|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 03 2017 19:02 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 18:58 Wegandi wrote:On November 03 2017 18:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 03 2017 18:48 bo1b wrote:On November 03 2017 18:39 Nebuchad wrote:On November 03 2017 17:18 bo1b wrote:On November 03 2017 17:14 Aquanim wrote:On November 03 2017 17:06 bo1b wrote:On November 03 2017 14:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 03 2017 13:35 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
[quote]
I guess those priviliged athletes can kneel if they want.On the flipside people can also turn the tv off.Ratings down 18% in 2 years, not surprised papa johns pulled their ad campaign with those sort of numbers.
Also the racism now is coming from the left.Anyone hear about the concert in Canada recently where the musician on stage called on white people to go to the back and women of colour to come to the front.Basically if you are in an interracial relationship she split you up.The modern left is racist and is now fighting internally due to identity politics.It is destroying itself before our eyes.
This shit is so insultingly disingenuous that it amazes me that you, Danglars, and others in this thread can operate with a worldview like this. You desperately cling to the tiniest examples of people on the left doing something wrong and call it the apocalypse ("the left is collapsing", "the left is racist"), while simultaneously trivializing anything and everything the right does wrong, including regular blatant displays of both overt and institutionalized racism and sexism. I never see you, Danglars, xDaunt, etc. unequivocally condemning the incredibly strong resurgence of white nationalism and blatant racism that is running through the right, yet any tiny display of something that could possibly be displayed as racist, sexist, or otherwise just stupid from the left sends you guys into a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy of "AH HAH! SEE! THE LEFT IS TUUUUUURRRRIBBBBLLLEEE!" It's simply pathetic and it destroys any kind of credibility that you have in an intellectual discussion. This shit is so insultingly disingenuous that it amazes me that you, Plansix, and others in this thread can operate with a worldview like this. You desperately cling to the tiniest examples of people on the right doing something wrong and call it the apocalypse ("incredibly strong resurgence of white nationalism", "blatant racism that is running through the right"), while simultaneously trivializing anything and everything the left does wrong, including regular blatant displays of both overt and institutionalized racism and sexism. I never see you, Plansix, Greenhorizons, etc. unequivocally condemning the incredibly strong resurgence of segregation and the blatant sexism that is running through the left, yet any tiny display of something that could possibly be displayed as racist, sexist, or otherwise just stupid from the left sends you guys into a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy of "AH HAH! SEE! THE RIGHT IS TUUUUUURRRRIBBBBLLLEEE!" It's simply pathetic and it destroys any kind of credibility that you have in an intellectual discussion. Just to check, is this something you actually believe, or are you just making a sarcastic point? I believe the truth is somewhat in the middle, and that I'm not losing sleep over berkeley riots any more then I am over morons thinking they should be nazis. In other words I wrote exactly what I believe, and I think hysteria isn't a good look when anything on either side of the middle starts to look ridiculous. This apparently wise outlook starts to become criticizable when one of the side is actually deserving of a ridiculous portrayal. Would that be the side running around burning universities down? Very easy to pretend one side is dramatically worse if you ignore all of your own sides sins. The difference is in the core ideology. Of course some leftists are dumb assholes. You take any big group and see whether you don't find some dumb assholes. The far right, though, has an ideology of pure hatred. This is worse. They're free to have their opinions but it doesn't mean that they aren't completely abhorrent. The ideology of the far right is worse. Often, hell is paved with good intentions. Those "good" Communists only killed about 10x amount of people that Nazi's and their hatred did. Same goes with do-gooders. The incessant holier than thou authoritarians are the worst, just pure unadultered awfulness. So, please, don't act like just because "hatred" it's worse. Personally, I'd much rather deal with those people than the former (if it was a choice to axe one or the other instead of both...e.g. a gradient of terribleness). What's your actual point here? It seems like you think its better to have bad intentions, and you're angry at me for disagreeing. Also, no-one mentioned communists or who would be worse in charge until you turned up with communists vs nazis post. We were talking about far left vs far right ideology.
Who the hell do you think the "far left" and "far right" are, unless those Hammers and Sickles at Antifa marches, and Nazi paraphernalia at those tiki-torch marches aren't indicative of their overarching ideologies.
The point is, a persons intentions are irrelevant. The only thing that matters in the physical world we live in is outcomes. Communists have much worse outcome on human life. That's indisputable. You thinking intentions have more weight than outcome is indicative of the rot of western educational systems.
It's the same argument as what is worse, indiscriminate killings, or targeted killings? Often, indiscriminate killing results in higher mortality numbers, but most people would say the targeted killings are worse, even if they are less in number. I cannot even fathom the mental contortions one has to make to come to that conclusion. It's why "Communism" to me is the much more dangerous threat, because it's cloaked in language that's more appealing. Nazism is not a difficult ideology to defeat and is less dangerous based on historical outcomes. So for me, I tend to weight one greater than the other.
Care to elaborate on why you think the ideology that killed less people and is less appealing is the greater threat?
|
I think that people need to give Nazi's far more credit then they do in regards to how many people they killed. If Stalins reign is responsible for the deaths of millions via famine, then surely Hitlers reign should be responsible for the deaths of millions via war.
It's a nice feature that capitalism gets to assume everyone would die without out it so when people starve, commit suicide, die from stress/preventable illness/poverty, massive slaughters in "third world" countries to gain access to resources, etc... they don't have to take any responsibility
Can you give a single example from the last few hundred years or so of any system which has worked any where near as peacefully as capitalism on anything larger then a small group of people (ie, not nomadic)?
What is your solution?
Where I'm standing it's an even nicer feature of socialism/communism/whateverism to impoverish millions of your own people and then work them to death, then claim it was done in the best of intentions.
Exploitation of poorer nations which cannot defend themselves is absolutely and totally unforgivable, but I'm not sure if that's the fault of capitalism or the fault of politicians finding themselves in power. It's certainly not just the west which does it, nor the wealthy for that matter either.
|
On November 03 2017 19:14 bo1b wrote:
I think that people need to give Nazi's far more credit then they do in regards to how many people they killed. If Stalins reign is responsible for the deaths of millions via famine, then surely Hitlers reign should be responsible for the deaths of millions via war.
Was it fascism that killed 1/3rd of Cambodia? Was it fascism that killed 40-60+ million Chinese? Was it fascism that saw Che oversee mass executions in Cuba? The atrocities in Eastern Germany? Talking about the Holodomar as if that is the striking difference in democide numbers is laughable. Communism death total dwarfs Fascism. Fascism is terrible and has resulted in a great deal of historical suffering and death, but it still pales in comparison.
Also, King Leopold is worse than Hitler, but hardly ever gets mentioned. History is very selective.
|
|
|
On November 03 2017 19:18 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 19:14 bo1b wrote:
I think that people need to give Nazi's far more credit then they do in regards to how many people they killed. If Stalins reign is responsible for the deaths of millions via famine, then surely Hitlers reign should be responsible for the deaths of millions via war. Was it fascism that killed 1/3rd of Cambodia? Was it fascism that killed 40-60+ million Chinese? Was it fascism that saw Che oversee mass executions in Cuba? The atrocities in Eastern Germany? Talking about the Holodomar as if that is the striking difference in democide numbers is laughable. Communism death total dwarfs Fascism. Fascism is terrible and has resulted in a great deal of historical suffering and death, but it still pales in comparison. Also, King Leopold is worse than Hitler, but hardly ever gets mentioned. History is very selective.
I'm no fan of communism yet the first two world wars are responsible for 10s of millions of deaths, and they absolutely had roots in fascism.
|
On November 03 2017 19:12 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 19:02 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 03 2017 18:58 Wegandi wrote:On November 03 2017 18:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 03 2017 18:48 bo1b wrote:On November 03 2017 18:39 Nebuchad wrote:On November 03 2017 17:18 bo1b wrote:On November 03 2017 17:14 Aquanim wrote:On November 03 2017 17:06 bo1b wrote:On November 03 2017 14:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:
[quote]
This shit is so insultingly disingenuous that it amazes me that you, Danglars, and others in this thread can operate with a worldview like this.
You desperately cling to the tiniest examples of people on the left doing something wrong and call it the apocalypse ("the left is collapsing", "the left is racist"), while simultaneously trivializing anything and everything the right does wrong, including regular blatant displays of both overt and institutionalized racism and sexism. I never see you, Danglars, xDaunt, etc. unequivocally condemning the incredibly strong resurgence of white nationalism and blatant racism that is running through the right, yet any tiny display of something that could possibly be displayed as racist, sexist, or otherwise just stupid from the left sends you guys into a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy of "AH HAH! SEE! THE LEFT IS TUUUUUURRRRIBBBBLLLEEE!"
It's simply pathetic and it destroys any kind of credibility that you have in an intellectual discussion. This shit is so insultingly disingenuous that it amazes me that you, Plansix, and others in this thread can operate with a worldview like this. You desperately cling to the tiniest examples of people on the right doing something wrong and call it the apocalypse ("incredibly strong resurgence of white nationalism", "blatant racism that is running through the right"), while simultaneously trivializing anything and everything the left does wrong, including regular blatant displays of both overt and institutionalized racism and sexism. I never see you, Plansix, Greenhorizons, etc. unequivocally condemning the incredibly strong resurgence of segregation and the blatant sexism that is running through the left, yet any tiny display of something that could possibly be displayed as racist, sexist, or otherwise just stupid from the left sends you guys into a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy of "AH HAH! SEE! THE RIGHT IS TUUUUUURRRRIBBBBLLLEEE!" It's simply pathetic and it destroys any kind of credibility that you have in an intellectual discussion. Just to check, is this something you actually believe, or are you just making a sarcastic point? I believe the truth is somewhat in the middle, and that I'm not losing sleep over berkeley riots any more then I am over morons thinking they should be nazis. In other words I wrote exactly what I believe, and I think hysteria isn't a good look when anything on either side of the middle starts to look ridiculous. This apparently wise outlook starts to become criticizable when one of the side is actually deserving of a ridiculous portrayal. Would that be the side running around burning universities down? Very easy to pretend one side is dramatically worse if you ignore all of your own sides sins. The difference is in the core ideology. Of course some leftists are dumb assholes. You take any big group and see whether you don't find some dumb assholes. The far right, though, has an ideology of pure hatred. This is worse. They're free to have their opinions but it doesn't mean that they aren't completely abhorrent. The ideology of the far right is worse. Often, hell is paved with good intentions. Those "good" Communists only killed about 10x amount of people that Nazi's and their hatred did. Same goes with do-gooders. The incessant holier than thou authoritarians are the worst, just pure unadultered awfulness. So, please, don't act like just because "hatred" it's worse. Personally, I'd much rather deal with those people than the former (if it was a choice to axe one or the other instead of both...e.g. a gradient of terribleness). What's your actual point here? It seems like you think its better to have bad intentions, and you're angry at me for disagreeing. Also, no-one mentioned communists or who would be worse in charge until you turned up with communists vs nazis post. We were talking about far left vs far right ideology. Who the hell do you think the "far left" and "far right" are, unless those Hammers and Sickles at Antifa marches, and Nazi paraphernalia at those tiki-torch marches aren't indicative of their overarching ideologies. The point is, a persons intentions are irrelevant. The only thing that matters in the physical world we live in is outcomes. Communists have much worse outcome on human life. That's indisputable. You thinking intentions have more weight than outcome is indicative of the rot of western educational systems. It's the same argument as what is worse, indiscriminate killings, or targeted killings? Often, indiscriminate killing results in higher mortality numbers, but most people would say the targeted killings are worse, even if they are less in number. I cannot even fathom the mental contortions one has to make to come to that conclusion. It's why "Communism" to me is the much more dangerous threat, because it's cloaked in language that's more appealing. Nazism is not a difficult ideology to defeat and is less dangerous based on historical outcomes. So for me, I tend to weight one greater than the other. Care to elaborate on why you think the ideology that killed less people and is less appealing is the greater threat?
Neither ideology is the same now as it was then. Its playing out in a completely different context. I would say that right now there isn't a chance of communism happening in the USA, so communism is zero threat. If leftists take over you are more likely to just see a more socialist version of normal American capitalism. That's the way democracy works. You aren't going to have a far left economic takeover.
Far right ideologues have the president's ear, so I would say they are the greater threat. Not only that but you can see their fingerprints on his social policies.
|
Thanks for the chart  I can't read German so I'm making do with google translate. I know this will never happen but I'd love a country by country thing to see the variations by political make up.
|
We have vast historical data, but you choose to use this silly example. Thanks for proving my point.
|
This has got to be the highest level of whataboutism I have every seen.
|
On November 03 2017 19:35 Plansix wrote:
This has got to be the highest level of whataboutism I have every seen.
I suppose that makes everything brought up ok then.
|
On November 03 2017 19:24 Wegandi wrote:We have vast historical data, but you choose to use this silly example. Thanks for proving my point.
I just gave you historical data of what actually is happennning right now in acountry thats pretty comparable to the US.
But you rather talk about despotic regimes that not exist anymore.
This never was about facists vs communists until you came around.
|
Here is some homework for Wegandi and bo1b:
Describe the ideology of antifa (not communists) in your own words. What are their aims, how do they want to achieve them?
Describe the ideology of the alt-right in your own words. What are their aims how do they want to achieve them?
Pay particularly close attention to how the groups see themselves in relation to the state. Use preferably sources from within the groups to understand them.
Related to this are two riddles you can solve if you do your work diligently:
Why do we not see antifa marches in the same way we see alt-right and/or nazi marches?
Why are we talking about antifa and not the black bloc?
Bonus for Wegandi (as a libertarian you should know these): Is antifa in the way they are structured closer to anarchism or to orthodox communism? What was the historical relationship between adherents of those groups? What is their respective relation with the state?
|
On November 03 2017 19:38 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 19:35 Plansix wrote:
This has got to be the highest level of whataboutism I have every seen. I suppose that makes everything brought up ok then.
Have we compared which is worse: communism or cancer? Which has killed more? How about fascism vs slavery?
|
Norway28674 Posts
On November 03 2017 18:56 Wegandi wrote:
Holy shit are we really arguing who is worse, communists or nazi's? Calling the person who thinks both of these groups are terrible in the wrong here, is just baffling. On the one hand, Communists killed at least 100+ million in democide, while Nazism....not as many. Take that for what you will.
(For the record, both sides are bat shit crazy authoritarians)
This continues to be nonsense. You don't see current day communists supportive of Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot. They distance themselves from them, saying they were not communists and that they were in fact horrible despots who cannot be defended in any way. Some are more positive to like, Fidel Castro (without denying that he, also, was a dictator, and without being supportive of the imprisonment or torture of political dissidents), but for all Castro's faults, he's not remotely close to Hitler on that 'scale of badness' you mention later.
Current day nazis tattoo swastikas and think Hitler was a great guy, they use 88 as code, heil hitler as a greeting. Their best attempt at distancing themselves is through saying 'the holocaust didn't kill as many jews as the jews claim it did' - not that Hitler was wrong.
China is also more populous than Germany, and blaming 'communism' for every starvation-related death in China or Russia is no different from blaming 'capitalism' on starvation-related deaths in India, or even fucking slavery.
You can, of course, be critical of communism and communists. That's obviously completely valid. But nazism is on an entirely different scale of hatefulness. For the record I also think leftists should stop calling people nazis (even self-described racists and white supremacists don't deserve that branding) - it's an ideology which primarily differs from fascism (which is a much more apt comparison to communism) through its attempt at exterminating other, inferior races.
In short, if you find me a Stalinist, feel free to compare him to a Nazi, but I'm pretty certain you can poll 100 self-professed communists about whether Stalin was a swell guy, and you won't get positive feedback.
|
Norway28674 Posts
On November 03 2017 19:06 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 18:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 03 2017 18:55 bo1b wrote:On November 03 2017 18:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 03 2017 18:51 bo1b wrote:
There's a relatively famous university on the west coast of America called Berkeley.
For the absolute pedant in you waiting to get out, I think you know exactly what I meant by burning. How long was it burnt down? When did they rebuild it? The easier way is to just ask me what I meant by burning, apparently not. What did you mean by "running around burning universities down"? It sounds like you didn't mean "running around burning universities down"? On November 03 2017 18:58 Wegandi wrote:On November 03 2017 18:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 03 2017 18:48 bo1b wrote:On November 03 2017 18:39 Nebuchad wrote:On November 03 2017 17:18 bo1b wrote:On November 03 2017 17:14 Aquanim wrote:On November 03 2017 17:06 bo1b wrote:On November 03 2017 14:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:
[quote]
This shit is so insultingly disingenuous that it amazes me that you, Danglars, and others in this thread can operate with a worldview like this.
You desperately cling to the tiniest examples of people on the left doing something wrong and call it the apocalypse ("the left is collapsing", "the left is racist"), while simultaneously trivializing anything and everything the right does wrong, including regular blatant displays of both overt and institutionalized racism and sexism. I never see you, Danglars, xDaunt, etc. unequivocally condemning the incredibly strong resurgence of white nationalism and blatant racism that is running through the right, yet any tiny display of something that could possibly be displayed as racist, sexist, or otherwise just stupid from the left sends you guys into a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy of "AH HAH! SEE! THE LEFT IS TUUUUUURRRRIBBBBLLLEEE!"
It's simply pathetic and it destroys any kind of credibility that you have in an intellectual discussion. This shit is so insultingly disingenuous that it amazes me that you, Plansix, and others in this thread can operate with a worldview like this. You desperately cling to the tiniest examples of people on the right doing something wrong and call it the apocalypse ("incredibly strong resurgence of white nationalism", "blatant racism that is running through the right"), while simultaneously trivializing anything and everything the left does wrong, including regular blatant displays of both overt and institutionalized racism and sexism. I never see you, Plansix, Greenhorizons, etc. unequivocally condemning the incredibly strong resurgence of segregation and the blatant sexism that is running through the left, yet any tiny display of something that could possibly be displayed as racist, sexist, or otherwise just stupid from the left sends you guys into a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy of "AH HAH! SEE! THE RIGHT IS TUUUUUURRRRIBBBBLLLEEE!" It's simply pathetic and it destroys any kind of credibility that you have in an intellectual discussion. Just to check, is this something you actually believe, or are you just making a sarcastic point? I believe the truth is somewhat in the middle, and that I'm not losing sleep over berkeley riots any more then I am over morons thinking they should be nazis. In other words I wrote exactly what I believe, and I think hysteria isn't a good look when anything on either side of the middle starts to look ridiculous. This apparently wise outlook starts to become criticizable when one of the side is actually deserving of a ridiculous portrayal. Would that be the side running around burning universities down? Very easy to pretend one side is dramatically worse if you ignore all of your own sides sins. The difference is in the core ideology. Of course some leftists are dumb assholes. You take any big group and see whether you don't find some dumb assholes. The far right, though, has an ideology of pure hatred. This is worse. They're free to have their opinions but it doesn't mean that they aren't completely abhorrent. The ideology of the far right is worse. Often, hell is paved with good intentions. Those "good" Communists only killed about 10x amount of people that Nazi's and their hatred did. Same goes with do-gooders. The incessant holier than thou authoritarians are the worst, just pure unadultered awfulness. So, please, don't act like just because "hatred" it's worse. Personally, I'd much rather deal with those people than the former (if it was a choice to axe one or the other instead of both...e.g. a gradient of terribleness). It's a nice feature that capitalism gets to assume everyone would die without out it so when people starve, commit suicide, die from stress/preventable illness/poverty, massive slaughters in third world countries to gain access to resources, etc... they don't have to take any responsibility Can you please point me to an economic system that isn't free-enterprise which has a better track record (both economically and from societal freedom/liberty perspective). I'll be waiting a long time. In the meantime, you have any movie suggestions? (Oh, and by the way, those Scandinavian and European OECD countries you like to point to - are mostly capitalist, and are in the process of rolling back their welfare systems; this is a fairly easy historical point to make since we have a decent sample to choose from. Take Sweden for instance, and look before the welfare system to now. It takes a while before you crush a strong market economy with welfare and socialism. They've been at that point for a bit now and it shows.)
nationalizing natural resources is arguably the single most important reason for Norway's grand success. I mean there's a plethora of policies that have contributed, and I'm not necessarily arguing that we're more socialist than capitalist, but the single most important policy was the nationalization of our oil resources. Our nanny state has also definitely contributes positively to societal cohesion.
|
I think a quick trip to reddit finds people pretty positive of various communist leaders I'd find absolutely despotic. Matter of fact /r/communism has a pretty interesting team of mods with flairs I would say bear a striking resemblance to people such as Mao and Stalin.
As for people in real life looking up to various despots, try flying out to Australia, more importantly Melbourne university around about this time of year during final exams. I'm sure without looking far at all you can find the local wildlife sporting Stalin tattoos.
For a more modern approach to Communism, investigate the current leader of China, and the wonderful human rights record they have currently, both internal and in their immediate circle of power.
|
2774 Posts
Nazism is inherently bad, communism isn't.
|
On November 03 2017 20:19 Nixer wrote:
Nazism is inherently bad, communism isn't.
Why? Actually how old are you, if you don't mind me asking?
|
2774 Posts
By bad I mean synonymous with evil, not bad as in faulty or inadequate.
|
He's old enough to detect a fallacious nod towards a nonexistent golden mean, that much is clear.
"Both sides are the same, there are Mao flairs on Reddit and Melbourne college kids have stupid tattoos! Ha, proved it."
How persuasive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
