I Think I'm Done With The Hill Rising

[Hatuey]

Clearly. You ought to try reading some actual history so you don't appear so ignorant.

Lmao, you read history backwards and think you understand it - so you tell the story linearly.

That is embarrassingly stupid.

 

[Hatuey]

Hear that silence and lack of sources to support his arguments?

Just another day in a @Taylor argument. Maybe he'll stop being intellectually lazy and come up with some sources we can laugh at.

 

[Taylor]

Lmao, you read history backwards and think you understand it - so you tell the story linearly.

That is embarrassingly stupid.

What does that even mean?

 

[Hatuey]

What does that even mean?

You dont understand what reading history backwards is, and then talk about it linearly. I may as well be talking with a 5th grader who was never smart enough to make it on a Jeff Foxworthy gameshow.

 

[Taylor]

You dont understand what reading history backwards is, and then talk about it linearly. I may as well be talking with a 5th grader who was never smart enough to make it on a Jeff Foxworthy gameshow.

I realize your public library is probably closed for the foreseeable future, but when you're finally able to check out that history book, do let me know if you have any questions.

 

[Hatuey]

I realize your public library is probably closed

Yikes, this guy thinks you need to go to a public library to have an internet signal. I would be embarrassed for him, but he also reads history backwards, so I don't generally care what other stupid things he likes to say.

 

[Hatuey]

@Taylor, we can't have a discussion because you don't know what reading history backwards is but you continue to do it.

 

[Taylor]

@Taylor, we can't have a discussion because you don't know what reading history backwards is but you continue to do it.

We can't have a discussion because you don't know your history.

 

[Hatuey]

We can't have a discussion because you don't know your history.

Lmao. You read history backwards and make up the rest. There is no history based conversation to be had.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Fascism is always right wing. It cannot be left wing. Communism is the opposite extreme from fascism. Neither are desirable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

A book by Yale philosopher Jason Stanley is the latest attempt to clarify what fascism is and how it functions in the modern world.
"Fascism” is a word that gets tossed around pretty loosely these days, usually as an epithet to discredit someone else’s politics.

One consequence is that no one really knows what the term means anymore. Liberals see fascism as the culmination of conservative thinking: an authoritarian, nationalist, and racist system of government organized around corporate power. For conservatives, fascism is totalitarianism masquerading as the nanny state.
I think of fascism as a method of politics. It’s a rhetoric, a way of running for power. Of course, that’s connected to fascist ideology, because fascist ideology centers on power. But I really see fascism as a technique to gain power.

People are always asking, “Is such-and-such politician really a fascist?” Which is really just another way of asking if this person has a particular set of beliefs or an ideology, but again, I don’t really think of a fascist as someone who holds a set of beliefs. They’re using a certain technique to acquire and retain power.
And my book identifies the various techniques that fascists tend to adopt, and shows how someone can be more fascist or less fascist in their politics. The key thing is that fascist politics is about identifying enemies, appealing to the in-group (usually the majority group), and smashing truth and replacing it with power.

In the past, fascist politics would focus on the dominant cultural group. The goal is to make them feel like victims, to make them feel like they’ve lost something and that the thing they’ve lost has been taken from them by a specific enemy, usually some minority out-group or some opposing nation.
This is why fascism flourishes in moments of great anxiety, because you can connect that anxiety with fake loss. The story is typically that a once-great society has been destroyed by liberalism or feminism or cultural Marxism or whatever, and you make the dominant group feel angry and resentful about the loss of their status and power. Almost every manifestation of fascism mirrors this general narrative. In the past, fascist politics would focus on the dominant cultural group. The goal is to make them feel like victims, to make them feel like they’ve lost something and that the thing they’ve lost has been taken from them by a specific enemy, usually some minority out-group or some opposing nation.The democrats are flipping the narrative by making the coalition of minority groups the besieged majority. The tactics are the same as used by Hilters Nazi party it's just tables turned.

I see the liberals using exactly this same plan, flipping the narrative to assert the big lie. White people are the cause of all the problems in the US, ( as were Jews in Nazi Germany) and not just the problems but deserve all the blame for what ever happens. This flip is the big lie that democrats tell, it's white people, and the rest of you are not to blame for anything you do. The rioting, arson, looting, assault are all justified because of white people not giving you equality, which the democrats portray as "a fair shot". The difference being a fair shot doesn't guarantee equality of outcomes.
Democrats have perfected the Big Lie and been telling it for generations, coupled with the promise that votes for democrats will ensure these issues are fixed and we, the democrats will take care of you because you cannot do it yourself.

 

[lwf]

A book by Yale philosopher Jason Stanley is the latest attempt to clarify what fascism is and how it functions in the modern world.
"Fascism” is a word that gets tossed around pretty loosely these days, usually as an epithet to discredit someone else’s politics.

One consequence is that no one really knows what the term means anymore. Liberals see fascism as the culmination of conservative thinking: an authoritarian, nationalist, and racist system of government organized around corporate power. For conservatives, fascism is totalitarianism masquerading as the nanny state.
I think of fascism as a method of politics. It’s a rhetoric, a way of running for power. Of course, that’s connected to fascist ideology, because fascist ideology centers on power. But I really see fascism as a technique to gain power.

People are always asking, “Is such-and-such politician really a fascist?” Which is really just another way of asking if this person has a particular set of beliefs or an ideology, but again, I don’t really think of a fascist as someone who holds a set of beliefs. They’re using a certain technique to acquire and retain power.
And my book identifies the various techniques that fascists tend to adopt, and shows how someone can be more fascist or less fascist in their politics. The key thing is that fascist politics is about identifying enemies, appealing to the in-group (usually the majority group), and smashing truth and replacing it with power.

In the past, fascist politics would focus on the dominant cultural group. The goal is to make them feel like victims, to make them feel like they’ve lost something and that the thing they’ve lost has been taken from them by a specific enemy, usually some minority out-group or some opposing nation.
This is why fascism flourishes in moments of great anxiety, because you can connect that anxiety with fake loss. The story is typically that a once-great society has been destroyed by liberalism or feminism or cultural Marxism or whatever, and you make the dominant group feel angry and resentful about the loss of their status and power. Almost every manifestation of fascism mirrors this general narrative. In the past, fascist politics would focus on the dominant cultural group. The goal is to make them feel like victims, to make them feel like they’ve lost something and that the thing they’ve lost has been taken from them by a specific enemy, usually some minority out-group or some opposing nation.The democrats are flipping the narrative by making the coalition of minority groups the besieged majority. The tactics are the same as used by Hilters Nazi party it's just tables turned.

Hmm... Dominant cultural group: Whites.
Make them feel like victims: Democrats want to cancel white people
Make them feel like they've lost something: The good ole days. Religion. Wholesome Family values...
Make them feel like the thing they've lost has been taken by a specific enemy: Leftists, Democrats, immigrants, minorities...

Which party campaigned in 2016 on inflaming fear of "caravans of rapists?" Which party campaigned in 2020 on inflaming anxieties by undermining Democracy and spreading falsehoods? Which party campaigned on unity, facts, and coming together as a nation to combat an enemy that wasn't your next door neighbors, like a deadly pandemic?

There is a fascist party in America by the above standards, and it ain't the Democratic Party.

 

[Integrityrespec]

The problem is that "pure" fascism, "pure" communism, and "pure" socialism (as they have played out when humans use them) is that they eventually intersect. In the United States political system, fascism is associated with being "right wing." But the reality is that "right wingers" in the US still believe that civil rights, etc. should exist. They think they should be limited, but I don't see an extreme right winger disagreeing with the right to vote (in fact, they just want to restrict it so their vote matters the most, the thought of which has been brought on by another political problem, which is beyond the scope of where this conversation seems to be going.).

In a "pure communism" state, you forfeit the right to property. Here again, as much as extreme right wingers (And, to some extent, extreme left wingers) believe that only certain people can earn or are entitled to success, property is not forbidden.

In a "pure socialism" state, you forfeit the right to make more money than your neighbors and, in some cases, even forfeit the right to choose the job that you want as your career. Both the extreme right and the extreme left, disagree on how much money you should make, or what jobs should exist, but they still think you should be able to do anything you want as a job within reason.

But, when we implement this, the "pure" communism or socialism state is anything but. They bring elements of fascism, and sometimes communism has elements of socialism, and vice-versa.

So, really arguing left and right of socialism and communism is one of those things that it's neither aligned with the extreme left or the extreme right. There certain elements that both sides approve of, but neither one is purely on one side of the other.

Thus, Geoist's position and lwf's position are the most correct.

Everyone is saying that 1/6/2021 was this attempted coup. In many cases, I don't think many of those people knew what a "coup" actually was. I see a bunch of undereducated people brainwashed by a de-facto cult leader and who had no ability to critically think through their actions and ruined their lives as a result (and in some cases, killed others on their way down doing it). They were possibly mentally ill, which means that Trump manipulated at least a few mentally ill people into doing some really stupid things.

So tired of hearing the blame Trump crap. So in your opinion who gets the blame for a year of rioting across American cities in which democrat supporters destroyed cities, federal property, court houses, police precincts, committed repeated acts of arson against buildings, automobiles, people, assaulted with bricks, frozen water bottles, metal fire extinguishers, molotov cocktals, bats, lasers, tear gas, occupied a section of a city for weeks declaring it an autonomous non American area. Who encouraged all that? I saw many clips of democrats encouraging the rioting, vice president elect Kamala Harris among them. There were many who stirred the crowds with cries of , # kill Trump, #assasinate Trump, #pigs in a blanket fry em like bacon. They looted millions of dollars worth of private businesses, billions of dollars worth of city, state and federal property.
The Democrats who have instigated this behavior from the beginning of Trumps Presidency.
Claims Trump is an illegitimate President.
Claims Trump Colluded with Russians.
Maxine Waters calling on democrats to get in the face of Republicans and harass them and let them know they are not welcome.
Cory Booker saying democrats should get up in the face of Republican lawmakers and challenge them.
Nancy Pelosi tearing up the State of the Union Address on internationally broadcast television.
Failure democrats to denounce months of violence by BLM and ANTIFA groups where cities were destroyed, set ablaze, parts of cities occupied for weeks, police officers and federal buildings and police precincts attacked, set on fire.
Purely partisan impeachment with no first hand evidence provided of the charges by democrats.
Kamala Harris encouraging and soliciting funds to pay the bail on BLM and ANTIFA members who participated in the assault on our cities and our police officers. She went as far as to do this on her web site. She also said rioters in the cities would not stop and should not stop. Referring to the violence as a movement, a movement that resulted in Billions of dollars in destruction of city, state, federal and private property.
Democrats objecting to certifying elections in every Republican President elected of the 21st century.
Democrats preaching racism and accusing every white person in America of being a white supremacist, and a racist.
These are just some of the acts by Democrats which contributed to the current state of violence in America. Democrats incited violence.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

So tired of hearing the blame Trump crap. So in your opinion who gets the blame for a year of rioting across American cities in which democrat supporters destroyed cities, federal property, court houses, police precincts, committed repeated acts of arson against buildings, automobiles, people, assaulted with bricks, frozen water bottles, metal fire extinguishers, molotov cocktals, bats, lasers, tear gas, occupied a section of a city for weeks declaring it an autonomous non American area. Who encouraged all that?

Oh, Trump is not the only one to blame - though I argue on that particular day he was. But the problem has roots going back at least two decades.

Most politicians have used violent rhetoric going back at least as far as 2012. You had Sarah Palin with the crosshairs on her website, various politicians talking about a "Second Amendment solution," etc. - and these are just the ones that I remember off the top of my head. IF you want to go further back, you have George W. Bush being burned effigy and a German film that portrayed the assassination of W.

Maxine Waters is a very good example of a Democratic politician who preached violence during the Trump presidency. I'm sure there were others. Violent rhetoric has become increasingly common since 2016. That's a very good list of some of the sins that Democrats have committed over the years, though I plead ignorance on whether we can trace them back to a single politician or group of politicians, or if some of these acts happened on their own and were not in/directly influenced by a politician.WE can go back at least a decade if we want to throw blame around for the rise of Trump and the violence associated with him.

However, I blame Trump specifically for the insurrection. I don't blame him for any other violence that you can pin on other politicians. The point is, yes, Trump is a divisive figure. Yes, Trump may have meant to inspire the Trump Rebellion, but he is not the only guilty one here. In fact, if Trump had been the only politician ever to say violent things, he would have been laughed off the debate stage and never become president. In many ways, those who have used violent rhetoric before Trump even became a politician gave rise to that moment.

If politicians in office lose sight of the role they played in the rise of the "coup attempt" this year, and lose sight of the fact that violent rhetoric can (and, in many cases, will) inspire people to do violent things, this will happen again. If they lose sight of it, Trump and his rebellion will not be a singular incident at all.

 

[bearpoker]

Conservative morons claim that fascists were “left wing”, but that’s because they A) don’t know any actual history and B) are morons. It’s always amusing watching people claim that the regimes which killed or enslaved any leftists they could catch were secretly “left wing”.

I consider it an attempt to whitewash the right side of the spectrum, while vilifying the left. That's been the right wing MO for years.

 

[notquiteright]

She's a full-blown commie, that's why she doesn't like either side, and what exactly did she get wrong in the video?

Well when it comes to whoiswundumho equating communism with socialism would seem to fit that criteria....

Back in the 'good ol' Cold War days' we doubled timed to a nifty little ditty- 'Kill a Commie For Mommy'... Fun times, fun times....

Our allies were democratic socialists, our enemies were communist dictatorships. Not that difficult to distinguish but some crayon eaters struggle.

Same as it ever was... ✌

 

[aociswundumho]

Our allies were democratic socialists, our enemies were communist dictatorships.

Name some of them.

 

[Kreton]

Sometimes it's really hard to find political commentators who provide a good balance of criticism of both Democrats and Republicans.

Good reporting isn't making sure both sides get equally criticized. Good reporting is reporting what is accurately happening. That doesn't ever happen with an equal split.

 

[notquiteright]

Name some of them.

Sigh, seriously???? Better yet, why don't you name some NATO members, if you can, and I'll tell ya. Name some Scandinavian nations. Educate yourself...

Like I said the Ibewundumho, isn't a good look for some... ✌

 

[Hatuey]

Every time I hear some honky dory moron talk about Krystal Ball and Dinesh Dezousa's mitosis efforts to both sides nazi supported Republicans, my eye roll emoji flinches.

They dont understand that their "moderate" views wont save them from guys wearing 6MWE shirts.

 

[aociswundumho]

Sigh, seriously???? Better yet, why don't you name some NATO members, if you can, and I'll tell ya. Name some Scandinavian nations. Educate yourself...

No Scandinavian countries are "democratic socialist":

https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-socialist

If you can't name a single country, then I suggest you retract your claim of "Our allies were democratic socialists,"

 

[notquiteright]

No Scandinavian countries are "democratic socialist": If you can't name a single country, then I suggest you retract your claim of "Our allies were democratic socialists,"

Well some don't have great reading comprehension- I typed, rather clearly, name some of our NATO allies, if you could. Apparently you can't....

Let's start with Denmark and a dodgy politician (imagine that). A 'planned market' economy damn sure isn't a capitalist economy (it is the hallmark of a socialist economy)...

Now let's get the definitions clear- Communism doesn't use money nor reward those who work harder, no private ownership. Socialism rewards effort, allows private ownership, does plan income regulation.

Now socialist nations- more refined democratic socialisms- are the norm in Europe.

Denmark does fall into the category, word salad dodges aside.
Finland
France
Germany
Greenland
Iceland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
Sweden
UK

So there ya go... Our Socialist Allies...enjoy... ✌

 

[aociswundumho]

Well some don't have great reading comprehension- I typed, rather clearly, name some of our NATO allies, if you could. Apparently you can't....

Let's start with Denmark and a dodgy politician (imagine that). A 'planned market' economy damn sure isn't a capitalist economy (it is the hallmark of a socialist economy)...

That's right, a planned economy is a hallmark of a socialist economy.

From the article:

"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy,” Rasmussen said.

You're so intent on hearing what you want to hear that you completely reversed what he said.

Now let's get the definitions clear- Communism doesn't use money nor reward those who work harder, no private ownership. Socialism rewards effort, allows private ownership, does plan income regulation.

Socialism is public ownership/control of the means of production. Capitalism is private ownership/control of the means of production. All countries are a mix of the two, but the higher the degree of socialism, the more intolerable the country becomes, and that is indisputable.

Now socialist nations- more refined democratic socialisms- are the norm in Europe.

No, you are confusing social democracy with democratic socialism. They are not even close to the same thing. None of the countries you listed have planned economies, which you already conceded is "the hallmark of a socialist economy".

 

[iguanaman]

Conservative morons claim that fascists were “left wing”, but that’s because they A) don’t know any actual history and B) are morons. It’s always amusing watching people claim that the regimes which killed or enslaved any leftists they could catch were secretly “left wing”.

It is part of their propaganda like claiming Democrats are the racists and AOC is a communist. They enjoy confusing black and white, war and peace and anything but defending the right wing cause in any meaningful way. That is apparently impossible to do.

 

[Jonsa]

Name some of them.

throw a dart at the map of Europe this side of the iron curtain. Every damn one of them is a socialist paradise in comparison to America and democratic too.

 

[Geoist]

Good reporting isn't making sure both sides get equally criticized. Good reporting is reporting what is accurately happening. That doesn't ever happen with an equal split.

Perhaps saying 'good balance' is a bit misleading. I do not look for equal criticism. I look for fair criticism.