|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 29 2026 11:21 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2026 17:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 28 2026 16:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 28 2026 12:25 Razyda wrote:). Are you maybe thinking that calling people nazis, racists, child rapists, or fascists isnt inciting violence? Because you can hardly find more despicable beings than the one named (kinda, if I went back in time I would kill baby Hitler, because apparently nothing makes one goodder than killing innocent babies), and calling people this names can be considered as incitement of violence.
Lastly: you do realise that being called right winger on this forum is considered to be an offence, while being on the left is a virtue?
Are you talking incitement to violence in the legal sense or in the colloquial sense? Either way, it's ridiculous. God forbid someone be correctly categorized as a despicable person. The Nazi / racist / rapist has already incited violence; calling out that person is the least we can do, and doing so is not inherently an incitement of violence. If the point is supposed to be that merely assigning an accurate label isn't going to change that person's beliefs or actions, then that's fair. We can't only assign a label and then walk away, because assigning the label - while hopefully accurate - doesn't fix the problem. But statements like "Trump is a racist" and "Trump is a rapist" are factually accurate and do not incite violence. If someone wanted to add an incitement of violence afterwards, like "Trump is a racist and ought to be murdered", then that tautologically incites violence, but not because of the accurate label "racist". One might also choose to make the argument that publicly assigning these accurate labels may not be the most effective form of communicating issues or a need for change, since these labels might make people defensive or hurt their feelings. But, again, that's not the same thing as claiming that calling a fascist "a fascist" is inciting violence. This is fun. That you I believe: Show nested quote +On October 16 2025 19:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 16 2025 19:12 pmh wrote:
The democrats should stop focussing on the wrong things as distractions. They are beeing played like crazy.
Its easy to recognize the wrong things. Its what is most upvoted on the reddit politics forum and what is pushed artificially as centre of attention.
The epstein case in general , the ice stuff and now this nazi group chat which has at least 3-4 threads with botted upvotes on the reddit politics forum.
Its also easy to recognize the right things for the democrats to focus on. Its what has only 1 thread on reddit politics forum with little upvotes. Or its news which is even completely banned from discussing on the reddit politics forum while still clearly relevant (like all journalists walking out of the pentagon today. Which has zero threads on reddit politics forum).
Nazi group chat really. Is that what will turn public opinion? Trudeau has blackface pictures released nothing happend. Its not what the centre cares about.
The "left" needs to win over the centre. They will never get anywhere without the centre.
That is why all journalists walking out of pentagon is banned from discussion on reddit politics forum. Because it apeals to the centre,it is something the centre can get angry about.
That is also why ice and epstein is pushed on reddit poltics forum. Because the centre is not to unhappy in general with what ice claims to be doing,getting criminal illegals out. The centre also is not bussy with epstein which is basicly 3 year old news recycled and something that apeals to conspiracy theorists.
Its a lost case either way but still.
I don't think that it's necessarily "wrong" to point out that Trump allegedly raped children, that people are being attacked and abducted by an American gestapo, and that Republicans are racist and fascist... as long as other points are also being made (e.g., that the Republicans have shut down the government because they got caught removing healthcare from Americans). As long as a diverse number of topics are being covered (healthcare, living wages, taxes, education, etc.), then I don't mind also including the three you dismissed. Assuming your assertion about needing to win over the center is true, why do you think the center doesn't care about those three issues you listed? That also you: Show nested quote +On November 28 2018 01:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 28 2018 01:31 Plansix wrote:So I believe it might be worth reporting because the “OK” symbol has nothing to do with products being made in America. It recently has become a low key way people to show support for “White Power” and racism in general. Due to that, I don’t think taking that ticker in good faith is a smart move. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK_(gesture)#As_white_power_symbol I see, thank you! I'm also aware of it used in "the circle game" where if you make the sign below your waist and someone else looks at it, you get to punch them. Perhaps we should be proactive and start punching people that make this sign, just in case they're playing the circle game they're white supremacists. + Show Spoiler +I'm only half joking, if this is indeed some alt-right/ white power/ Nazi-esque bullshit. spoiler part for easier read: "I'm only half joking, if this is indeed some alt-right/ white power/ Nazi-esque bullshit."
Thank you for providing more evidence of how merely using an accurate label doesn't necessarily incite violence, and how even suggesting violence may or may not actually cause violence. These two sentences are not the same: "I think X is a bad person" and "I think X is a bad person and they should be beaten up as a result". If you want to cite any additional examples that continue to strengthen my position and weaken yours, be my guest!
Honestly, it just sounds like you're upset that Republicans are being called out for supporting racism and fascism, and that some people are okay with punching Nazis. Maybe spend a little more time scrutinizing discriminatory and unethical beliefs and actions, and a little less time clutching your pearls when you see bigotry and immorality being properly identified. It's also wild that you would condemn someone for condemning a child rapist, instead of you condemning the child rapist.
Also, WombaT's counterexample to your claim that left-wing posters are always seen as virtuous (GH was cited) shouldn't be hand-waved away.
|
On March 16 2026 15:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Your reading comprehension is off. I'm not negative towards ai as a tool for learning and I had no issues with baal posting the summary as a source.
I do have issues with people posting chatgpt posts as arguments but that is different.
I read this one:
On March 13 2026 23:26 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2026 22:07 Simberto wrote:On March 13 2026 16:31 baal wrote:On March 11 2026 22:16 LightSpectra wrote:On March 11 2026 15:31 baal wrote:On March 09 2026 23:51 LightSpectra wrote:On March 09 2026 10:37 baal wrote:On March 08 2026 22:35 LightSpectra wrote:
Afghanistan is a country of est. 40 million and the NATO mission committed no more than 18,000 troops at a time to holding it. The total U. S. armed forces plus reserves is over 2,000,000 people, so the security force in Afghanistan is about 0.009% of what you're calling "the full force of the US military". there werent 40 million taliban combatants and the RoE would be very differnt, the US military can't just carpet bomb Los Angeles to kill armed citizens, the more the military escalates aggression the more internal turnmoil within it ranks happen, soldiers aren't going to blow up their own families, thats how civil war factions are formed. What Afghanistan proved is that no matter how many planes and tanks you have to control a population you need boots on the ground and people to surrender, unless you are willing to obliterate them which isn't an option in a civil war. What Afghanistan proved is that 18,000 troops being supplied from the other hemisphere can't hold a mountainous country of 40 million. It in no way proves that no government on Earth is capable of winning a civil war against insurgents using guerilla tactics, especially the richest government with the most well-funded military in human history. A perfectly loyal army, willing to kill their own friends and neighbors, to level its own infrastructure, that is not a realistic scenario in a civil war, however against an unarmed populous you only need a few bullets to seed enough fear to drive ppl into submission. You are again ignoring that many governments have indeed won civil wars/defeated insurgents throughout history. You can't just throw out platitudes and then cherrypick evidence for it. If civilians in Venezuela and Cuba were armed they would have staged an armed resistance that would likely develop into toppling the regime, maybe some external actors fund one side or the other, but the thing is, if the population is armed its much more difficult for dictators to take root. Hilariously uninformed. There are numerous militias in Venezuela. It's lawful to own personal weapons in Cuba. Talking with some of you is just... bizarre, you call others uninformed and then throw the dumbest imaginable statement ever like Cuban civilians owning guns. It's literally one of the countries with least civilian gun ownership in the entire world for fucks sake. In Venezuela a civilian carrying a gun has a 20 year sentence, the militias are pro-regime to suppress civilians you maniac. Please don't use that "AI overview" shit. We should not normalize it. There is an actual internet out there, with actual sources. Use those. They are right below the AI spam in the search. Yeah, it says 'thegunwriter' right under, and searching for 'thegunwriter' and 'cuba' I get sources like https://thegunwriter.substack.com/p/q-and-a-with-a-cuban-expert-on-the and why cuba has one of the lowest civilian gun rates, and it seems reasonably legit, and baal's statement seems largely correct.
As you overall agreeing with Simberto point about not using AI as a source, but validating baal argument after checking the sources provided.
On June 04 2025 06:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Honestly Razyda you should just pay a visit to chatgpt and ask questions like 'how come nazism and fascism are considered far-right ideologies when the nazi program included policies that clearly could have been part of a socialist party's agenda' and hopefully, you'll end up being wiser. You can't just be like 'well I disagree' when you're talking about well-established definitions of words, because you're not the one who gets to define them, and if you insist on using a different, personalized set of definitions when you argue, people are inevitably going to think you make no sense.
Here it seems like you suggesting to me to relay strictly on chatgpt to end up being "wiser"
Apologies if i read it wrong, end of the day nobody is perfect.
Out of curiosity I did just what you suggested (in google Ai however rather than chatgpt) and after few questions we agreed that there is no effective difference...
|
It's hard to take your opinions about inciting violence seriously when you're voting for people who actually established secret police who execute civilians in the street, brag about doing nothing to stop school shootings, threatened to sick "the Second Amendment people" on a Democrat if they win, etc. and your biggest concern is the hypothetical possibility that maybe one day some innocent conservative might potentially be harmed by someone who misunderstood what "it's ok to punch a Nazi" means. It really just sounds like weaponized hypocritical concern trolling.
I mean, last year you "joked" that Trump should tweet he's sending in the army to reclaim California. Surely there's no hypothetical civilians getting hurt by Trump supporters in that scenario is there?
|
United States43785 Posts
It's pretty hard to take him seriously on any subject when his debut opinion on TL was that the UK is weird for having a whole day celebrating Guy Fawkes even though he was a little bit of a terrorist.
|
On March 29 2026 11:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2026 11:21 Razyda wrote:On March 28 2026 17:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 28 2026 16:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 28 2026 12:25 Razyda wrote:). Are you maybe thinking that calling people nazis, racists, child rapists, or fascists isnt inciting violence? Because you can hardly find more despicable beings than the one named (kinda, if I went back in time I would kill baby Hitler, because apparently nothing makes one goodder than killing innocent babies), and calling people this names can be considered as incitement of violence.
Lastly: you do realise that being called right winger on this forum is considered to be an offence, while being on the left is a virtue?
Are you talking incitement to violence in the legal sense or in the colloquial sense? Either way, it's ridiculous. God forbid someone be correctly categorized as a despicable person. The Nazi / racist / rapist has already incited violence; calling out that person is the least we can do, and doing so is not inherently an incitement of violence. If the point is supposed to be that merely assigning an accurate label isn't going to change that person's beliefs or actions, then that's fair. We can't only assign a label and then walk away, because assigning the label - while hopefully accurate - doesn't fix the problem. But statements like "Trump is a racist" and "Trump is a rapist" are factually accurate and do not incite violence. If someone wanted to add an incitement of violence afterwards, like "Trump is a racist and ought to be murdered", then that tautologically incites violence, but not because of the accurate label "racist". One might also choose to make the argument that publicly assigning these accurate labels may not be the most effective form of communicating issues or a need for change, since these labels might make people defensive or hurt their feelings. But, again, that's not the same thing as claiming that calling a fascist "a fascist" is inciting violence. This is fun. That you I believe: On October 16 2025 19:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 16 2025 19:12 pmh wrote:
The democrats should stop focussing on the wrong things as distractions. They are beeing played like crazy.
Its easy to recognize the wrong things. Its what is most upvoted on the reddit politics forum and what is pushed artificially as centre of attention.
The epstein case in general , the ice stuff and now this nazi group chat which has at least 3-4 threads with botted upvotes on the reddit politics forum.
Its also easy to recognize the right things for the democrats to focus on. Its what has only 1 thread on reddit politics forum with little upvotes. Or its news which is even completely banned from discussing on the reddit politics forum while still clearly relevant (like all journalists walking out of the pentagon today. Which has zero threads on reddit politics forum).
Nazi group chat really. Is that what will turn public opinion? Trudeau has blackface pictures released nothing happend. Its not what the centre cares about.
The "left" needs to win over the centre. They will never get anywhere without the centre.
That is why all journalists walking out of pentagon is banned from discussion on reddit politics forum. Because it apeals to the centre,it is something the centre can get angry about.
That is also why ice and epstein is pushed on reddit poltics forum. Because the centre is not to unhappy in general with what ice claims to be doing,getting criminal illegals out. The centre also is not bussy with epstein which is basicly 3 year old news recycled and something that apeals to conspiracy theorists.
Its a lost case either way but still.
I don't think that it's necessarily "wrong" to point out that Trump allegedly raped children, that people are being attacked and abducted by an American gestapo, and that Republicans are racist and fascist... as long as other points are also being made (e.g., that the Republicans have shut down the government because they got caught removing healthcare from Americans). As long as a diverse number of topics are being covered (healthcare, living wages, taxes, education, etc.), then I don't mind also including the three you dismissed. Assuming your assertion about needing to win over the center is true, why do you think the center doesn't care about those three issues you listed? That also you: On November 28 2018 01:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 28 2018 01:31 Plansix wrote:So I believe it might be worth reporting because the “OK” symbol has nothing to do with products being made in America. It recently has become a low key way people to show support for “White Power” and racism in general. Due to that, I don’t think taking that ticker in good faith is a smart move. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK_(gesture)#As_white_power_symbol I see, thank you! I'm also aware of it used in "the circle game" where if you make the sign below your waist and someone else looks at it, you get to punch them. Perhaps we should be proactive and start punching people that make this sign, just in case they're playing the circle game they're white supremacists. + Show Spoiler +I'm only half joking, if this is indeed some alt-right/ white power/ Nazi-esque bullshit. spoiler part for easier read: "I'm only half joking, if this is indeed some alt-right/ white power/ Nazi-esque bullshit." Thank you for providing more evidence of how merely using an accurate label doesn't necessarily incite violence, and how even suggesting violence may or may not actually cause violence. These two sentences are not the same: "I think X is a bad person" and "I think X is a bad person and they should be beaten up as a result". If you want to cite any additional examples that continue to strengthen my position and weaken yours, be my guest! Honestly, it just sounds like you're upset that Republicans are being called out for supporting racism and fascism, and that some people are okay with punching Nazis. Maybe spend a little more time scrutinizing discriminatory and unethical beliefs and actions, and a little less time clutching your pearls when you see bigotry and immorality being properly identified. It's also wild that you would condemn someone for condemning a child rapist, instead of you condemning the child rapist.Also, WombaT's counterexample to your claim that left-wing posters are always seen as virtuous (GH was cited) shouldn't be hand-waved away.
Dude what are you doing, I had better opinion of you.
You literally labeled all of republicans racists and fascists, after advocating "pro active stance".
I am honestly disappointed, you are making it to easy. do you really think that all republicans are racists and fascists?
Because that what your post and doubling down on it seems to say. Surely it is not inciting violence when you say punch a nazi and later say this guy is a nazi? 
On March 29 2026 12:16 KwarK wrote:
It's pretty hard to take him seriously on any subject when his debut opinion on TL was that the UK is weird for having a whole day celebrating Guy Fawkes even though he was a little bit of a terrorist.
That you:
On February 06 2026 09:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2026 08:02 Razyda wrote:On February 06 2026 01:16 LightSpectra wrote:
All the people who voted for a child molester seem extremely confident that the people who didn't vote for a child molester would have probably done so in the hypothetical they made up. You mean the people who voted for a guy who had "probably not appropriate" showers with his daughter? I have showers with my daughter.
|
On March 29 2026 11:21 Razyda wrote:
Yeah he was, but what does that matter? Everyone knew what his point was, but decided to nitpick, on quite frankly, irrelevant bullshit, if thats not arguing in bad faith I dont know what is. And yes some people did engage honestly, but their post were drowned in bunch of irrelevant stuff, so i guess goal achieved...
Kinda curious where you see this. If you don't mind, follow along with my understanding :
+ Show Spoiler +On March 21 2026 15:20 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2026 14:09 baal wrote:On March 19 2026 17:08 EnDeR_ wrote:
Happy to include denying the holodomor illegal. Is there a big group of people going around denying that it happened? YES! almost every hard communist and tankie I've talked with denies de holodomor, its a mainstream hard leftist idea, just as its common hard right wingers deny the holocaust. I don't think you can make the equivalence of the hammer and sickle and nazi swastikas; one stands for an ideology about resource distribution, the other stands for white supremacy and antisemitism. It is obviously true that atrocities have been committed under the banner of communism, but the stated intent was never "eradicate the jews" or "purify the white race" for any of these regimes, if you see what I mean. The key difference is intent, even if the outcomes aren't too dissimilar in practice. The stated intent of the Nazi party was never to exterminate the jews, yet they did in secret just like the stated intent of Soviets wasn't to exterminate the Kulaks, yet they did in secret. -When somebody says "eat the rich" they don't actually mean to kill the rich, despise that historically they always have done it, it just means, redistribute. -When a muslim chants in the streets "Khaibar Khaibar ya Yahud" they don't actually mean to massacre the jews like they did in Khaibar, its just a chant of the oppressed against Israel. -When somebody says "seig heil" oh ok that is hate speech, arrest him. That's ridiculous hates speech laws are enforced however the people in power see fit, and as I've said before, there will be a time where the people in power think very different than you and will apply these laws in ways you won't like. Source for the bolded?
The context of this conversation is _EnDeR and baal talking about free speech / free speech absolutism. They're specifically talking about how baal has attempted to outline communist symbology as an equally valid target of restrictions to free speech as nazi symbology.
_EnDeR suggests false equivalence, saying that says the stated intent (of communism) was never "eradicate the jews", therefore communism, while certainly responsible for atrocities, doesn't embody a harmful ideology in the same way that nazi-ism does.
baal responds by stating "The stated intent of the Nazi party was never to exterminate the jews".
Consider the precision of this statement - _EnDeR is offering "the stated intent (of communism) was never "eradicate the jews"', suggesting that at no point in time, past or present, was the core tenets of communism something as atrocious as what the core tenets of Nazi-ism are. Never.
If baal is incorrect in this statement, that the stated intent of the Nazi party was never to exterminate the jews, then his argument falls flat. Him not being wrong here is important, yeah? Him having the facts correct matters, and it isn't nitpicking his argument to ask for the source of why he believes this. It's the core of the sub-argument that communism and nazi-ism should be equal candidates for censorship.
I think the argument that Nazis never stated intent to murder the jews obviously falls flat just based on a smell-test. Most people will associate the Nazi regime with some combination of "Evil, Hitler, The Holocaust, Fascism" NOW, and most people with a general education of the Nazi regime will understand that killing jews was high on their list of priorities and a thing they did a whole lot. To be fair to baal, this argument I am making now would be in bad faith IF there was reason to believe he didn't actually mean 'never', and instead meant 'at some point in their history'. The problem there is he HAS to have meant 'never', or it makes no fucking sense in the context of the argument he stated it. Again, let's break that down.
baal : if nazi symbols should be censored for purposes of free speech, then so should communist symbols
_EnDeR : I think that's a false equivalence. The core association with communism has never been something as awful as "eradicate the jews". Nazi-ism can't claim the same.
baal : The stated intent of the Nazi party was never to kill all the jews.
...
imagine a situation where he states "prior to 1939, the stated intent of the nazi party wasn't to kill all the jews". _EnDeR could just reply "Cool, that's fine, but Nazi-ism sure as fuck is associated with the Holocaust and antisemitism NOW, and we're talking about censorship as it pertains to free speech in modern history. If you want to make the argument that that isn't fair, go for it, but that's a different argument." _EnDeR would likely state it more calmly than I would, but I don't think I'm up to the task of mimicking _EnDeR's affect.
It isn't approaching his argument in bad faith to ask for a source for his claim (which is what _EnDeR did).
baal then provided a source and follows it with "Hitler before 1939 spoke exclusively of expulsion of the jews."
We just went over why 'never' was an important part of his own claim and couldn't be 'before 1939' but here we are.
Now, I ask - is this not just a bad-faith moving of the goalposts from baal?
Worth mentioning - there is a bunch of stuff past this point about Nazi history that baal (allegedly) gets wrong and people point out is wrong. In fairness to your argument, it could be some of that stuff that you're noticing? In that case tbh someone being wrong about 'basic' facts still seems important to me - if someone was complaining about Protoss but was wrong about goon damage and how much shield probes have I'd consider that relevant to their complaining.
|
United States43785 Posts
On March 29 2026 12:44 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2026 09:25 KwarK wrote:On February 06 2026 08:02 Razyda wrote:On February 06 2026 01:16 LightSpectra wrote:
All the people who voted for a child molester seem extremely confident that the people who didn't vote for a child molester would have probably done so in the hypothetical they made up. You mean the people who voted for a guy who had "probably not appropriate" showers with his daughter? I have showers with my daughter.
Still telling on yourself I see. Just because you'd find an experience to be extremely sexual doesn't mean normal people would.
|
On March 29 2026 14:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2026 12:44 Razyda wrote:On February 06 2026 09:25 KwarK wrote:On February 06 2026 08:02 Razyda wrote:On February 06 2026 01:16 LightSpectra wrote:
All the people who voted for a child molester seem extremely confident that the people who didn't vote for a child molester would have probably done so in the hypothetical they made up. You mean the people who voted for a guy who had "probably not appropriate" showers with his daughter? I have showers with my daughter. Still telling on yourself I see. Just because you'd find an experience to be extremely sexual doesn't mean normal people would.
Razyda really needs to get some help.
|
It is strangely comforting that he is so baffled by the concept of raising a child that he is unlikely to procreate.
|
United States43785 Posts
Despite being in the fifth year of the Ukraine/Russia drone war and having seen attacks like Spiderweb the United States is still storing $550m AWACS aircraft in the open. The Trump administration entered this war entirely unprepared for the idea that Iran might hit back and that led to planes like this being reported as "damaged".
The issue isn't that they're trying to change the regime in Iran, we all hate the regime in Iran. It's that they're the dumbest motherfuckers in the room and they went in without preparation because Israel dared them to. We're afraid that Trump's administration is the best chance Iran will ever get of beating America.
|
On March 29 2026 13:01 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2026 11:21 Razyda wrote:
Yeah he was, but what does that matter? Everyone knew what his point was, but decided to nitpick, on quite frankly, irrelevant bullshit, if thats not arguing in bad faith I dont know what is. And yes some people did engage honestly, but their post were drowned in bunch of irrelevant stuff, so i guess goal achieved...
Kinda curious where you see this. If you don't mind, follow along with my understanding : + Show Spoiler +On March 21 2026 15:20 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2026 14:09 baal wrote:On March 19 2026 17:08 EnDeR_ wrote:
Happy to include denying the holodomor illegal. Is there a big group of people going around denying that it happened? YES! almost every hard communist and tankie I've talked with denies de holodomor, its a mainstream hard leftist idea, just as its common hard right wingers deny the holocaust. I don't think you can make the equivalence of the hammer and sickle and nazi swastikas; one stands for an ideology about resource distribution, the other stands for white supremacy and antisemitism. It is obviously true that atrocities have been committed under the banner of communism, but the stated intent was never "eradicate the jews" or "purify the white race" for any of these regimes, if you see what I mean. The key difference is intent, even if the outcomes aren't too dissimilar in practice. The stated intent of the Nazi party was never to exterminate the jews, yet they did in secret just like the stated intent of Soviets wasn't to exterminate the Kulaks, yet they did in secret. -When somebody says "eat the rich" they don't actually mean to kill the rich, despise that historically they always have done it, it just means, redistribute. -When a muslim chants in the streets "Khaibar Khaibar ya Yahud" they don't actually mean to massacre the jews like they did in Khaibar, its just a chant of the oppressed against Israel. -When somebody says "seig heil" oh ok that is hate speech, arrest him. That's ridiculous hates speech laws are enforced however the people in power see fit, and as I've said before, there will be a time where the people in power think very different than you and will apply these laws in ways you won't like. Source for the bolded? The context of this conversation is _EnDeR and baal talking about free speech / free speech absolutism. They're specifically talking about how baal has attempted to outline communist symbology as an equally valid target of restrictions to free speech as nazi symbology. _EnDeR suggests false equivalence, saying that says the stated intent (of communism) was never "eradicate the jews", therefore communism, while certainly responsible for atrocities, doesn't embody a harmful ideology in the same way that nazi-ism does. baal responds by stating "The stated intent of the Nazi party was never to exterminate the jews". Consider the precision of this statement - _EnDeR is offering "the stated intent (of communism) was never "eradicate the jews"', suggesting that at no point in time, past or present, was the core tenets of communism something as atrocious as what the core tenets of Nazi-ism are. Never. If baal is incorrect in this statement, that the stated intent of the Nazi party was never to exterminate the jews, then his argument falls flat. Him not being wrong here is important, yeah? Him having the facts correct matters, and it isn't nitpicking his argument to ask for the source of why he believes this. It's the core of the sub-argument that communism and nazi-ism should be equal candidates for censorship. I think the argument that Nazis never stated intent to murder the jews obviously falls flat just based on a smell-test. Most people will associate the Nazi regime with some combination of "Evil, Hitler, The Holocaust, Fascism" NOW, and most people with a general education of the Nazi regime will understand that killing jews was high on their list of priorities and a thing they did a whole lot. To be fair to baal, this argument I am making now would be in bad faith IF there was reason to believe he didn't actually mean 'never', and instead meant 'at some point in their history'. The problem there is he HAS to have meant 'never', or it makes no fucking sense in the context of the argument he stated it. Again, let's break that down. baal : if nazi symbols should be censored for purposes of free speech, then so should communist symbols _EnDeR : I think that's a false equivalence. The core association with communism has never been something as awful as "eradicate the jews". Nazi-ism can't claim the same. baal : The stated intent of the Nazi party was never to kill all the jews. ... imagine a situation where he states "prior to 1939, the stated intent of the nazi party wasn't to kill all the jews". _EnDeR could just reply "Cool, that's fine, but Nazi-ism sure as fuck is associated with the Holocaust and antisemitism NOW, and we're talking about censorship as it pertains to free speech in modern history. If you want to make the argument that that isn't fair, go for it, but that's a different argument." _EnDeR would likely state it more calmly than I would, but I don't think I'm up to the task of mimicking _EnDeR's affect. It isn't approaching his argument in bad faith to ask for a source for his claim (which is what _EnDeR did). baal then provided a source and follows it with "Hitler before 1939 spoke exclusively of expulsion of the jews." We just went over why 'never' was an important part of his own claim and couldn't be 'before 1939' but here we are. Now, I ask - is this not just a bad-faith moving of the goalposts from baal? Worth mentioning - there is a bunch of stuff past this point about Nazi history that baal (allegedly) gets wrong and people point out is wrong. In fairness to your argument, it could be some of that stuff that you're noticing? In that case tbh someone being wrong about 'basic' facts still seems important to me - if someone was complaining about Protoss but was wrong about goon damage and how much shield probes have I'd consider that relevant to their complaining.
I think this can be summarized as the issue with Nazism being the end and with Communism - the means to an end. That said, Leninism/Stalinism/Maoism etc. were no different from Nazism in that regard. The Bolsheviks were very explicit about their murderous indents, for example.
I'd say there is a double standard in some countries, probably because the USSR was on the winning side of the war (the governments strongly pushed against any criticism of the Soviet Union) and those countries didn't get to experience communist totalitarianism. In Poland, shilling for any totalitarian system, whether it's Nazism or Stalinism, is treated equally by law.
|
Only someone that dumb as Trump's administration can win war against Iran in few days, than attack it again half year later and lose it because being both ruthless morons and gutless chickens at the same time.
And they want Europe involved into this when they show absolute no plan to finish that in the forseeble future...
Like, come on. The Russians we mocked for being bogged down in Ukraine at least were ready to use full scale ground assault fo finish what they started. Yes, there would be loses. Heavy loses. But if someone lacks the brain, must endure the pain.
|
On March 29 2026 12:44 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2026 11:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 29 2026 11:21 Razyda wrote:On March 28 2026 17:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 28 2026 16:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 28 2026 12:25 Razyda wrote:). Are you maybe thinking that calling people nazis, racists, child rapists, or fascists isnt inciting violence? Because you can hardly find more despicable beings than the one named (kinda, if I went back in time I would kill baby Hitler, because apparently nothing makes one goodder than killing innocent babies), and calling people this names can be considered as incitement of violence.
Lastly: you do realise that being called right winger on this forum is considered to be an offence, while being on the left is a virtue?
Are you talking incitement to violence in the legal sense or in the colloquial sense? Either way, it's ridiculous. God forbid someone be correctly categorized as a despicable person. The Nazi / racist / rapist has already incited violence; calling out that person is the least we can do, and doing so is not inherently an incitement of violence. If the point is supposed to be that merely assigning an accurate label isn't going to change that person's beliefs or actions, then that's fair. We can't only assign a label and then walk away, because assigning the label - while hopefully accurate - doesn't fix the problem. But statements like "Trump is a racist" and "Trump is a rapist" are factually accurate and do not incite violence. If someone wanted to add an incitement of violence afterwards, like "Trump is a racist and ought to be murdered", then that tautologically incites violence, but not because of the accurate label "racist". One might also choose to make the argument that publicly assigning these accurate labels may not be the most effective form of communicating issues or a need for change, since these labels might make people defensive or hurt their feelings. But, again, that's not the same thing as claiming that calling a fascist "a fascist" is inciting violence. This is fun. That you I believe: On October 16 2025 19:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 16 2025 19:12 pmh wrote:
The democrats should stop focussing on the wrong things as distractions. They are beeing played like crazy.
Its easy to recognize the wrong things. Its what is most upvoted on the reddit politics forum and what is pushed artificially as centre of attention.
The epstein case in general , the ice stuff and now this nazi group chat which has at least 3-4 threads with botted upvotes on the reddit politics forum.
Its also easy to recognize the right things for the democrats to focus on. Its what has only 1 thread on reddit politics forum with little upvotes. Or its news which is even completely banned from discussing on the reddit politics forum while still clearly relevant (like all journalists walking out of the pentagon today. Which has zero threads on reddit politics forum).
Nazi group chat really. Is that what will turn public opinion? Trudeau has blackface pictures released nothing happend. Its not what the centre cares about.
The "left" needs to win over the centre. They will never get anywhere without the centre.
That is why all journalists walking out of pentagon is banned from discussion on reddit politics forum. Because it apeals to the centre,it is something the centre can get angry about.
That is also why ice and epstein is pushed on reddit poltics forum. Because the centre is not to unhappy in general with what ice claims to be doing,getting criminal illegals out. The centre also is not bussy with epstein which is basicly 3 year old news recycled and something that apeals to conspiracy theorists.
Its a lost case either way but still.
I don't think that it's necessarily "wrong" to point out that Trump allegedly raped children, that people are being attacked and abducted by an American gestapo, and that Republicans are racist and fascist... as long as other points are also being made (e.g., that the Republicans have shut down the government because they got caught removing healthcare from Americans). As long as a diverse number of topics are being covered (healthcare, living wages, taxes, education, etc.), then I don't mind also including the three you dismissed. Assuming your assertion about needing to win over the center is true, why do you think the center doesn't care about those three issues you listed? That also you: On November 28 2018 01:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 28 2018 01:31 Plansix wrote:So I believe it might be worth reporting because the “OK” symbol has nothing to do with products being made in America. It recently has become a low key way people to show support for “White Power” and racism in general. Due to that, I don’t think taking that ticker in good faith is a smart move. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK_(gesture)#As_white_power_symbol I see, thank you! I'm also aware of it used in "the circle game" where if you make the sign below your waist and someone else looks at it, you get to punch them. Perhaps we should be proactive and start punching people that make this sign, just in case they're playing the circle game they're white supremacists. + Show Spoiler +I'm only half joking, if this is indeed some alt-right/ white power/ Nazi-esque bullshit. spoiler part for easier read: "I'm only half joking, if this is indeed some alt-right/ white power/ Nazi-esque bullshit." Thank you for providing more evidence of how merely using an accurate label doesn't necessarily incite violence, and how even suggesting violence may or may not actually cause violence. These two sentences are not the same: "I think X is a bad person" and "I think X is a bad person and they should be beaten up as a result". If you want to cite any additional examples that continue to strengthen my position and weaken yours, be my guest! Honestly, it just sounds like you're upset that Republicans are being called out for supporting racism and fascism, and that some people are okay with punching Nazis. Maybe spend a little more time scrutinizing discriminatory and unethical beliefs and actions, and a little less time clutching your pearls when you see bigotry and immorality being properly identified. It's also wild that you would condemn someone for condemning a child rapist, instead of you condemning the child rapist.Also, WombaT's counterexample to your claim that left-wing posters are always seen as virtuous (GH was cited) shouldn't be hand-waved away. Dude what are you doing, I had better opinion of you. You literally labeled all of republicans racists and fascists, after advocating "pro active stance". I am honestly disappointed, you are making it to easy. do you really think that all republicans are racists and fascists? Because that what your post and doubling down on it seems to say. Surely it is not inciting violence when you say punch a nazi and later say this guy is a nazi?
I'm not sure if you're trolling or are sincerely misunderstanding English, so I'm just going to give this explanation one more attempt. Maybe the third time will work.
Your original position was that merely labeling someone as a racist, rapist, fascist, or Nazi means that the labeler is inciting violence towards the person being labeled. The burden of proof is on you to support your claim. You have not done this.
I replied to you - twice - saying that I don't believe calling someone a name is necessarily inciting violence towards them, though someone could also call for violence before / after / alongside the label. "You are a racist" may be true or false, but it doesn't suggest a violent call to action. It's just a label. On the other hand, "racists should be punched" does provide a call to action, suggesting violence. My position is that the latter can incite violence. Your position is that the latter and the former can incite violence, but your posts and quotes are completely ignoring and/or undermining your position in favor of mine.
There are two things that your posts are referencing. The first is that you're giving examples of labels that you disagree with ("do you really think that all republicans are racists and fascists"). You're moving the goalposts here from your original position - that merely calling someone a racist incites violence - to a new line of questioning that has to do with whether or not certain people are racist. You're changing the subject instead of explaining why you think "Person X is racist" calls for violence against them.
The second thing you're doing is taking quotes that call for violence and not realizing that it's the other words in the quotes that are calling for violence, not the label. "Trump is a rapist" is not a call for violence, though you assert it is. "We should beat up rapists" is a call for violence because of the "we should beat up" part.
Hillary Clinton labeled a bunch of people as deplorable. That doesn't inherently mean she incited violence towards them, based on the label alone.
Here's one other way to look at it: Let's say I assign you label X. Oh my gosh Razyda, you are suuuch an X. (No incitement of violence at this point in time.) After calling you X, I could also choose to add some suggestions about what people should do around you: smile at you, give you a hug, debate you, ignore you, flip you off, punch you, etc.) and it's this second part where the incitement of violence might appear.
|
On March 29 2026 11:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2026 11:21 Razyda wrote:On March 28 2026 17:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 28 2026 16:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 28 2026 12:25 Razyda wrote:). Are you maybe thinking that calling people nazis, racists, child rapists, or fascists isnt inciting violence? Because you can hardly find more despicable beings than the one named (kinda, if I went back in time I would kill baby Hitler, because apparently nothing makes one goodder than killing innocent babies), and calling people this names can be considered as incitement of violence.
Lastly: you do realise that being called right winger on this forum is considered to be an offence, while being on the left is a virtue?
Are you talking incitement to violence in the legal sense or in the colloquial sense? Either way, it's ridiculous. God forbid someone be correctly categorized as a despicable person. The Nazi / racist / rapist has already incited violence; calling out that person is the least we can do, and doing so is not inherently an incitement of violence. If the point is supposed to be that merely assigning an accurate label isn't going to change that person's beliefs or actions, then that's fair. We can't only assign a label and then walk away, because assigning the label - while hopefully accurate - doesn't fix the problem. But statements like "Trump is a racist" and "Trump is a rapist" are factually accurate and do not incite violence. If someone wanted to add an incitement of violence afterwards, like "Trump is a racist and ought to be murdered", then that tautologically incites violence, but not because of the accurate label "racist". One might also choose to make the argument that publicly assigning these accurate labels may not be the most effective form of communicating issues or a need for change, since these labels might make people defensive or hurt their feelings. But, again, that's not the same thing as claiming that calling a fascist "a fascist" is inciting violence. This is fun. That you I believe: On October 16 2025 19:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 16 2025 19:12 pmh wrote:
The democrats should stop focussing on the wrong things as distractions. They are beeing played like crazy.
Its easy to recognize the wrong things. Its what is most upvoted on the reddit politics forum and what is pushed artificially as centre of attention.
The epstein case in general , the ice stuff and now this nazi group chat which has at least 3-4 threads with botted upvotes on the reddit politics forum.
Its also easy to recognize the right things for the democrats to focus on. Its what has only 1 thread on reddit politics forum with little upvotes. Or its news which is even completely banned from discussing on the reddit politics forum while still clearly relevant (like all journalists walking out of the pentagon today. Which has zero threads on reddit politics forum).
Nazi group chat really. Is that what will turn public opinion? Trudeau has blackface pictures released nothing happend. Its not what the centre cares about.
The "left" needs to win over the centre. They will never get anywhere without the centre.
That is why all journalists walking out of pentagon is banned from discussion on reddit politics forum. Because it apeals to the centre,it is something the centre can get angry about.
That is also why ice and epstein is pushed on reddit poltics forum. Because the centre is not to unhappy in general with what ice claims to be doing,getting criminal illegals out. The centre also is not bussy with epstein which is basicly 3 year old news recycled and something that apeals to conspiracy theorists.
Its a lost case either way but still.
I don't think that it's necessarily "wrong" to point out that Trump allegedly raped children, that people are being attacked and abducted by an American gestapo, and that Republicans are racist and fascist... as long as other points are also being made (e.g., that the Republicans have shut down the government because they got caught removing healthcare from Americans). As long as a diverse number of topics are being covered (healthcare, living wages, taxes, education, etc.), then I don't mind also including the three you dismissed. Assuming your assertion about needing to win over the center is true, why do you think the center doesn't care about those three issues you listed? That also you: On November 28 2018 01:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 28 2018 01:31 Plansix wrote:So I believe it might be worth reporting because the “OK” symbol has nothing to do with products being made in America. It recently has become a low key way people to show support for “White Power” and racism in general. Due to that, I don’t think taking that ticker in good faith is a smart move. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK_(gesture)#As_white_power_symbol I see, thank you! I'm also aware of it used in "the circle game" where if you make the sign below your waist and someone else looks at it, you get to punch them. Perhaps we should be proactive and start punching people that make this sign, just in case they're playing the circle game they're white supremacists. + Show Spoiler +I'm only half joking, if this is indeed some alt-right/ white power/ Nazi-esque bullshit. spoiler part for easier read: "I'm only half joking, if this is indeed some alt-right/ white power/ Nazi-esque bullshit." + Show Spoiler +Thank you for providing more evidence of how merely using an accurate label doesn't necessarily incite violence, and how even suggesting violence may or may not actually cause violence. These two sentences are not the same: "I think X is a bad person" and "I think X is a bad person and they should be beaten up as a result". If you want to cite any additional examples that continue to strengthen my position and weaken yours, be my guest!
Honestly, it just sounds like you're upset that Republicans are being called out for supporting racism and fascism, and that some people are okay with punching Nazis. Maybe spend a little more time scrutinizing discriminatory and unethical beliefs and actions, and a little less time clutching your pearls when you see bigotry and immorality being properly identified. It's also wild that you would condemn someone for condemning a child rapist, instead of you condemning the child rapist. Also, WombaT's counterexample to your claim that left-wing posters are always seen as virtuous (GH was cited) shouldn't be hand-waved away.
Left wing posters have almost entirely been driven away/given up on you guys. What's left here are mostly various types of centrists arguing with (and inadvertently normalizing/legitimizing) fascists while they collaboratively drag the overton window rightward.
|
On March 29 2026 17:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2026 11:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 29 2026 11:21 Razyda wrote:On March 28 2026 17:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 28 2026 16:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 28 2026 12:25 Razyda wrote:). Are you maybe thinking that calling people nazis, racists, child rapists, or fascists isnt inciting violence? Because you can hardly find more despicable beings than the one named (kinda, if I went back in time I would kill baby Hitler, because apparently nothing makes one goodder than killing innocent babies), and calling people this names can be considered as incitement of violence.
Lastly: you do realise that being called right winger on this forum is considered to be an offence, while being on the left is a virtue?
Are you talking incitement to violence in the legal sense or in the colloquial sense? Either way, it's ridiculous. God forbid someone be correctly categorized as a despicable person. The Nazi / racist / rapist has already incited violence; calling out that person is the least we can do, and doing so is not inherently an incitement of violence. If the point is supposed to be that merely assigning an accurate label isn't going to change that person's beliefs or actions, then that's fair. We can't only assign a label and then walk away, because assigning the label - while hopefully accurate - doesn't fix the problem. But statements like "Trump is a racist" and "Trump is a rapist" are factually accurate and do not incite violence. If someone wanted to add an incitement of violence afterwards, like "Trump is a racist and ought to be murdered", then that tautologically incites violence, but not because of the accurate label "racist". One might also choose to make the argument that publicly assigning these accurate labels may not be the most effective form of communicating issues or a need for change, since these labels might make people defensive or hurt their feelings. But, again, that's not the same thing as claiming that calling a fascist "a fascist" is inciting violence. This is fun. That you I believe: On October 16 2025 19:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 16 2025 19:12 pmh wrote:
The democrats should stop focussing on the wrong things as distractions. They are beeing played like crazy.
Its easy to recognize the wrong things. Its what is most upvoted on the reddit politics forum and what is pushed artificially as centre of attention.
The epstein case in general , the ice stuff and now this nazi group chat which has at least 3-4 threads with botted upvotes on the reddit politics forum.
Its also easy to recognize the right things for the democrats to focus on. Its what has only 1 thread on reddit politics forum with little upvotes. Or its news which is even completely banned from discussing on the reddit politics forum while still clearly relevant (like all journalists walking out of the pentagon today. Which has zero threads on reddit politics forum).
Nazi group chat really. Is that what will turn public opinion? Trudeau has blackface pictures released nothing happend. Its not what the centre cares about.
The "left" needs to win over the centre. They will never get anywhere without the centre.
That is why all journalists walking out of pentagon is banned from discussion on reddit politics forum. Because it apeals to the centre,it is something the centre can get angry about.
That is also why ice and epstein is pushed on reddit poltics forum. Because the centre is not to unhappy in general with what ice claims to be doing,getting criminal illegals out. The centre also is not bussy with epstein which is basicly 3 year old news recycled and something that apeals to conspiracy theorists.
Its a lost case either way but still.
I don't think that it's necessarily "wrong" to point out that Trump allegedly raped children, that people are being attacked and abducted by an American gestapo, and that Republicans are racist and fascist... as long as other points are also being made (e.g., that the Republicans have shut down the government because they got caught removing healthcare from Americans). As long as a diverse number of topics are being covered (healthcare, living wages, taxes, education, etc.), then I don't mind also including the three you dismissed. Assuming your assertion about needing to win over the center is true, why do you think the center doesn't care about those three issues you listed? That also you: On November 28 2018 01:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 28 2018 01:31 Plansix wrote:So I believe it might be worth reporting because the “OK” symbol has nothing to do with products being made in America. It recently has become a low key way people to show support for “White Power” and racism in general. Due to that, I don’t think taking that ticker in good faith is a smart move. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK_(gesture)#As_white_power_symbol I see, thank you! I'm also aware of it used in "the circle game" where if you make the sign below your waist and someone else looks at it, you get to punch them. Perhaps we should be proactive and start punching people that make this sign, just in case they're playing the circle game they're white supremacists. + Show Spoiler +I'm only half joking, if this is indeed some alt-right/ white power/ Nazi-esque bullshit. spoiler part for easier read: "I'm only half joking, if this is indeed some alt-right/ white power/ Nazi-esque bullshit." + Show Spoiler +Thank you for providing more evidence of how merely using an accurate label doesn't necessarily incite violence, and how even suggesting violence may or may not actually cause violence. These two sentences are not the same: "I think X is a bad person" and "I think X is a bad person and they should be beaten up as a result". If you want to cite any additional examples that continue to strengthen my position and weaken yours, be my guest!
Honestly, it just sounds like you're upset that Republicans are being called out for supporting racism and fascism, and that some people are okay with punching Nazis. Maybe spend a little more time scrutinizing discriminatory and unethical beliefs and actions, and a little less time clutching your pearls when you see bigotry and immorality being properly identified. It's also wild that you would condemn someone for condemning a child rapist, instead of you condemning the child rapist. Also, WombaT's counterexample to your claim that left-wing posters are always seen as virtuous (GH was cited) shouldn't be hand-waved away. Left wing posters have almost entirely been driven away/given up on you guys. What's left here are mostly various types of centrists arguing with (and inadvertently normalizing/legitimizing) fascists while they collaboratively drag the overton window rightward.
I think you might get really upset about the state of your country, or even Europe, if you ever get up and away from TL.net and take a looksie outside at it. The left (as in socialists) hasn't disappeared on TL.net, it has disappeared everywhere. Die Linke or La France Insoumise kinda do okay at elections lately, but any governing coalition is never going to include them. There aren't enough votes for other leftish parties, and the center refuses to join with them and invariably prefers a neoliberal coalition. Portugal and Spain fare a bit better, but they also had fascist dictatorships a lot more recently, and even there the far right is gaining traction.
So I guess if I were you I would count my blessings here on TL.net: if we had elections here right now, you'd have a large social-democratic majority, whereas the real world is clearly worse off.
|
Norway28781 Posts
The big difference between supporting nazism and communism today is that communism has a theoretical framework which differs greatly from the real world examples of what self-professed communist countries were like, so you can say that I idealize a communist society where the workers own the means of production and where people get according to need and contribute according to ability etc etc (not getting into whether this is in conflict with human nature or whether it's possible to get there) while also saying that the ussr was a totalitarian shithole entirely different from what I envision and idealized and that Stalin was a truly heinous and despicable dictator whose evils rival those of Hitler.
Whereas if you say that you are a Nazi, that means you support Hitler because the two are intertwined in an entirely different manner. Now if someone says they are believers of white supremacy or scientific racism or something of that sort, they could plausibly be opposed to nazi imperialism or the holocaust, but someone who says they are a nazi cannot. Likewise if you are a self professed stalinist that would be different from saying you are a communist.
|
I personally subscribe to collectivist anarchism, but I'm quite sure there will never arise an adequate platform I could get behind, so... left to extreme left I vote in Belgium.
|
On March 29 2026 20:17 Uldridge wrote:
I personally subscribe to collectivist anarchism, but I'm quite sure there will never arise an adequate platform I could get behind, so... left to extreme left I vote in Belgium.
Would never work. People in general have no idea how the world work. See: populism.
Even with the added hurdle of having to act collectively to push through ideas that chafe against reality it still frequently happens. Having everyone free to act on their own ideas would lead to some kind of populist swamp where everyone acts on their own ideas completely parallel to reality.
Maybe I'm just bitter from being on the receiving end right now. :D
|
On March 29 2026 14:45 Luolis wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2026 14:41 KwarK wrote:On March 29 2026 12:44 Razyda wrote:On February 06 2026 09:25 KwarK wrote:On February 06 2026 08:02 Razyda wrote:On February 06 2026 01:16 LightSpectra wrote:
All the people who voted for a child molester seem extremely confident that the people who didn't vote for a child molester would have probably done so in the hypothetical they made up. You mean the people who voted for a guy who had "probably not appropriate" showers with his daughter? I have showers with my daughter. Still telling on yourself I see. Just because you'd find an experience to be extremely sexual doesn't mean normal people would. Razyda really needs to get some help.
There's a scene in My Neighbor Totoro where the dad takes a bath with his two elementary daughters. Maybe conservatives should rally to get this movie's rating changed to NC-17 for depicting something so grossly heinous and immoral.
|
On March 29 2026 19:03 Liquid`Drone wrote:
The big difference between supporting nazism and communism today is that communism has a theoretical framework which differs greatly from the real world examples of what self-professed communist countries were like, so you can say that I idealize a communist society where the workers own the means of production and where people get according to need and contribute according to ability etc etc (not getting into whether this is in conflict with human nature or whether it's possible to get there) while also saying that the ussr was a totalitarian shithole entirely different from what I envision and idealized and that Stalin was a truly heinous and despicable dictator whose evils rival those of Hitler.
Whereas if you say that you are a Nazi, that means you support Hitler because the two are intertwined in an entirely different manner. Now if someone says they are believers of white supremacy or scientific racism or something of that sort, they could plausibly be opposed to nazi imperialism or the holocaust, but someone who says they are a nazi cannot. Likewise if you are a self professed stalinist that would be different from saying you are a communist.
You can make the argument that the main difference is that communism was awful because it was an abject failure while nazism was awful because it succeeded in its goals.
When it comes to Stalinism and Hitlerism, there is something about the extermination camps and the Holocaust that even stalinism hasn’t quite matched in horror. But we are talking nuance, the gulags and the Stalinist repression was one of the darkest page in human history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/897411f7ae79a98b5dacc7e7d8599710.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/66e8fc86d2e74995160bf02dd259625b.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/xIlVg0O.jpeg)
