Antifa [Mod Warning on post #1 - updated 08/08/19]

Brian?

kowloon wrote: »

Has anyone considered mixing fascists and anti-fascists in some sort of reactor as a means of generating energy?

You'd need to reconfigure the dilithium matrix with an inverse polaron pulse. It's risky, but it just might work.

CtevenSrowder

Deleted User wrote: »

And what's extreme is very dependent on location. Eg Bernie Sanders and AOC are viewed as "far left" in the US. They're pretty standard as European politicians go. Marriage equality would have been considered extreme politics fifteen years ago here...

No it wouldn't have, and it wasn't.

Silentcorner

Brian? wrote: »

I do, why wouldn’t it be?

Again, just to be clear, it is your belief that there has never existed a left wing Socialist state that inflicted violence on it's own citizens to maintain control anywhere in human history?

Brian?

Silentcorner wrote: »

Again, just to be clear, it is your belief that there has never existed a left wing Socialist state that inflicted violence on it's own citizens to maintain control anywhere in human history?

Of course not, that's not even remotely close to what I said. In fact I said the exact opposite. The USSR and China are prime examples of attempted forced implementation of socialism.

What I'm trying to explain to you is that the ultimate extreme of socialism is a stateless utopian society.

The real "evil" in my opinion isn't in the idea of left or right. It's in authoritarianism. Any society that inflicts a system from top down is inherently bad, regardless of the end goal. Fascism isn't bad because it's a right wing philosophy, it's bad because authoritarian. Same goes for Maoism, Stalinism etc.

Silentcorner

Brian? wrote: »

Of course not, that's not even remotely close to what I said. In fact I said the exact opposite. The USSR and China are prime examples of attempted forced implementation of socialism.

What I'm trying to explain to you is that the ultimate extreme of socialism is a stateless utopian society.

The real "evil" in my opinion isn't in the idea of left or right. It's in authoritarianism. Any society that inflicts a system from top down is inherently bad, regardless of the end goal. Fascism isn't bad because it's a right wing philosophy, it's bad because authoritarian. Same goes for Maoism, Stalinism etc.

I do understand the point you are making, but in practice it has never worked out that way, in fact, the Kibbutz in Isreal are the closest that form of socialism has come that I am aware of....every other attempt has been a disaster...which is the point I've been attempting to make.

Overheal

kowloon wrote: »

Has anyone considered mixing fascists and anti-fascists in some sort of reactor as a means of generating energy?

Go on?

Overheal

Brian? wrote: »

You'd need to reconfigure the dilithium matrix with an inverse polaron pulse. It's risky, but it just might work.

I don’t like the cut of your gib, Torres, but you’re a damn fine officer

Brian?

Silentcorner wrote: »

I do understand the point you are making, but in practice it has never worked out that way, in fact, the Kibbutz in Isreal are the closest that form of socialism has come that I am aware of....every other attempt has been a disaster...which is the point I've been attempting to make.

Every country in the EU is a social democracy, some more so than others. Socialism isn't one narrow thing.

Annasopra

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No it wouldn't have, and it wasn't.

Left wing parties didnt support it 15 years ago.

Biker79

Well, that's part of the wooliness of socialism. It gets to put on whatever hat it can whenever it suits.

The civilised world was not built on socialism, quite the opposite. Even at the pointy end of libertarian. right-wing/ conservativism...there was still value created (fascism excluded). Can't say the same for leftism/ socialism.

Ideally, leftism acts as a bulwark against the occasional rough edges of conservatism, and we can all then enjoy the fruits of this dynamic.

But left to its own devices, it will squander this value right up until there's nothing left to eat.

CtevenSrowder

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Left wing parties didnt support it 15 years ago.

That doesn't mean it was an extremist position. Someone who believes that same sex marriage should be made illegal again is not an extremist, unless your definition of extreme is any position that is a minority one (and as such useless).

CtevenSrowder

Brian? wrote: »

Of course not, that's not even remotely close to what I said. In fact I said the exact opposite. The USSR and China are prime examples of attempted forced implementation of socialism.

What I'm trying to explain to you is that the ultimate extreme of socialism is a stateless utopian society.

The real "evil" in my opinion isn't in the idea of left or right. It's in authoritarianism. Any society that inflicts a system from top down is inherently bad, regardless of the end goal. Fascism isn't bad because it's a right wing philosophy, it's bad because authoritarian. Same goes for Maoism, Stalinism etc.

I fully agree, particularly with the last paragraph, which brings us back to why you support a group such as anti-fa which is authoritarian? Or, if you want to deny support, continuously defend?

Silentcorner

Brian? wrote: »

Every country in the EU is a social democracy, some more so than others. Socialism isn't one narrow thing.

Isn't that convenient...when it all falls apart as it inevitably has, with mass murder and starvation of it's citizens, the ideology lives on like nothing happened.

Again, I am referring to left wing political extremism.

The issue is never the ideology, it is the radicals who wreck all the havoc, left/right/religious/non religious/tribal.

CtevenSrowder

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

That doesn't mean it was an extremist position. Someone who believes that same sex marriage should be made illegal again is not an extremist, unless your definition of extreme is any position that is a minority one (and as such useless).

Erm, yes I would say that's an extreme position to hold and religious beliefs shouldn't guide law, that would be extreme. You realise things like supporting civil rights for Black people was at one point an extreme position? Viewing a position as extreme doesn't mean that it's very logical to view it as extreme...

ohnonotgmail

Silentcorner wrote: »

Isn't that convenient...when it all falls apart as it inevitably has, with mass murder and starvation of it's citizens, the ideology lives on like nothing happened.

Again, I am referring to left wing political extremism.

The issue is never the ideology, it is the radicals who wreck all the havoc, left/right/religious/non religious/tribal.

you described socialism as left wing political extremism. it isn't.

CtevenSrowder

Deleted User wrote: »

Erm, yes I would say that's an extreme position to hold and religious beliefs shouldn't guide law, that would be extreme. You realise things like supporting civil rights for Black people was at one point an extreme position? Viewing a position as extreme doesn't mean that it's very logical to view it as extreme...

Viewing any position that isn't a majority one as extreme is completely pointless, which is what you are doing.

Silentcorner

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you described socialism as left wing political extremism. it isn't.

That is the beauty of the ideology though isn't is, it's chameleon like nature, we live in a free market economy with socialist political parties as are most countries in the developed world, a socialist state is a brutal place to live...as history attests!

Brian?

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I fully agree, particularly with the last paragraph, which brings us back to why you support a group such as anti-fa which is authoritarian? Or, if you want to deny support, continuously defend?

I don’t agree that Antifa are authoritarian. They don’t want to implement any sort of authority for one. They are a broad coalition of left wing groups united around one goal, opposing far right groups. Admittedly their definition of far right is a little too broad for me.

But I neither support, nor defend them. I just don’t think they’re a threat, the way some people do. I think they’re a minor nuisance and they’ve been turned into a bogeyman by the alt right.

Brian?

Silentcorner wrote: »

Isn't that convenient...when it all falls apart as it inevitably has, with mass murder and starvation of it's citizens, the ideology lives on like nothing happened.

Again, I am referring to left wing political extremism.

The issue is never the ideology, it is the radicals who wreck all the havoc, left/right/religious/non religious/tribal.

The ideology lives on in its successful forms. Social democracy being one. I don’t know why you’re dismissing that.

As for extremism, I’ve already explained why extremism isn’t necessarily bad. Pacifists are extreme radicals. Civil rights protesters are often described as extreme radicals. It’s what your radical about that’s the problem.

Brian?

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Viewing any position that isn't a majority one as extreme is completely pointless, which is what you are doing.

But it is radical to hold a position contrary to the majority. Sometimes it’s also extreme. But it isn’t always bad.

Mr. Karate

Brian? wrote: »

I don’t agree that Antifa are authoritarian. They don’t want to implement any sort of authority for one. .

They threaten to riot on campuses where a Conservative is asked to speak. That's pretty authoritarian [dare I even say fascist] no matter how you want to spin it.

Brian?

Mr. Karate wrote: »

They threaten to riot on campuses where a Conservative is asked to speak. That's pretty authoritarian [dare I even say fascist] no matter how you want to spin it.

Authoritarian:

favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.

Is it your belief that they are appointing themselves as an authority then?

CtevenSrowder

Brian? wrote: »

But it is radical to hold a position contrary to the majority. Sometimes it’s also extreme. But it isn’t always bad.

It is not radical to hold a position that is contrary to the majority. With respect, that is complete rubbish. Are you saying those that wanted to remain in the EU in Britain are radicals?

Revolutionary is a synonym of radical, holding an opinion contrary to the majority does not by default make one a revolutionary; read radical.

Mr. Karate

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you described socialism as left wing political extremism. it isn't.

I have yet to see any Right wing groups champion it like the Left does.

Clarence Boddiker

What did Israeli media outfit Haaretz mean by this?

https://twitter.com/haaretzcom/status/1269574068799287297

jam_mac_jam

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

What did Israeli media outfit Haaretz mean by this?

https://twitter.com/haaretzcom/status/1269574068799287297

I think Jews have more to fear then most by the rise of fascism.

What would your take on it be?

Brian?

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

What did Israeli media outfit Haaretz mean by this?

https://twitter.com/haaretzcom/status/1269574068799287297

Why don't you ask them?

Mr. Karate

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

What did Israeli media outfit Haaretz mean by this?

https://twitter.com/haaretzcom/status/1269574068799287297

Jews are just as good at playing the victim act.

suicide_circus

Victimhood is social and political currency in the west. It's leverage.

Mr. Karate

suicide_circus wrote: »

Victimhood is social and political currency in the west. It's leverage.

And then they cry and complain when Whites start playing the victim too.