends with some former russian police officers who have seen even more on the subject from the perspective that leaves no doubt whatsoever. what do your "academics" have on that?


you don't get it, do you? yes, soviets weren't really concerned with those who abused drugs, nor were they any good at treating the addictions. what they were really good at is huntung down and destroying those who made and sold the fucking drugs. that was their way of addressing the problem and they were very successful with it.

Jay wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Everyone understands the "point" you keep trying to make. You know Russia sucks but are sure it isn't much better outside of Russia. Literally everyone else thinks that is either bitterness or Stockholm syndrome.

speaking for "literally everyone"... well, when you grow older, it'll pass.

We have been through this like 20 times.

i still have to hear any coherent argument for why literally everyone think what they think. unlike you and literally everyone i was born and lived for some time in soviet union and been around the world. and i'm still waiting for at least some explanation why does literally everyone keep telling me, what my home country was/is like, when literally no one have been here.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're not even old enough to have lived under the communist government. You seem to have a very rosy view of how things were, and it goes against everything we in the west have been taught. Yes, some of that is a bit of propaganda that has been turned into 'fact', but you can't deny that the brutality with which the system was implemented was unconscionable. We in the West have images burnished in our minds of Soviet citizens waiting in lines wrapping around the block waiting for their daily bread ration, with many people going home disappointed. We have heard tales of how almost every piece of machinery produced by the USSR was a piece of shit produced by shoddy workmanship right off the assembly line. We have heard stories about the extreme dichotomy between those who were members of the Party, and everyone else. Dachas in the suburbs, special driving lanes in Moscow, imported and forbidden food etc.

I'm not even going to touch on the economics of scale and how breaking up large estates and turning them into small communal farms would absolutely destroy, and set backwards, an economy. Ok, maybe I will actually. When you break up large estates and give smaller parcels out to people to farm on their own, they become tied to the land even more than they were as serfs. Their entire income and livelihood is dependent on farming that small plot and there is no chance for them to become more efficient. Only when you have large farms does it become economically feasible to mechanize production with things like tractors and combines. To be a nation of subsistence farmers is not an ideal that any nation should strive for, one season of bad weather and you have mass famines, see: Africa.

I'm sorry, but I really can't think of a single thing that the USSR did right. Shoddy, rationed medical care for the masses was an improvement I guess...

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

metaphysical or cosmic irony is different from and goes beyond Socratic irony. the latter presented the figure of the eiron, the ironist who is able to laugh at himself. crafty, given to understatement, he is invariably in command of the situation, the fox who is able to outwit the dissembler. Socrates repeatedly employed his dialectical method to satirize beliefs that were without foundation or people who espoused wrong views. thus irony, running the whole gamut of emotional effects from the subtle and the gentle to the cruel and the cutting, can be utilized as an instrument of satire. but metaphysical irony in the twentieth century portrays a hero who, while retaining the Socratic intellect and the Socratic method of questioning every revered truth, transcends his role as dissembler; as ironist he ceases to be heroic or becomes heroic in an entirely different sense. he is overwhelmed by a world beyond his comprehension. like the underground man dostoevski described, he may revolt against reason and logic and science, but he cannot cope with his absurd fate.

- charles i. glickberg PhD (colombia, penn state), the ironic vision in modern literature, 1969.

Many of us use, at least occasionally, the style of legal pedagogy known as the Socratic Method. Most students have heard of the Socratic Method; some remember Professor Kingsfield from The Paper Chase and the terror his students felt every time they entered his Contracts class. Kingsfield's performance is an exaggerated and outdated caricature of the Socratic Method; this essay will provide you a more accurate picture of the interactions among law professors and students that occur in many University of Chicago Law School classrooms.

The day of the relentless Socratic professor who ended every sentence with a question mark is over. University of Chicago professors who rely on the Socratic Method today use participatory learning and discussions with a few students on whom they call (in some classrooms, randomly) to explore very difficult legal concepts and principles. The effort is a cooperative one in which the teacher and students work to understand an issue more completely.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-06-16 05:30:52)

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-06-16 05:49:14)

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

now it is evident that you are factually wrong: "no one cares". ok. nice maturity levels. the good old roc18 capitulation.

i should start quote-bombing you more often. you shut the fuck up real neatly. unlike normally when you like the sound of your own, ill-informed voice a little too much.

Last edited by specops10-4 (2013-06-16 12:04:21)

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

uuuh. i've actually read socrates' dialogues. i've read plato. i've read most of aristotle. that is how it was historically used. if it has come to mean something different, then that's a modern interpretation. go read a socratic dialogue. tell me that sarcasm isn't used as an allegory towards righting wrong/ethical transgression. let me know when you've read some socrates. continue quoting random web articles you find, though. excellente.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-06-17 03:15:22)