• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is your most disliked ideology?

HumanBeing said:
I don't, that's why I listed statism as my most disliked ideology. I'm unaware of any genocides that have been carried out by any group that isn't either a already a state or trying to become one whether it be a religious state, a political state, or both (though I guess it is possible I could be wrong about that).
Click to expand...


A state makes it possible for you to enjoy things like private property
 
Islamic Extremism. Taliban type ideology.

The Taliban, in my opinion, make for a good argument FOR genocide, if there ever was one.

I view them no better than cockroaches. They do not deserve to live in this modern world.

Just my two cents.
 
What is your most disliked ideology?
Click to expand...
All pre-conceived ideologies are bad, in that they dumb-down the person who's succumbed to them, compelling the sufferer to act in cultic mindset fashion.

That's why I prefer the true centrist position on the political spectrum, as it is void of pre-conceived ideology.

So I guess for me it's a toss-up between that which is to the left of the center of the political spectrum and that which is to the right of the center of the political spectrum, the wings and beyond of each being equally irritating in that they, being dulaistic lips of the bell curve, phenomenologically currently hold all power in D.C. and thus do not at all represent the great majority of Americans.

These ideological extremists in power can be obnoxious in their smugness that they will do anything they want even if it goes against the perspective of the great majority of American citizens.
 
My most disliked ideology:

social: Nazism,fascism
economic: free market libertarians/Randian objectivists
 
YoungConserv said:
there's a problem with your statement you can't compare American conservatism to the rest of the worlds conservatism. Erican conservatism is actually European liberalism.
Click to expand...

LoL wut?
 
Captain America said:
Islamic Extremism. Taliban type ideology.

The Taliban, in my opinion, make for a good argument FOR genocide, if there ever was one.

I view them no better than cockroaches. They do not deserve to live in this modern world.

Just my two cents.
Click to expand...

Damn brown people having an inner conflict in their society

Better get some Western Values in there that always works
 
Obviously, Nazism or communism. However,practically speaking it is people who claim to be left leaning libertarians.
 
Labelism.

It's rampant on this board. People who feel the overwhelming urge and need to slap a label on other people so they can neatly tuck them away in a slot, because they think they know what the other person believes.
 
Extremeism.

The closer you are to the edge of your particular ideology you end up being wrong as much as you are right.
 
Paschendale said:
In terms of political positions that don't really exist within the US, probably the military dictatorship of North Korea. It combines all the worst parts of fascism with theocracy. It is probably the worst place to live in the entire world and uses 1984 as a handbook rather than a warning.

In terms of modern American political ideologies, it's tough to choose between the Christian crazies who scream about their religious freedom while dead set on destroying anyone else's and salivate at the thought of the end of the world, and right wing libertarians, who basically have no ideology except selfishness.
Click to expand...
I know some who are indeed decent people, but yeah... it seems to be a place for the unapologetically selfish to land and justify their opinions. Which, of course, only screws it up for those with more honest intent.
 
radcen said:
Extremeism.

The closer you are to the edge of your particular ideology you end up being wrong as much as you are right.
Click to expand...

Getting splinters in your butt from sitting on the fence yet
 
HumanBeing said:
The Vatican is a state, and it was the Vatican (through Pope Urban II) that ordered the Christian crusades. Next?
Click to expand...

You are aware that Urban II wasn't alive for crusades nos. 2-9, aren't you? And that no Pope ever led a crusader army nor set foot in the Holy Land? They were basically cheer-leaders for the bored and rapacious second sons of European nobility. How that equates to Statism, given that the nation state wouldn't be invented for another 300 or so years, beggars belief.
 
Andalublue said:
I didn't mention the crusades. Even if I had, you would be incorrect to claim that they were the actions of the Papal state. They were perpetrated by various coalitions of the willing. The Vatican state really had virtually no involvement with their implementation.

You sidestepped my point that the only type of polity that would not meet your definition of 'statism' would be a primitivist anarchist one. Everything else would fit your concept.
Click to expand...

Name one massacre committed by a primitive anarchist group that wasn't trying to become a state. I don't really get your point unless you have an example.

instagramsci said:
A state makes it possible for you to enjoy things like private property
Click to expand...
I was just answering the OP, I'm not going to derail the whole thread with a big anti-statist rant. I will however point out that a state isn't the only thing that could allow me to enjoy things like private property, and by many definitions the state prevents me from exclusive ownership of property (unless you count having to pay someone else every year just to live on your own land as exclusive ownership).

Andalublue said:
You are aware that Urban II wasn't alive for crusades nos. 2-9, aren't you? And that no Pope ever led a crusader army nor set foot in the Holy Land? They were basically cheer-leaders for the bored and rapacious second sons of European nobility. How that equates to Statism, given that the nation state wouldn't be invented for another 300 or so years, beggars belief.
Click to expand...
Pope Urban II is historically credited for "ordering" the first crusade, that was what made it a "Holy crusade" rather than just a regular genocide. He gave specific instructions to reclaim physical territories. It was about the expansion (and defense) of the various states that called themselves Catholic at the time. Whether he survived for the continuing crusades is irrelevant to the point.
 
Juiposa said:
Most of the people that died under Stalin and Mao were not ordered deaths. The Nazis however had killing tens of million as a GOAL.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not true. They were ordered deaths. Wholesale extermination of entire "classes" of people. Tens of millions. And if the Nazi had to pretend that their victims are somehow not quite human, the Commies did not need even that fiction to justify their actions.
 
I would have to say bigots. They are are worth less than nothing, whereas you can find reasonably nice people in most political and even religious leans.
 
Cyrylek said:
Absolutely not true. They were ordered deaths. Wholesale extermination of entire "classes" of people. Tens of millions. And if the Nazi had to pretend that their victims are somehow not quite human, the Commies did not need even that fiction to justify their actions.
Click to expand...
A vast majority of people who died under Stalin and Mao were a direct result of the massive famine cause by their respective rapid industrialisation. The goal was industrialisation, and the mass death was a side effect to these two monsters.What set Nazis even higher on the asshole bar for me is their mass killing was the goal. Not the side effect of anything, but a goal. And it was to be tens of millions more than they ever got to.
 
Last edited:
Juiposa said:
A vast majority of people who died under Stalin and Mao were a direct result of the massive famine cause by their respective rapid industrialisation. The goal was industrialisation, and the mass death was a side effect to these two monsters.
Click to expand...

Honestly, were do you get these ideas from? Some meta-Marxist professors going through acrobatic contortions to save reputation of their own non-entirely-unrelated dogma?

The vast majority of deaths under Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot et al. were not a "side effect" of anything, but a systematic, intentional extermination of the imaginary "enemy classes" and all and any opposition - present, suspected or theoretically possible. By the unprecedented punitive apparatus of the totalitarian states that was created and supported for that very purpose. The millions that were executed, massacred, "disappeared", worked to death in the Gulag were not victims of some economic mismanagement. They were murdered. Period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom