People against freedom of speech and opinion more now.

Post Reply New Topic

A disagreement in the sense of taking opinion to its natural conclusion. If one starts to justify the emergence of Hitler in the creation of Nazi Germany, then you would have to justify a bunch of other awful things that I don't think you would. Mainly that a lot of Middle Eastern terrorism or hatred of the West could have justification. The arguments are there to also justify violent gang leaders of minority groups and the riots that happened in this year.

I understand that you dislike some discrimination you have received about your German heritage, but I don't think you afford the same thoughts to other groups.

And I hate the idea of people acting like they are above everyone else because they can theoretically turn off their ability to feel and call it thinking rationally. It is like Ben Shapiro saying that empathy has no place in politics, when that should be one of the most important parts. Ben Shapiro who also champions the phrase "facts don't care about your feelings", when really he often lets his own feelings dictate what facts he thinks is right. I think that people who often push the belief that only they are thinking rationally are acting like teenagers that believe the same.

Arrogance?

No it isn't.

I was writing about how "popularist" politicians on the extreme left AND the extreme right come to power. A common trait there is to stir up feelings of victimisation and unfairness, whether deserved or artificial. And then generally to use the resulting herd outrage an as excuse for a different form of unfairness.

With Communism the alleged aggressors are those with greater wealth, power and status than anyone else. Even though Communist leaders invariably end up having greater wealth, power and status than their fellow citizens. With Nazism and the far right the aggressors are supposedly anyone "other" - gypsies, Jews, the homeless, the disabled, foreigners, homosexuals, and anyone who can be portayed as in any way anti- the false nationalism that's been created.

Telling the masses that everything is somebody else's fault is a very popular tactic and you can see it in politics all over the world today. It appeals to our basic human vanity, that we're basically better than everyone else and have been somehow hard done by. It also promises future gain for no effort - we don't have to change, or put any extra effort in, we just need to surrender our power to the leadership and they'll go sort out the problem.

Tied up in that is deliberate tribalism - nationalistic movements, whether left-wing or right-wing, make it very clear that you're either with the programme or you're an enemy. So it's a deliberate attempt to polarise debate and severely limit options for independence, difference, or free-thinking.

I note you've fallen down the same rabbit hole again, by flagging "the hypocrisy of Billionaire Democrats". There is no hypocrisy, because Democrats aren't communists or socialists, they're right of centre. Just not as right of centre as the Republicans. There's nothing stopping anyone from becoming a billionaire Democrat, the party remains committed to capitalism and thus wealth acquisition by individuals. They're just expected to look after their staff a bit better, and to pay more taxes along the way, so other people benefit more from their success.

It's only hypocrisy if you believe the US political system consists of two diametrically opposed parties. But it doesn't. Alleging it does is a misrepresentation designed to stir up American right-wing paranoia, and it's also a deliberate insult to Democrats. And yet every time you do this you get surprised (or mock surprised) by the inevitable reaction that provokes.

Idk if billionaire democrats is really hypocritical, the democratic party has never claimed not to support capitalism. I don't expect most democrats to be leftist/socialist so to me I don't see the hypocrisy there.

No not like collective guilt, though I don't feel like I am made to feel guilty for being white. The whole idea that just by existing you're a sinner that needs saving...like your very existence is evil. And you better worship the terrible god in the sky and accept his son or else!

I did not pray for stuff like that, more stuff like helping my parents stop arguing all the time.

Also, I didn't say anything about racism, just seems pushy...like why can't they help without trying to convert people? Like if people they are helping are interested than sure teach them about it, but if they aren't very interested that should also be respected.

There are hypocrites in every religion, and every country.

I was wondering, why are republicans called republicans where in republic nations, like the Czech Republic, The People's republic of China, or the former USSR... countries that have word republic in their names, seem to have more socialist views... Why do you republicans call themselves that, and are capitalist, when the word republican seems more associated with not so capitalist nations?

Also, why do democrats call themselves democrats, when their views seem more socialist? Isn't that backwards, and the names of the democrats and republicans should be switched therefore?

Republic is not a name essentially connected to pro-socialism, rather than anti monarchy, that at least should be obvious. Many political movements that take on the name republic are an often rebellions' against the big man in power, the historically kept systems. Now, I am not the most educated on the American case, but I am aware that there was essentially a switch in the parties in what side of the political aisle they are in the USA. But I would posit an alternate reading in understanding what happens when a republic moves past being a rebellion against the established system, and becomes the historically kept established system.

I would say that the USA is such a place where the republic moved into the traditionally kept system, keeping in power the new monarchy, which is capitalism. I would argue any of the other examples of republic you mentioned can or maybe even did move past the rebellion against the unjust established system, and become the unjust system itself with new masters as the kings or lords. That is why the examples of communism you provided failed to actually become communist, because they eventually forgo actual equality.

Oh okay. I didn't say communism though, I said socialism, but I thought socialism was about equality. As for the notion though that republic is a name connected to anti-monarchy, maybe in theory, but in action it seems like it's connected to pro-socialism, so why would republicans want to take on a name associated with that in action then...

Last edited by ironpony on 20 Dec 2020, 4:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

A "republic" is any state that has a "representative" form of govt. A government that represents "the people". Basically anything that is not a monarchy calls itself a "republic". Most dictatorships call themselves "republics". Iran calls itself "the Islamic Republic of Iran" because they overthrew their king, and because they do have at least the machinery of representative government in having a legislature and elections. But the Muslim clerics have veto power over it all. So it is a theocratic republic. Communist countries generally call themselves "Democratic Republics" even though the old communist regimes were neither democratic nor republics. Saddam Hussein called his regime "a republic", and his elite army division was called "the Republican Guard".

Oh okay, so it's a matter of bragging and hyping yourself to be something you're not basically?

Depends, if you say the n-word to Mike Tyson then you can expect a trip to the dentist

Is so.

Yes, Mike, the ear biter, Tyson is one heck of an intellectual.

If one wish to behave like a neanderthal, one can suffer the incarceration.

Not in Australia.
Here it is the "progressives" that have burdened us with censorship laws and weaponised political correctness.

It's the same in Canada here as well, it seems that the more progressive people are for censorship and PC.

Doesn't it make you wonder, if the left is so tolerant how come they are so intolerant of your intolerance?

The left is intolerance of the intolerance. I am okay with that.

The right is not tolerant of the left not being tolerant of the intolerance. I am not okay with this.