RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Apocalypso -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (8/30/2009 6:05:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Why let the posters who "tossed the accusations" back and forth get away with it? Engage them deeper.
Do you think that's never been tried?  Seriously, it has.  To give just one example, we had somebody claiming Obama was following the Communist Manifesto.  When I actually asked him to cite the Communist Manifesto directly, neither he nor any of the other people making the claim did so.  (And yeah, the conservatives as Nazis meme is equally silly).

So you want a real answer why I derailed?  Because previous experience has shown me that while discussions on specific issues are fine, actual discussions about political theory are an utter waste of my time, because too many people have no interest in actually getting a basic grounding in the subject and hence ignore any serious counterarguments in favour of the kind of tabloid analysis and sloganeering we've seen on this thread earlier  And if you can't beat them, join them.




kittinSol -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (8/30/2009 6:06:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally
In the US neither of the big two can really be compared to communists or fascists they just can't, yet that is what both sides feel comfortable doing. There is no moral high ground here


Precisely! It's extremely worrying how the Cold War still has such an impact on American politics. It is as though the world has not changed since the fall of the Berlin Wall. As though socialism still ruled in its evil, anti-democratic ways [8|] .

This is the note certain Republicans/conservatives play, with their ridiculous rhetoric about Obama being a Communist and other assorted crap.

Said this over and over again: time for people to get informed and to learn their history. The current president is a proponent of a free-market economy, and he is even in favour of the death penalty. He is no fucking crazy ass liberwal pinko luvin' commie [8|] (much to my distraught).




Arpig -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (8/30/2009 6:35:10 PM)

quote:

Why let the posters who "tossed the accusations" back and forth get away with it? Engage them deeper.
I have, I even started a thread about real socialists and got dictionary definitions thrown at me to prove Obama was one....nobody who understood what socialism really is bothered to participate...there was no point...they knew he isn't a socialist.
Asa rule when you point out to the NCFS (like my new acronym?...it will make this thread easier to do[:D]) tossers where they are wrong,they either ignore you or redefine the terms their own way to make it fit. Anybody who throws out Nazi/Hitler references without having read at the very least Bullock's book clearly hasn't the slightest idea of what a Nazi is, or what Hitler believed. Similarly with the term fascist....fascism grew out of socialism, fascism is not so much an issue of left or right as it is a rival of communism for the evolution of socialist thought. Again this fact is overlooked in the rush to label Bush (or Obama,who in fact is slightly closer to fascism than was Bush) one.
There is little point to doing so, and as Apocalypso so rightly pointed out, it gets dull after a while....pointing out the same facts to the same people over and over again. And as far as this thread...well it stopped being a discussion of the use of the terms and became a pissing contest as to who had actually called their own side on using the NCFS name-calling and who didn't....that is why we derailed it, it had already been derailed into the realm of the ridiculous...we just made it funny is all.




rightwinghippie -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (8/30/2009 6:48:40 PM)

NCFS?




Lucylastic -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (8/30/2009 6:51:09 PM)

well damn I got that wrong
snerk




Arpig -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (8/30/2009 7:09:33 PM)

quote:

NCFS?
Nazi/commie/fascist/socialist [:D]




rightwinghippie -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (8/30/2009 7:11:08 PM)

But Dem is a shorter acronym[:D] or abreviation even....




Arpig -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (8/30/2009 7:11:49 PM)

LMAO!!!! love it!




rikigrl -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (8/31/2009 1:01:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

FR:

It seems to me, it's all the CM members who hail from the left-of-center side who are trying desperately to turn this into a joke thread.

At the very least, I'd say that a full hijack is in the works.

I wonder why that is?

Firm


(straightens skirt and clears throat) "They made me do it"




FirmhandKY -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (8/31/2009 3:05:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

Why let the posters who "tossed the accusations" back and forth get away with it? Engage them deeper.
I have, I even started a thread about real socialists and got dictionary definitions thrown at me to prove Obama was one....nobody who understood what socialism really is bothered to participate...there was no point...they knew he isn't a socialist.
Asa rule when you point out to the NCFS (like my new acronym?...it will make this thread easier to do[:D]) tossers where they are wrong,they either ignore you or redefine the terms their own way to make it fit. Anybody who throws out Nazi/Hitler references without having read at the very least Bullock's book clearly hasn't the slightest idea of what a Nazi is, or what Hitler believed. Similarly with the term fascist....fascism grew out of socialism, fascism is not so much an issue of left or right as it is a rival of communism for the evolution of socialist thought. Again this fact is overlooked in the rush to label Bush (or Obama,who in fact is slightly closer to fascism than was Bush) one.
There is little point to doing so, and as Apocalypso so rightly pointed out, it gets dull after a while....pointing out the same facts to the same people over and over again. And as far as this thread...well it stopped being a discussion of the use of the terms and became a pissing contest as to who had actually called their own side on using the NCFS name-calling and who didn't....that is why we derailed it, it had already been derailed into the realm of the ridiculous...we just made it funny is all.


Arpig,

Excellent post.

And a good return to serious discussion, even with some lighthearted comments coming out now (from both sides) rather than animosity (much, anyway).

I have to agree that many do not understand the terms. But, really, in our political environment over the last few decades, it really isn't about understanding the terms. It's about discrediting your opponent: it's about not arguing with their points or logic, but in demonizing them individually with ad hominem attacks.

And, while I do not personally wish you to grow tired of having to instruct and correct someone every time they "get it wrong", I do think that we all need to stop people who simply use it for nefarious purposes.

Hell, I'm carrying on that conversation now with NorthernGent in another thread, where he is claiming, in effect, that all conservatives are Nazis. (Oh, so politely, and oh so intellectually).

The use of the terms for a long time were by the radical or "looney" sides of both halves of the political divide.

Unfortunately, historically, many have tried (and been pretty successful) in making a Hitler-right, Stalin-left meme, and that has been used particularly (in my opinion) by more and more mainstream Democrats, so that today even the Speaker of the House calls average Americans who are upset and pissed at their elected officials "Nazis".

It seems like it became especially accepted over the last 8 years or so.

I have said before (although not recently) that the American political arena of discourse has become more and more coarse and cheapened over the last few decades, to the point that absent a seismic shift or event, I can see that the polarization will lead to the everyone's worst nightmare.

I lay a large part of that blame on the left side, which has pretty much now been trained in, and believe that the Alinsky rules for radicals is "the way things need to be done".

Are they totally to blame? Nope.

But as an accepted political tactic, they have given it life, and credence.

Christianity talks about "turning the other cheek", and forgiving our brothers and sisters who have sinned, and I think that is good advice when those brothers and sisters are truly repentant.

I see no repentance on the left for their coarsing of the political discussion, nor for their Alinsky-ist tactics of destroying the messenger rather than engaging in honest debate. I see no indication of them making even the smallest efforts to actually take into account over half of the US population that doesn't live, eat, breath and sleep their particular philosophy ("I won" x 2). I see no real interest in them having an honest discussion ("Every crisis is an opportunity"). All I really see is outrage and distaste that "the little people" dare to disagree, and make that disagreement known.

Is everyone on the left guilty of perfidy, here on the CM forums? Nope.

Are all left-of-center politicians in the US guilty of perfidy? Again, nope.

But the fact is that in my opinion, and in a growing number on the right, that there is no way to reasonably return to kinder, gentler times, and that the grounds for discussion has permanently shifted, and it's not only unlikely that trying to tone down the rhetoric will do us a damn bit of good, but that if we do not adopt some of the left's tactics, then we are nothing more than sheep being lead to the slaughter, baaaaing, and bleating ineffectually.

And I hate that. It's not in my nature to believe that reasonable people can't be reasonable.

But with many of our current Democratic political leaders painting anyone or any organization which doesn't agree with them as the epitome of evil, do you not think that there would be a reaction? Do not liberals understand that when you marginalize a group, you create anger and resentment? That that anger and resentment can only be exacerbated by the rhetoric that they continue to use?

And when the left gets even the slightest taste of their own medicine, they go into hysteria and hyperventilation?

Why should we on the right give a shit what they think? Do they give a shit what we think? Nope.

So, all that being said ... I much prefer to engage in discussions without the animosity, and the use of NCFS terminology. It's inaccurate. It's deadening to the discussion, and it's mean spirited. I do not think it has any place on the CM forums, although it has been a common left-side talking point over the last 8 years at least.

But, in the public arena? I just don't know if I give a shit what the "bushitler" and "all conservatives are nazis" crowds on the left get smacked with. Ask me again in a few months, or a couple of years, and maybe I'll have lightened up a little, but I doubt it. Unless and until several major Democratic politicians publicly apologize and take their own party to task over their own methods of discourse, there is no repentance, and therefore there is no forgiveness in my heart.

Firm




LillyoftheVally -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (8/31/2009 4:56:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
I lay a large part of that blame on the left side,


And maybe here is the problem, see because as an outside observer BOTH are to blame. Now eight years of bush, it is understandable people got sick of him and therefore were insulting. I do not mean to be rude but the guy made a shit load of mistakes but people who supported him said that it was just the left being bitter, does that therefore mean that when a politician on whatever side you are on fucks up you stick up for him anyway? When Obama was running this very forum was awash with threads about him being a socialist (which he isn't) the guy hadn't even done anything before people were expecting him to fail. Because I guess the right saw it as being a tit for tat thing, indeed many comments went along the lines of ... 'well you slagged off bush'.

Here is the thing, I don't much understand the American system, I mean a country of freedom and liberty and all that where democratically you have two choices, both of which aren't actually that different but you have to big them up almost to dupe yourself into believing they are.

Don't get me wrong, us brits do it too, our system is shit and many people are unaware. But the thing is the divide isn't so pronounced. Labour is meant to be our left wing party, but Blair proved that to not be the case, left wing folks fled from the party either choosing Lib Dem or going for a smaller party with less chance of making any real gains. I see your political system almost like football fans. You are born, you pick a side, you buy the strip and wave the flags, so what if they never score they are your team and you will defend them to the death.

Firm I do not mean to be picking on you but as one of the only people to make much in the way of posts, you yourself have been just as guilty of it, laying blame at the left is misplaced, firstly because it isn't really the left and secondly because both sides have an amazing ability to act like school children at break time.




philosophy -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (8/31/2009 7:40:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Unless and until several major Democratic politicians publicly apologize and take their own party to task over their own methods of discourse, there is no repentance, and therefore there is no forgiveness in my heart.



....sorry Firm, but i simply don't buy your thesis here.

"The "backbone of the Democratic Party" is a "typical fat, implacable welfare recipient""

"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."

"The thing I like about Bush is I think he hates liberals."

"Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant."

"While the form of treachery varies slightly from case to case, liberals always manage to take the position that most undermines American security."

quote:

But with many of our current Democratic political leaders painting anyone or any organization which doesn't agree with them as the epitome of evil, do you not think that there would be a reaction?


.......so, why turn a blind eye to when those on the right do exactly the same thing?


Obviously all the quotes above are from Ann Coulter. They go back a few years too. However your thesis is that somehow only the left are responsible for the idiotic cheapening of the debate. Simply not true. Both sides have their total bastards, who are less interested in constructive debate than the destruction of the other side. Ann Coulter, and those like her, paint those on the left as anti-American and unpatriotic. i don't believe that and i'd hope you don't too. What ought to be a civil debate where two sides may differ on the means (left or right wing methods) but agree on the aims (the good of the people) is perverted into partisan politics....where the good of the people is supplanted by the good of the ideology.




Mercnbeth -> RE: Could we kindly cut the Nazi/communist crap? (8/31/2009 8:11:40 AM)

~ Fast Reply ~


quote:

Could we kindly cut the Nazi/communist crap?

Why?

Name calling has always been an important demarcation point of debate on any subject. It's the white flag of surrender when used.

A politician, lie the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, uses it to describe the "disrupting influence" on an issue she supports, to distract from her past calling for a "disrupting influence" on a issue she opposed. People like Rush use to polarize and get listeners. Hate him or like him; listening to him - pays him; similar to politicians that is his only goal. Why is it that few remember he went bankrupt as a 'liberal' commentator?

Seeing the sources of the desire to distance themselves from this practice seems to be a condition of identity. Whatever else they are, when a nation takes over businesses and industries that IS Fascism. Whether accomplished by a conservative or liberal self identifying administration does nothing to change that reality. It seems the reality doesn't disturb many, but the resulting defining label does. Image over substance seems to be the concern. Argue the label on the factual merits, or lack of same, would seem to be pragmatically more effective, but challenging the label may in deed be easier.

"The "backbone of the Democratic Party" is a "typical fat, implacable welfare recipient"" It isn't? Spending time feigning insult at the reference is easier than finding facts contrary to that statement I guess.

"The thing I like about Bush is I think he hates liberals."Proving that the both sides would rather create a rationalization for their reasoning versus generating a substantive argument.

Labels, self assigned or at the end of a pointed finger, don't serve to identify the person or policy. Results are what matter. Consequences determine the 'good' or 'bad' of any position or political agenda. When you can't point to any factual consequence with historical reference a label serves to keep your lack of ability a secret. The same holds when you consider it 'insulting' that such a label is used to summarize the consequences with historical reference. Except in that case being 'insulted' by the label in the hope of any audience forgetting the pragmatic facts comes off quite lame.

I think every time it's used it should be quoted with the source noted to identify it for what it is. Why cut it out when it serves such a useful purpose.




FirmhandKY -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (8/31/2009 9:37:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Unless and until several major Democratic politicians publicly apologize and take their own party to task over their own methods of discourse, there is no repentance, and therefore there is no forgiveness in my heart.



....sorry Firm, but i simply don't buy your thesis here.

"The "backbone of the Democratic Party" is a "typical fat, implacable welfare recipient""

"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."

"The thing I like about Bush is I think he hates liberals."

"Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant."

"While the form of treachery varies slightly from case to case, liberals always manage to take the position that most undermines American security."

quote:

But with many of our current Democratic political leaders painting anyone or any organization which doesn't agree with them as the epitome of evil, do you not think that there would be a reaction?


.......so, why turn a blind eye to when those on the right do exactly the same thing?


Obviously all the quotes above are from Ann Coulter. They go back a few years too.


Philo, I'm talking the actual politicians who hold elected office. The highest elected officials of the nation, even. You are talking entertainers and pundits.

You can easily dismiss the pundits. I know I do.

But when someone holds power over you, and continues to talk the way that they are talking, and acting the way that they are acting, it's dangerous. It shows a contempt for measured debate and calm understanding of opposing views that won't lead anywhere "nice".




quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

However your thesis is that somehow only the left are responsible for the idiotic cheapening of the debate. Simply not true. Both sides have their total bastards, who are less interested in constructive debate than the destruction of the other side. Ann Coulter, and those like her, paint those on the left as anti-American and unpatriotic. i don't believe that and i'd hope you don't too. What ought to be a civil debate where two sides may differ on the means (left or right wing methods) but agree on the aims (the good of the people) is perverted into partisan politics....where the good of the people is supplanted by the good of the ideology.

I didn't say that "only" the left has cheapened the discourse.

I said that cheapened discourse has become the standard and that that standard originated on the left. I base this on the fact that much of the left's philosophical underpinnings about debate and public discourse relate to the philosophical roots of the Alinsky types, who advocate just such cheapened debate in the effort to "win", and now control the US government.

As I've said before, respected conservative leaders had William F. Buckley as a role-model, as a conservative example in how to conduct the public debate. The left has had Alinsky, Chomsky and such.

Now, at the apex of Democratic power are the people who were brought up in the the Alinksy school of public discourse, and it shows.

Firm




ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (8/31/2009 9:41:51 AM)

Newt Gingrich was an "Alinsky-type" now?

Who knew?




FirmhandKY -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (8/31/2009 9:59:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

Newt Gingrich was an "Alinsky-type" now?

Who knew?


Looks like a non-sequitur, Panda. Care to clarify?

Firm




philosophy -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (8/31/2009 10:45:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY



Philo, I'm talking the actual politicians who hold elected office. The highest elected officials of the nation, even. You are talking entertainers and pundits.

You can easily dismiss the pundits. I know I do.

But when someone holds power over you, and continues to talk the way that they are talking, and acting the way that they are acting, it's dangerous. It shows a contempt for measured debate and calm understanding of opposing views that won't lead anywhere "nice".


........actually i'm not so sure i can dismiss the media pundits as easily. We live in an era where spin and perception have become major forces in a way they never used to be. IMO the media are as much a part of the political process as the elected officials. What they say matters. So when Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter says something it becomes part of that political process, it has an effect.
This whole thread is based on the idea that what you or i say matter too. If i call you a Nazi, or if you call me a Communist, then we are helping to sustain a climate where politicans (with their noses in the wind and the finger on the pulse) feel they have to be as partisan, as polarised, in order to capture our votes. In the long run, power runs uphill, not downhill. So, no-one gets to duck the responsibility to debate responsibly. Not you, not me, not Sanity, not Synergy, not Ann Coulter, not Michael Moore, not Nancy Pelosi, not Sarah Palin.........we're all a part of the problem, so we're all a part of the solution.




quote:

I didn't say that "only" the left has cheapened the discourse.


...you're right. My apologies for that.

quote:

I said that cheapened discourse has become the standard and that that standard originated on the left. I base this on the fact that much of the left's philosophical underpinnings about debate and public discourse relate to the philosophical roots of the Alinsky types, who advocate just such cheapened debate in the effort to "win", and now control the US government.


...if i'd ever heard of Alinsky i might agree with you, but i haven't. So i did a little googling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky
(for those like me who hadn't heard of him)
http://www.itvs.org/democraticpromise/legacy1.html
(and more.....)

Got to be honest, nothing i read on those sites leads me to see him in the light you do. What i read was not about left/right per se....more about disenfranchised and establishment as a dichotomy. Indeed the first site said that Alinky hated liberalism.
The tactics in the rules for radicals i've seen employed across the political spectrum.

quote:

As I've said before, respected conservative leaders had William F. Buckley as a role-model, as a conservative example in how to conduct the public debate. The left has had Alinsky, Chomsky and such.

Now, at the apex of Democratic power are the people who were brought up in the the Alinksy school of public discourse, and it shows.

Firm


Well, i had to look up Buckley as well......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley,_Jr.#Views_on_modern-day_conservatism
Interesting man, and i certainly respect that he moved away from a racist position of segregation. That takes courage. However i can't see anything that makes him the obvious person to compare to Alinsky. Did he write something like the Rules for Radicals but from a right wing slant?

i'd compare Buckley to Tony Benn from the UK. Both passionate and intellectual thinkers. Different sides of the left/right ideological divide, but both respectful and respected debaters.

i'd compare Alinsky to Karl Rove.......




ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (8/31/2009 11:27:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

Newt Gingrich was an "Alinsky-type" now?

Who knew?


Looks like a non-sequitur, Panda. Care to clarify?

Firm


Please, don't play "country dumb." You know perfectly well it's not a non sequitur, and you know perfectly well what I meant by it. If there's one man in America who bears primary responsibility for this country's descent into "the politics of personal attack", it's Newt Gingrich. Skipping over Gingrich in your predictably selective historical revision, and trying to argue that democratic leaders are poisoning the climate in Washington because of some vague influence by Saul Alinksy is a ludicrous stretch, even by your legendary standards of intellectual dishonesty. That was my point, and I think you knew damned well what I was saying.




ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (8/31/2009 11:33:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol


quote:

ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally
In the US neither of the big two can really be compared to communists or fascists they just can't, yet that is what both sides feel comfortable doing. There is no moral high ground here


Precisely! It's extremely worrying how the Cold War still has such an impact on American politics. It is as though the world has not changed since the fall of the Berlin Wall. As though socialism still ruled in its evil, anti-democratic ways [8|] .

This is the note certain Republicans/conservatives play, with their ridiculous rhetoric about Obama being a Communist and other assorted crap.



It works well, because Americans are easy to scare. Give them something to be scared of, and you can motivate them to sanction almost anything - as long as you can persuade them it will make them feel safer. If there is nothing to be scared of, no worries. Just create something, and tell them why they should be scared of it. They'll hop right on board, and you can drive them to whatever crazed conclusion you want them to arrive  at.




kittinSol -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (8/31/2009 12:02:04 PM)

I know... it's a paranoid nation.

Question is, how did it get to be this way, and what kind of therapy can we get for it?




Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.589844E-02